Further to my earlier post

A lot of people dropped helpful links in the comments about the scoring system for women's gymnastics and its history (i.e., descended from the days where women's gymnastics was about dance and grace).

Today's WaPo has an article lamenting the loss of artistry and joy - you'll notice that the title of the piece says it's about Olympic gymnastics, but the body makes it clear that the writer is only concerned about women's gymnastics. Because somehow it's awful when women aren't smiling or exhibiting grace and artistry rather than athleticism.

(The problem of pushing very young girls very hard in women's gymnastics is, I think, a different issue.)

As I've said in the comments, I can't even imagine suddenly asking the men to do their floor routines to music, or to smile more, or to pause between leaps and perform dance moves - it would be viewed as demeaning, and I don't think it's any less so when it's asked of women.

Of interest

Front page NYT article on sexual harassment in gaming communities, with mention of Anita Sarkeesian.

I knew it

I didn't post about the Brian Stoker verdict before, but now I wish I had, so I could show off that I fucking knew it.

Short version: The SEC accused Citigroup, and one of its employees, Brian Stoker, of building a CDO that it sold to clients that was intentionally backed with crappy mortgage securities so that Citi could bet against it and make money while its clients lost their shirts.

The SEC filed a complaint against Citigroup that alleged negligence, and then settled with Citi, where Citi did not admit or deny wrongdoing. You can read more about the case here. (The judge rejected the settlement, it's on appeal - among other things, the judge excoriated the SEC for settling a claim involving potentially fraudulent conduct for a pittance).

The individual employee, who was a midlevel guy, refused to settle. The SEC initially charged him with fraud, eventually downgraded that to negligence, and the whole thing went to trial.

A couple of days ago, the jury returned a verdict of no liability. At the same time, it included a note to the SEC that said "This verdict should not deter the SEC from continuing to investigate the financial industry, to review current regulations, and modify existing regulations as necessary."

Such a note is highly unusual and, in the words of one observer, just "sad." On its face, it seemed to express frustration that regulators have not done enough.

But if so, why did the jury let this one guy off?

When the verdict came down, I had my suspicions that the jury thought it was unfair that this one guy was being scapegoated when Citi and the rest of Wall Street built an entire industry around this kind of conduct. And that's actually relatively common when the government brings charges against low level employees and a corporation - juries often let the employee off and find the corporation guilty, and the general theory is that juries don't like to blame midlevel executives when it's obvious that organizational pressures or top management was responsible.

And lo and behold, apparently that's exactly what happened here:

Susan Beck of the American Lawyer got in touch with the jury foreman in the case, Beau Brendler, a freelance journalist from Patterson, N.Y., who explained why he and others cleared Mr. Stoker of wrongdoing earlier this week.

Here’s what Mr. Brendler had to say about the verdict:

“We could not in good conscience find Mr. Stoker liable given the evidence presented,” explained Brendler….He said Stoker’s lawyer, John Keker of Keker & Van Nest, effectively questioned why Stoker, of all people, was being targeted. “He made a strong case for what we were all feeling: The SEC tried to focus on a relatively low-level executive who had several layers of managers above him,” Brendler said. “He did not act in some kind of vacuum where his behavior was not tolerated or encouraged by his bosses. . .To try to hang all this on Stoker didn’t work."

And Mr. Brendler offered some advice. ”I would like to see the CEOs of some of these banks in jail or given enormous fines,” he said, “not a lower level employee.”

Hear, hear.

Explains so much

about Tyler Posey's performance.

Incidentally, I am becoming very amused at what is apparently the universal direction to all Teen Wolf actors - to look menacing, tilt head downward with eyes rolling upward. It must be very uncomfortable for them.

Headline of the Day

Ann Romney's horse fails to win dressage but avoids offending British