Bad Karma and the PRC

The concept of karma: believe in it or not, it opens the mind to consider the consequence of intent. Act in bad faith, and something bad will follow. Sharon Stone expressed an open question about whether the People's Republic of China has just suffered bad karma's effects with the earthquake disaster of two weeks ago. Her voiced opinion has resulted in a real-world consequence with a Chinese cinaplex giant vowing to ban her movies from their screens.

"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone stated in a Cannes Film Festival red-carpet interview with Hong Kong's Cable Entertainment News. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?"

To my mind, that's pretty pedestrian for a controversial statement. Folks are more up front -- okay, blunt -- in my neck of the woods. Still, Stone's "bad karma" statement pissed off the Chinese, particularly on the internet. Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless. Ng vowed not to show Sharon Stone movies in UME theaters, which has cineplexes in China's biggest urban movie markets.

I tend to act as if karma exists, but I'm not sold on its literal existence. After all, there are sharks like Ameriquest, the company who has been among the worst predatory subprime mortgage lenders in the U. S. Its owner Roland E. Arnall avoided the repercussions of his company's deceptive business conduct by being appointed ambassador to the Netherlands by President George W. Bush, at about the same time that Ameriquest settled for $325 million over predatory loan practices.

On the other hand, Arnall resigned his ambassador's post in February due to his son's ill health; less than a month later, Arnall was dead of cancer himself. Maybe I was a bit hasty . . .

Food For Thought, Oil and Terror Edition

I just heard Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) on Letterman, while talking about the war on terror, Iraq, and related matters, say that the price of oil was $24 a barrel in 2002 when the justification for war in Iraq was being pushed by President Bush.

$24 a barrel. One year after the 9/11 attacks.

And look at it now. Over $100 a barrel higher as of this writing.

Yep, that sure worked out, didn't it. Diverting resources out of Afghanistan, which was safe harbor to those who attacked us, and into Iraq, which was uninvolved in 9/11, sure kept the "terror premium" of oil down. I don't see a Texan or Okie being elected president anytime soon.

Sudanese Sauce for the Political Goose

Here's a political story refreshingly without the reflexive knee-jerk opposition between sides. Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential candidate John McCain and heiress to a nine-figure beer distributor fortune, has sold some $2 million of investments related to Sudan. John McCain has called for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership in light of the genocide in the Darfur region, and the Associated Press pointed out that mutual fund investments held by Cindy McCain included companies that do business with Sudan.

Cindy McCain has repeatedly stated she will not reveal her income tax records publicly, even if her husband is elected president. But give her points for transparency here, for when previously disclosed investments in American Funds Europacific Growth fund and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income fund proved to incorporate companies doing business with Sudan, Cindy McCain quickly sold her investment in both funds.

Since John McCain has publicly criticized China for its dealings with Sudan -- "There is only one reason China has opposed sanctions to pressure Sudan to stop the killing in Darfur: China needs Sudan's oil" -- having investments that are even indirectly connected with Sudan would appear highly hypocritical.

Lest anyone think this is political sinning on the right, four presidential candidates had to divest of Sudan-related holdings last year: Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Sam Brownback and Rudy Giuliani. Brownback also wrote 44 governors to urge them to divest their employee pension funds from businesses linked to Sudan. Guess it all goes to show how difficult it can be to invest wealthy sums of money without inadvertently lining some tyrant's pockets.

So, it's nice to see a political story where figures from both major parties agree on the proper course of action. Maybe our political landscape isn't irreversibly toxic.