creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
15 Feb 2012
That's What Friends Are For

Here we go again: a tragedy in the music world, a tragedy waiting to happen that did. Disturbing headlines … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
What Happened to Newt and Mitt?

Newt's easy. While all of us on the Democratic side were playing "root for Newt," Republicans were … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Chasing Equality

Tuesday's ruling by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … Read More.

Looking for the Line

Share Comment

Nothing gets people's attention faster than picketing them at home — which is not necessarily a reason to do it.

Last week, at the height of the furor over the AIG bonuses, activists managed to locate the homes of a number of those who momentarily received bonuses, and brought their protests home. The executives, at least the ones who were interviewed, were not happy. Some of them had nothing to do with the toxic transactions that brought AIG to the edge of collapse; they were hired to clean up the mess made by others. Whether they should make more than government employees (which, in some sense, is what they are now) for doing so is a fair question and a fair subject for protest, as well.

No, what made the executives most unhappy and what gives me pause is not the question of whether they are fair subjects for public protest — of course they are — but whether their spouses and kids are. When dad signs up to work for AIG, does the whole family lose their right to privacy and personal security? If Mom wants to run for office, does that mean the kids go under the microscope with her? What kind of parent would do that to their kids?

A friend of mine, who has held various offices during turbulent times, said the only protest that ever made him angry was one that women activists staged at his home. I can't even remember what they were protesting, but I do remember my friend white with rage as he recounted how the protestors, and with them the reporters and television crews, surrounded his home.

It wasn't the invasion of his privacy that bothered him; he was the first to admit that as a public official, he had no privacy. It was the exposure of his wife and preteen children. Any nut could figure out where they lived, just from the pictures and the street signs.

These days, the nut could pull up the satellite image of your yard, the programs from your kids' school events and all kinds of personal stuff, just by clicking. These days, the nut could hook up to forums where duly elected officials, as well as other nuts, can and do wish people they disagree with dead. These days, the nut could find a hundred outlets spewing all kinds of anger, threats and damnation at politicians and executives alike.

We still need good people at AIG. In fact, we — the taxpayers — need those people more than ever because it's our money on the line. If activists want to surround AIG offices and protest there, fine. If they want to surround congressional offices, fine. But I don't know too many reporters who would welcome protestors at their own front doors.

You can't stop people from holding demonstrations on the public streets where executives and politicians live with their families. But the press doesn't have to cover them. They don't have to identify the town and the individual who is the target. They don't have to reward people who are crossing the line. The purpose of a demonstration is to get attention. A demonstration that gets no attention is like a tree falling in an empty forest.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
After Congress gets over it's hissy fit about bonus money , they might get a brain storm as to how private enterprise works. In my college days , I had a job working for Montgomery Ward as an appliance and stereo entertainment center salesman. What I earned was directly tied to what I sold. Most of my pay was in the form of a bonus. Because I desparately needed the money to pay my college bills, I almost strangled people to get them to buy. I was very successful and went back to school in the fall with some mighty bonus pay in my pocket. The extra bonus was that MW execs asked if I would work weekends for them. I did for a while. That bonus money was crucial to a guy working his own way through college. It was a wonderful INCENTIVE. My story is typical of what goes on with millions of people in industry throughout the country. We need to preserve the bonus system not drag it down making a silly example of guys who were only doing what was EXPECTED of them. What we need to change is not the bonus, but the REASON FOR the bonus. I think Congress made a mistake in forcing people to give up their incentives......... and INCENTIVE is the fuel that drives a capitalist system.
Robert
Comment: #1
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:10 AM
Activists?? Say it ACORN. They did the most to hurt this country, at least name them! And Obama helped teach them how. George Soros pulls the strings and makes billions while "Bursting the bubble of American supremacy."
Comment: #2
Posted by: ann
Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:17 AM
Estrich...you ARE aware that those bonuses were provided-for in the stimulus package (as well as contractually-obligated to be paid to the employees before the stimulus was signed)...correct? Funny, not a word about this....or about Congress' faux outrage over the bonus payments...or about how Congress is about to pass an unConstitutional bill of attainder to get the money back. It's great of you to stand up for peoples' right to have their home lives be free of protestors, but that's like saying people shouldn't rob banks or mug old ladies. File it under "well, duh."
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:29 PM
Re: robert lipka. You're right...but if I were writing your response, I'd have simply pointed out that it's none of Congress' (or the public's, or Obama's) damn business how companies choose to reward their employees. If the government weren't busy handing out my tax money (and borrowed Chinese money) like Halloween candy, there'd be no basis for anyone being upset with AIG. Instead, thanks to this moronic "stimulus," we taxpayers own 80% of the company.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Matt
Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

17 Nov 2010 See You at Thanksgiving

29 Oct 2008 The Back Room

26 Mar 2010 What Really Matters