The above link is an article about the rash of governmental -> corporate regulatory actions that have resulted in big payouts to governments from corporations.

It's an interesting time we live in, where companies are paying out such large sums to opaque agencies who then use those funds in just as opaque a fashion. These are not trifling sums, and, not for the first time, I despair at the condition of this body politic.

Tacitus' observation:

"Plurimae leges corruptissima re publica" states that the greater the number of laws, the more corrupt the politicians. Upon reflection, how can one argue with this?

Our current legal system consists of a patchwork of intersecting and conflicting rules; some in general agreement, others at odds. The use of precedent is supposed to smooth out legal interpretation, giving predictability to what is and is not acceptable.

When the number of laws is too great, and complexity of interaction too severe, enforcement becomes selective. The number of persons and time necessary to enforce hundreds of thousands of law beggars reason - it's simply impossible. And selective enforcement leads to chaotic implementation... how is this law at all?

Or when new laws/regulations are introduced in a haphazard, opaque way, it makes it difficult to even know what will be done to implement them, leading to uncertainty for those who are regulated.

The author of the above article points out that at present the nearly arbitrary fashion in which the government in the US is approaching corporate "shakedowns" is difficult to distinguish from the way the Chinese government is operating.

I can't disagree.

Reliable, consistent, clear regulation and law is what open, transparent society should expect. While law cannot enforce morality, it can provide a framework for more fair treatment in society. Excessive complexity erodes that purpose. While legality does not ensure justice, it's society's best approximation -

Selective enforcement of laws ensures that many quasi legal practices go unnoticed, which is also hardly fair.

Straightforward, clear, enforced laws reduces the opportunity for corruption. Excessive complexity benefits those in power, who can navigate the vagaries with inside knowledge of the system; and they can confer similar benefits to their allies, friends and associates. Laws and systems only understood by a few is no basis for fair, egalitarian, law based society.

Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) understood this in the first century...

I think the framers of the constitution did as well.

What happened? :/

Consider the humble Gluten.

Presently, in US vernacular, the proteinaceous amalgamation of gliadin, glutenin and starch. Glue-like and sticky (in fact derived in name for the latin for Glue), gluten presently has acquired a most odious reputation for being the offending antigen for sufferers of celiac sprue, and gluten free foods are sold at a high premium... even when the diner has no allergy to the stuff.

Over in asia, however, gluten has been a part of diet in a purified form, particularly as a vegetarian meat/protein substitute. Indeed, it's a staple vegetarian food, along with tofus of various consistency. When one mentions gluten in asia, it's a very neutral substance, or perhaps even positive, when one things of foods like 烤麸。

Which brings us to the strange variegations in societal attitudes towards foods near and far.

I think few of us remember the days when the US feared the fruit so ubiquitous in Italian cooking, the Tomato. Indeed, tomato was considered an undesirable fruit during the early part of the US' history due to its similarity to deadly nightshade. And it took tomato sauce (Ketchup/Catsup - possibly derived from cantonese pronunciation of 茄汁, and gastronomically derived from various "fish sauces" used in the south pacific）and Italian cuisine to bring the tomato to its present glory.

Or perhaps the lobster, originally considered a trash fish, and sold at bottom of the barrel prices in Boston during the mid 1700s. Few of us consider lobster so pedestrian now, eh?

One more - let's consider beef ribs. Low grade meat if one were to consider steak. After all, there is no "rib cut." And barbecue ribs are sold at rather inexpensive prices relative to the mass of the meat sold. But in Kalbi, the price of a similar amount of meat is suddenly much higher. Go figure? You wouldn't blink an eye at 29 dollars for 2 short ribs in a Korean restaurant - but those prices would beggar reason in a southern barbeque joint.

While the aphorism "One man's trash is another man's treasure" might be a bit trite at times, there's no question that the relative pricing and desirability accorded to foods (yes the connotations as well) differ across regions, cultures and nations, it's quite striking that a food hated/reviled in one context is quite innocent in another.

Think peanuts in the hyper-allergic western world vs. southeast asia where its ubiquity would yield asphyxiation in far too many with hypersensitivity.

I'll leave with one more dissonance in views on foods.

Consider soy vs. milk.

In the west, you put milk in a jar and drink it. In the east, you crush it and filter it and you yield soy milk. Culture both and you get cheese and tofu respectively. Traditionally, easterners didn't really know how to eat cheese - and its taken some time for the west to accept tofu; both of which are quite common and accepted in their traditional regions.

And what bothers people most? I still think it's texture. Unfamiliar textures probably cause more anxiety than tastes...

So, how much of a food bigot are you?

(Allergies don't count...)