Defiance

There are many points you can take away from the Martin Shrkreli media circus. You can talk about ethics and business and human nature. How after decades, centuries even of being conditioned that success should be the ultimate goal - and that being inventive and prosperous is a good thing- we are suddenly talking about drawing a line. How we are seeing that all of the sudden, some industries are different than others, although all businesses take time, money and involve risks to develop. We could discuss who should make those calls, where those lines are and if putting in some hard regulations can have a chilling effect on an entire industry. And how on the other end preventing people from identifying and jumping on an opportunity can shut down not only the stream of fresh capital, but also ideas and energy into it. Here's what I do know: most of us want to do business, succeed and prosper, but also feel good about ourselves and what we do at the end of the day. What's fascinating to me about Martin Shkreli- as I try not to have an opinion about the man himself or what he does as I never met him nor am I his priest- is how little he seems to care about what people think of him. So here's the big question: Is the media interest in him fueled by the fact that he has done something so outrageous that there's no return from it, or is it that he refuses to play by the rules? He draws attention to himself of course and he doesn't help his case by being defiant. He's dismissive, he's making faces.

 But is the reason for his overnight celebrity status the actual, underlying controversy or how he goes about it. Has business men never done worse? Have we just not heard about it? Or do we really want to start looking under the hood of every business in America? Because then I think we should brace ourselves for what we might find and that won't be pretty. The thing about Martin Shkreli is that he hasn't launched his big media apology tour, and I don't think he will anytime soon. He hasn't cried on Oprah's couch yet or danced with Ellen, nor told us a moving tale from his childhood. He hasn't planted a tree, shook hands with Al Sharpton, nor no A-list celebrity came out to say that at his core, he's a great guy. There's no scholarship in his name. And I think the most important aspect of this story is the media portrayal of him rather than what he has actually done. And how refuses to follow a well established path to redemption. Because everybody does it. And note, we never know what the content of their character is, if they are ever sincere, but we do expect that they keep up appearances and they make appearances, because at the very least we want them to at least act like they care. To appease the media, that will then put their stamp of approval. The thing about Shkreli that pops up to me transcends the ideas of good or bad. He's defiant. He chooses to go overboard to make a point. I think he might be making a mistake, because he will need those people as he makes his way up again. But he's story really made me think- that if he wanted to- he could have cut the prices of his drug in half the day after, and although it still would have been prohibitively more expensive then three days before, he would have still been introduced as a great humanitarian.

 And I don't think any of the outrage would have actually happened had he been quieter, more responsive and respectful. Even if all the substantial facts were still the same. So then, I thought the controversy is not really about his actions, the actual pricing story or the SEC controversy, but his defiance. I really believe that but for his defiance, not of this circus would happen. He might be an awful person, I don't know and I don't care- but I don't think it's the reason for the interest in him. It's that refuses to play along and exposes something about the 24 hour news cycle.

And if he wants to, he can donate to my nonprofit, Florida Disability Access and Awareness Foundation  (http://fdaaf.org) and I'll shake hands with him. But I don't think he will .