Disgusting

Super Bowl 48

Good, clean family fun, right? I know this has gone on for thousands of years, but it’s still disgusting:

Sixteen juveniles forced into working as prostitutes for the Super Bowl were rescued in the New York City area by the FBI in the weeks before the game, the agency said Tuesday.

Officials said the children, some of whom had been reported missing by their families, ranged in age from 13 to 17. Six were found in Newark, N.J., six in New York City and four in New Haven, Conn.

One of the minors, a 17-year-old girl, had spent the past two years with her pimp, said Michael Osborn, chief of the Violent Crimes Against Children unit at the FBI.

More than 50 adult women who were forced to work as prostitutes were also rescued. More than 45 pimps were arrested and numerous guns seized, according to investigators.

It’s all your fault

Taj Mahal palace in India

No such thing as systemic problems, it’s all about character flaws:

Whether you’re rich or poor, Republicans believe that’s on you.

Findings released Thursday by Pew showed that most Republicans think rich people are largely responsible for their socioeconomic status. They also feel the same way about poor people.

Fifty-seven percent of GOP voters said that a person is rich because “he or she worked harder than others,” while just 32 percent attribute it to advantages they enjoyed. The results are almost completely flipped among Democrats.

Overall, 51 percent of Americans said that people are wealthy due to advantages in life, while 38 percent said it had more to do with hard work.

No snark zone

Photo

I really want to try this. It’s hard not to OD on snark in this line of work, and I don’t like it.

When it concerns real human strife, it’s ultimately not nice to just be polite. No one would benefit if conversations about World War II were only as substantive as “Hitler? Oh yes, he made lovely watercolors.” It is more humane — and, therefore, nicer — to support justice, even if that means unleashing vitriol.

On the day my month was up, I spoke to a wonderful neighbor about how some of the older folks in town seem a little resistant to people from the city moving in. The old man’s comment about women with names like mine getting divorces came to mind and I quipped that it might have been a mild form of hazing.

My neighbor laughed and asked, “Who said that?”

“A guy named Buddy.”

“Buddy Pinchik?”

“Yeah.”

“That’s so Buddy. He thinks that kind of thing is funny. I like talking to him.” Something melancholy entered his expression. “He tells me about what it was like here before I was born. If my dad were still alive, he’d be Buddy’s age. Yeah, I like talking to him.”

One thing that hadn’t occurred to me: Buddy didn’t mean anything at all by what he said. It was a harmless attempt at conversation, maybe even a touching way of reaching out. Either way, why waste energy assuming ill intent? Haven’t we all said something stupid and realized it sounded insulting? If we stop lashing out against perceived insults and stop subtly eroding our friendships — or even kind relations with strangers — by giving so much attention to the things that bug us, quality of life inches incrementally but noticeably closer to excellent.

Kindness doesn’t have to imply repression. It doesn’t rein in humor or impede the fight for justice. But it does require discipline and substantive engagement with others.

If you disagree, feel free to say so in a considerate manner. Or just keep it to yourself.

Money addict

wall-street-sign

A very powerful op-ed in yesterday’s Times written by a former hedge fund trader. I strongly recommend reading it all, especially the comments:

But in the end, it was actually my absurdly wealthy bosses who helped me see the limitations of unlimited wealth. I was in a meeting with one of them, and a few other traders, and they were talking about the new hedge-fund regulations. Most everyone on Wall Street thought they were a bad idea. “But isn’t it better for the system as a whole?” I asked. The room went quiet, and my boss shot me a withering look. I remember his saying, “I don’t have the brain capacity to think about the system as a whole. All I’m concerned with is how this affects our company.”

I felt as if I’d been punched in the gut. He was afraid of losing money, despite all that he had.

From that moment on, I started to see Wall Street with new eyes. I noticed the vitriol that traders directed at the government for limiting bonuses after the crash. I heard the fury in their voices at the mention of higher taxes. These traders despised anything or anyone that threatened their bonuses. Ever see what a drug addict is like when he’s used up his junk? He’ll do anything — walk 20 miles in the snow, rob a grandma — to get a fix. Wall Street was like that. In the months before bonuses were handed out, the trading floor started to feel like a neighborhood in “The Wire” when the heroin runs out.

I’d always looked enviously at the people who earned more than I did; now, for the first time, I was embarrassed for them, and for me. I made in a single year more than my mom made her whole life. I knew that wasn’t fair; that wasn’t right. Yes, I was sharp, good with numbers. I had marketable talents. But in the end I didn’t really do anything. I was a derivatives trader, and it occurred to me the world would hardly change at all if credit derivatives ceased to exist. Not so nurse practitioners. What had seemed normal now seemed deeply distorted.
Continue reading “Money addict” →

Frank Luntz has a sad

G2746-D0835

Poor Frank Luntz is having another crisis.

It’s called cognitive dissonance, and nothing has really prepared Frank for these “WTF” moments, when all but the most terminally brainwashed wake from their political stupor, wipe their eyes and say, “Wait! We gave these rich guys and their minions everything they wanted, and we’re still fucked? The money’s really not trickling down? Oh Jesus, they’re pissing on our heads!”

It never even occurred to Frank that actual events could override his right-wing Matrix programming, and his subjects would begin to question the official version of… well, everything. What he describes — “The people in his focus groups, he perceived, had absorbed the president’s message of class divisions, haves and have-nots, of redistribution” — is laughable. He thinks people got this message from Obama?

My sides ache from laughing. That conclusion alone tells you just how far from astute the man is.

Frank needs to pull his head out of his butt, because the sleeping giant is awake now. You hear that, Frank? It’s the sound of several million pissed-off Americans who’ve been out of work for years, whose college-educated kids can’t get jobs, who no longer have retirement funds and who are busy cleaning up after the climate change disasters you and your employers keep telling us aren’t real.

It’s the sound of Americans who, shivering in -40 temperatures, are saying to each other, “There is something really wrong here — and it’s not us.”

I could feel sorry for him, I suppose, but I don’t. He dedicated his life to serving the plutocracy and it’s beginning to dawn on him, somewhere deep in his reptile brain, that he might have picked the wrong side. No, we won’t win tomorrow, or even next year, but the train has finally left the station and people aren’t going to swallow this nonsense again for a long, long time.

The crisis began, he says, after last year’s presidential election, when Luntz became profoundly depressed. For more than a month, he tried to stay occupied, but nothing could keep his attention. Finally, six weeks after the election, during a meeting of his consulting company in Las Vegas, he fell apart. Leaving his employees behind, he flew back to his mansion in Los Angeles, where he stayed for three weeks, barely going outside or talking to anyone.

“I just gave up,” Luntz says.

“I didn’t work on Mitt Romney’s campaign. It just sucked, as a professional. And it killed me.”
His side had lost. Mitt Romney had, in his view, squandered a good chance at victory with a strategically idiotic campaign. (“I didn’t work on the campaign. It just sucked, as a professional. And it killed me because I realized on Election Day that there’s nothing I can do about it.”) But Luntz’s side had lost elections before. His dejection was deeper: It was, he says, about why the election was lost. “I spend more time with voters than anybody else,” Luntz says. “I do more focus groups than anybody else. I do more dial sessions than anybody else. I don’t know shit about anything, with the exception of what the American people think.”

It was what Luntz heard from the American people that scared him. They were contentious and argumentative. They didn’t listen to each other as they once had. They weren’t interested in hearing other points of view. They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women, young vs. old, rich vs. poor. “They want to impose their opinions rather than express them,” is the way he describes what he saw. “And they’re picking up their leads from here in Washington.” Haven’t political disagreements always been contentious, I ask? “Not like this,” he says. “Not like this.”

Luntz knew that he, a maker of political messages and attacks and advertisements, had helped create this negativity, and it haunted him. But it was Obama he principally blamed. The people in his focus groups, he perceived, had absorbed the president’s message of class divisions, haves and have-nots, of redistribution. It was a message Luntz believed to be profoundly wrong, but one so powerful he had no slogans, no arguments with which to beat it back. In reelecting Obama, the people had spoken. And the people, he believed, were wrong. Having spent his career telling politicians what the people wanted to hear, Luntz now believed the people had been corrupted and were beyond saving. Obama had ruined the electorate, set them at each other’s throats, and there was no way to turn back.

Why not? I ask. Isn’t finding the right words to persuade people what you do? “I’m not good enough,” Luntz says. “And I hate that. I have come to the extent of my capabilities. And this is not false modesty. I think I’m pretty good. But not good enough.” The old Frank Luntz was sure he could invent slogans to sell the righteous conservative path of personal responsibility and free markets to anyone. The new Frank Luntz fears that is no longer the case, and it’s driving him crazy.

Listen carefully, Frank. It’s the sound of your own brain, trying to beat the truth into your thick skull.