No amount of shame enough to reverse bonuses. But violence works just fine

I’m sure no background is needed about the brewing rage in response to the AIG bonuses (and to a lesser extent, bonuses at any financial institution), but the Exiled Online has a particularly jubilant post by Mark Ames about the growing popular response to it.  And the violent (or at least, threatening) turn it has taken.

When I first heard about the bailouts via Naked Capitalism maybe a month or two ago, I figured public shaming would be far from adequate to have anyone give up the millions I’m sure they believe they earned (or need).

I must admit, I quietly hoped that popular outrage and the threat of violence would be enough to cause most of the recipients of taxpayer-funded bonuses to refuse or return them.  And, according to Exiled Online, that seems to be the case (they cite a NY Post article).

Is violence, or the threat of violence, the only tool available to the regular taxpayer to stem the flood of public funds to the top 1% of income earners in the country?  That the response should turn violent at some point seems fairly inevitable should government continue to fail in its duties of enforcing something faintly resembling justice.  And when mob violence is viewed with such approval (I know Exiled is a niche, to say the least, publication, but I also know that the fomenting rage about bonuses for boondoggles is not far from the Exiled’s rah-rah for proletarian uprising), even among the useless members of our government, what does it say about the relevance and power of our government?

The failure of our entire financial system is less shocking to me than the spectacular failure of our government that the financial system’s failure has revealed.

… and the cow goes moo

CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s Tea Party Rant an Organized Plant?

The original anti-homeowner-bailout rant clip has been making its rounds on the internet.  I originally saw it sometime last week and was thoroughly disappointed (I believe I saw it linked from The Big Picture originally).  The hosts made it out as if Santelli was leading some sort of revolt, but it really only looked like a few people around him in a very narrow demographic were really engaged in his lame rant.  And the even lamer hosts of the program were playing it up and overreacting to it just like Kathie Lee would.  But enh.  Whatever.

Somehow it managed to become a minor media and internet sensation though (Ritholtz follows it a bit here), and some have expressed some suspicions that the embrace of the rant – or the appearance of a popular embrace of the rant – could be due to some organized ’sponsorship’, and perhaps even advanced planning and staging by political groups.

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of Exiled Online (it was also originally posted at Playboy.com but can no longer be found with the original link there) provided some evidence, largely circumstantial, that raised some doubts about any spontaneity on the part of Santelli.  More convincingly, Ames and Levine succeed in casting very significant doubts on the popularity or grassroots origins of the support that arose for Santelli’s Chicago Tea Party idea shortly after the CNBC clip aired.

That an individual talking head or commenter would attempt to create a media event is not surprising (kind of his job…), or even that various interested groups (such as commercial and political groups) would embrace and actively lay down an astroturf campaign to support Santelli’s idea (kind of their jobs…) seems only common sense to me.  What is shocking is the reply by what I would have thought to be respectable and responsible members of the media.

In a more recent article written by Ames and Levine in response to the denials by the parties they accused in the original article, they do a fair job of attacking the character and motives of some who have been critical of thier original reporting.  One person in particular – Megan McArdle of The Atlantic Monthly – is singled out as an oppositional voice to Ames’ and Levine’s accusations.  I find myself agreeing to most of the points she makes in her blog post but, as Ames and Levine points out, she has a MASSIVE conflict-of-interest that she, to her credit, discloses at the end of her post:

“It’s pretty much an open secret in DC, but given the content of the article I’m discussing, I think I ought to mention that I live with Peter Suderman, who once worked for Freedomworks.  Other than giving me the name of the right employee to email to make inquiries (no word back yet), I haven’t asked him about his former employer, and he hasn’t told me anything.  I debated whether to write about this, but since I’m not actually defending Freedomworks, I think it’s kosher.”

Wow.

I don’t want to make any assumptions about the nature of her relationship with Suderman (which Ames and Levine happily do), but if you live with someone, and they worked for the company that is being attacked in the article you are offering a rebuttle to, then yes, that’s a big fucking conflict of interest.  And I personally feel there are many grey areas when it comes it this issue, and McArdle certainly deserves credit for considering the conflict and I can understand her thinking as well, but Mr. Suderman was, while working for Freedomworks, engaged in PRECISELY THE TYPE OF FAKE GRASSROOTS INTERNET ORGANIZING THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE ACCUSATIONS MADE BY AMES AND LEVINE!

In my opinion, the first comment she should have made in response to Ames and Levine’s article is that ‘yes, Freedomworks definitely could be involved in creating fake amateur sites supporting this cause for their own ends because the person I live with actually used to do exactly that for them’.  And if she wanted to proceed to make her very reasonable defense that notwithstanding that point, Santelli’s rant is no less legitimate in itself, then so be it.

But holy fuck.  Your pal makes fake grassroots websites.  I know it’s a blog (and this little blog of mine certainly wouldn’t survive similar scrutiny – yes, I’m a big hypocrite) but jesus.  I really would have expected better from The Atlantic.

(and for those interested in hypocrisy, Ames and Levine have a follow-up article attacking CNBC more directly.  GE certainly is the beneficiary of Federal support, and CNBC is a GE subsidiary.  It does seem to be shoddy journalism if nothing else to attack a bailout for homeowners when your parent company has already stuffed its pockets full)

Full disclosure:  I am currently engaged in a raucous four-way with Mark Ames, Megan McArdle, and Milton Friedman’s spinning corpse.  Since I’m not discussing multiple-partner sex in this post, I feel my post is still kosher.

… and the cow goes moo

Polizeros provides some balance on the RNC protest crackdowns

Old news to most by now, since Barack Obama’s inauguration is just two weeks away… But the impression many rightfully had of the police reaction to protesters at the RNC convention may be unfounded after all.  Bob Morris, certainly no Republican apologist, provides a very logical reason why the police may have appeared a bit hyper-vigilant:  They likely had reason to believe protesters had prepared Molotov cocktails to be used at the convention.

(His whole post can be found here)

I think his post serves as a good example: In areas such as these (security, law and order) much is necessarily hidden from view at the time of an event and the obvious answer (‘Right-wing thugs are needlessly beating up on hippies!’) is not necessarily the case.

… and the cow goes moo

UPDATED – NYT’s Kristof: Torture forces the smile on the faces of Asian sex tourism workers

(for more of my comments on the subject, and links to an earlier article on the subject by Nicholas Kristof, please follow this link)

One of the unenviable area of focus of Nicholas Kristof’s writings is one of the most overlooked atrocities occurring on a daily basis, combining slavery, kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, and pedophilia into one act of human degradation.  As heinous as each of those acts are to Western, and I’d assume, all observers and the strong reaction any one of these acts would produce should it occur to a middle-class blond from Ohio, the well-practiced and almost perfected business of sex slavery, combining all of these crimes, goes largely unnoticed by all but Kristof readers.

His latest article can be found here, continuing on the article I mentioned in a previous post linked to above, follows yet another victim/survivor of the Cambodian sex trade.  Not content to add just one more personal story and one more name to the list of victims of the deviancy and perversions of Asian and Western businessmen and women, Kristof focuses on the ongoing threat and use of torture that is practiced to create the veneer of coquettishness and willingness of the captives of Cambodian brothels.

Those of us who are disgusted by torture and condemn acts such as waterboarding may have a more intense reaction to the acts described by Kristof and perpetrated on not suspects of terrorism, but kidnapped children who resist to selling their bodies to strange men for money they never see (please skip the following quote if you intend to read the entire article as it is perhaps the key anecdote in the article.  Otherwise, HIGHLIGHT the blank space to see the text):

“As in many brothels, the torture of choice was electric shocks. Sina would be tied down, doused in water and then prodded with wires running from the 220-volt wall outlet. The jolt causes intense pain, sometimes evacuation of the bladder and bowel — and even unconsciousness.

Shocks fit well into the brothel business model because they cause agonizing pain and terrify the girls without damaging their looks or undermining their market value.

After the beatings and shocks, Sina said she would be locked naked in a wooden coffin full of biting ants. The coffin was dark, suffocating and so tight that she could not move her hands up to her face to brush off the ants. Her tears washed the ants out of her eyes.”

We know these things happen, in great numbers, and continue on a daily basis.  We know that a large part of the problem is on the demand side, contributed to but not exclusively by Western businessmen (likely reasonably wealthy travelling businessmen travelling alone to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and other Asian nations).  And we know, and I believe can agree on without equivocation, that the act may not be the most pervasive, but is certainly among the most perverse and heinous of any act being perpetrated on this Earth today or that has been in the past hundred years.  Then why can’t we make an effort to stop it at least on our side of the equation, where we have a right and responsibility to control it?

There seems to be a ununanimous but significant passive support for screening terrorism suspects and restricting their travel.  Even mideastern friends of mine exhibit a fair level of acceptance to the reality (I am paraphrasing, but one response I received from an ethnic Persian friend a few years ago, during the height of the War on Terror, was: “we know who is responsible for the attacks, so of course Mideasterners are going to be targeted.  What else can you do?”).

I don’t necessarily condone this or would support such a policy being enacted, but why isn’t a similar profile being used to stamp out the supply-side of sex slavery?  Is it because sex slavery didn’t cause towers to fall on national television?  The nation has not be adequately scarred to disband civil liberties for this particular offense and criminal group?

Is it because the victims of this act are not Americans, but brown-skinned Asians, dying out of sight in brothel dungeons, on motel room beds at the hands of an abusive John, or quietly of AIDs on the other side of the world?

Or is it because the ‘victims’ of this profiling would perhaps be overwhelming white and well-to-do males, pillars of local business communities, family men, and otherwise known to be respectable folk who have the courtesy to practice their most profligate sexual deviancy on dark-skinned children?

Or another reason entirey?  I hope Kristof and others who live wholly or halfway in this world of medieval bondage continue to explore this topic and demand an answer.  No doubt those who enslave these girls and pay for their services are the most vile.  But I would like to know how disgusting the rest of us are for being less than outraged.

UPDATE:  Kristof has a new article up continuing on the travails of sex slaves in Cambodia, detailing more gruesome tortures inflicted on the teenage captives.

… and the cow goes moo

NYT: Kristof on sex slavery

As, I’ve said before, Nicholas Kristof journalistic strength is exhibited best in his reporting on third world crises (and where he generally touches on the American contribution to the problem).  His latest editorial provides an update on sex trafficking in Cambodia, in the form of one former-prostitute/slave and her attempts to combat the industry.  This can be seen as a continuation of many of his previous editorials on the subject (visit his archives here).

The torture undergone by Kristof’s ‘heroine’ is shocking to the senses, even when written in the relatively prosaic manner Kristof treats it with (appropriately; the content needs no flourish).

Kristof’s closing points, past the reporting and into the editorial, proved even more evocative to me.  As has been done a million times with a million other examples to no avail, Kristof contrasts the daily and hourly tortures applied to third world girls (children!) at the hands of pimps, predatory strangers looking to profit in the salve trade, and sex tourists (often Western), and the lack of discernible outrage in face of them, to the media and public outrage accompanied by the loss of a single photogenic, middle-class American blond.

I have been a firsthand witness (and, arguably, beneficiary) to the disproportionate coverage a photogenic victim, or one with an sensationalistic back story, can receive (even in Canada).  The casual media-consuming public (which might aptly describe over 80% of Canadians and Americans) is an expert in the horror of a pretty white victim.  If that coverage were devoted instead to the horrors that are inflicted upon the millions of dark-skinned poor, would we remain so callous?  Would calls to action by those like Kristof or his heroine be greeted with the same placid inaction?

Kristof briefly discusses the passage of an anti-trafficking bill, sponsored by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), through the House of Representatives, and how what he (and others) describes as a weaker bill in the Senate is being sponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Joseph Biden (D-DE).  I am not qualified to discuss the qualities of either bill, but do lament the nature of the Federal response.  Efforts to increase the ability for prosecutors and law enforcement officials to pursue those responsible for this modern slavery is certainly applaudable, but I see that as a minor measure meant to increase the costs of business for traffickers and that it will have no impact on the profitable business of modern slavery in itself.  Why is it that the USA can maintain a 36 year embargo on the nation of Cuba to combat an ideology that arguably inhibits the population’s freedom to earn (I don’t suppose the lack of voting is actually a large reason for the embargo, as our friendly relations with some non-Democratic nations and our hostile relations with some Democratic nations would suggest), yet we do not entertain the idea of raising such a threat against the corrupt leaders of nations that implicitly support and indirectly profit from sex slavery?  Should President Bush decide to meet with Cambodia’s King Norodom Sihamoni, and tell him that should he not make every effort to end sex trafficking, America would enact a travel embargo for all non-aid workers and journalists to Cambodia and publicly attribute the action to Cambodia’s “rampant sex trafficking of children“, I believe we would be able to eliminate one bastion of modern day slavery.

In 2007, Transparency International’s Corruption Perception’s Index rated Cambodia eighteen spots from the bottom, or the 162nd perceived LEAST corrupt nation, out of 179 (the USA ranked 20th and Canada ranked 8th from the top).  “Tourism was Cambodia’s fastest growing industry, with arrivals increasing from 219,000 in 1997 to 1,055,000 in 2004.” In a nation run by criminals, where the rich benefit substantially from being a destination for Asian and Western business travelers, the threat of cutting off this money supply and the public shaming that would come with it could be enough to strike fear into an autocratic monarch.

The life of a wealthy white American is easily worth that of a hundred or more poor Cambodians.  And the threat of Communism poses a greater threat to people’s well-being than the threat of being kidnapped as a child and sold into a brothel to sexually serve perverted Western businessmen at the constant risk of torture by your captors.  Our priorities, in a nutshell.

… and the cow goes moo

Comments on bluegal’s Post at Crooks and Liars [LONG POST WARNING]

I’m glad I’m not shitting on another Cernig post, as I really did appreciate his bothering to reply to my previous criticism, however I do have a serious issue with another post on C&L I read today.  But first, I want to make sure people understand why C&L is a bit over represented in my blog critiques…

FIRST ALL THE CIVILITY AND SHIT:

(SKIP THIS PART IF YOU DON’T PLAN TO ATTACK MY MOTIVATIONS)

C&L is the only remaining purely-Liberal blog I visit daily.  There were a few others that I’ve frequented during the past three years however only C&L remains now, which I hope is considered as a compliment to the quality of posts and posters they have (at least relative to a few other major unnamed Liberal blogs).

Of course, as I believe I have made clear before, their blog is far from perfect.  I believe C&L (and most of the more popular political blogs) suffer from this apparent need to be a player for their party.  Perhaps its just zealous support for their party, but I do believe there exists a large component of wanting to help steer their party as well.  I do not blame them for the desire, as anyone who posts their thoughts online is seeking to influence (myself included), and that can be as much a noble pursuit as an ignoble one.

Sometimes this need to have a role at the table means creating, intentionally or unintentionally, a readership that could be considered a faction of that party’s base (this is probably a defining feature of a clearly Liberal/Conservative blog).  This can lead to some fairly one-sided posting, which is hard to avoid even with effort and fairly understandable (albeit lamentable).

Sometimes this need to be involved in their party manifests itself in becoming a hub for party activism (organizing large e-mail writing campaigns to demand an apology or explanation, for instance) and fundraising.  I only notice this on the larger political blogs and I can certainly understand wanting to support the party and candidates you believe in, but just as Bundlers — who collect small sums from many individuals that add up to amounts far greater than the $2,300 limit per election for any individual — can acquire substantial influence and perhaps obtain returned favours from a candidate or party, so can a blog.  Of course this is largely the point.  When a ‘journalist’ (I do want to hold political bloggers to the same criteria as journalists) has a candidate in their debt, they have a vested interest in that candidate’s success regardless of policy.  How can they report on the candidate or election fairly when they have a real investment in the candidate?  What separates the bloggers from the infamous “Bush Pioneers” and such, I’m not sure.  This is an area where I feel we have to vigilantly scrutinize so that our internet Bundlers don’t become like the IRL Bundlers (those in the business of a candidate’s campain).

The most serious issue I have is when a blogger decides to act as a surrogate for a campaign or candidate, doing their dirty work for them.  As opposed to offering commentary, analysis, or news, they opt to exercise perhaps a controversial or underhanded route of attack on an opponent as an unofficial voluntary arm of a campaign.  That is what I SUSPECT (I wish to make clear that I am NOT CERTAIN) bluegal is doing at this post at Crooks and Liars entitled “Sarah Palin and Issues of Pregnancy, Abortion, Abstinence, HIV“.

I do not have any issue with bluegal.  I cannot say I have noticed a particular style that stands out from her on C&L (the only poster I really recognize beyond the Late Nite Music Club entry posters are those from Nicole Belle as she tends to inject autobiographical content in most of her posts).  I believe bluegal has been posting at C&L for more than a year, and I don’t recall have many major issues with anything I’ve read from her in all that time (and I have read very nearly ever C&L post since August 2005).

NOW THE ACTUAL CRITIQUE:

bluegal (her post can be found here) starts on a fairly typical and superficially promising note:

“This blog deliberately did not cover the internet rumors that have absorbed so many this weekend. None of the children of any political candidate should be held under vicious and unfounded media scrutiny.”

All well and good.  Sounds a lot like what I just spent the last 600+ words doing, except without my characteristic abuse of internet real estate.

She, of course, as there are few places she could go after that opening disclaimer, proceeds to discuss Bristol Palin immediately.  She decides to summarize the situation at the center of the controversy immediately as well (which, I believe, she did not have to do.  If anyone doesn’t know already, then they really don’t NEED to know and would be better for it).  So the issue is now officially on the table.  Of course, if Sarah Palin is adding to the issue by blaming Liberal blogs for the controversy, than bluegal certainly has a legitimate basis to address it.  I believe the high ground would actually be to ignore the accusation from Sarah Palin as well.  As much as it may be unfair to Liberal blogs to be accused of it (if it is untrue.  I will not comment on that as I know nothing of it), it is still unfair for Bristol Palin to CONTINUE to be made a center of undue attention.  Even if the fault primarily lies with Sarah Palin for reinvigorating the controversy with her (perhaps legitimate, once again, I don’t know) accusation, why must bluegal put aside her supposed sympathy for Bristol to respond to Sarah Palin?  To me, it appears that bluegal decided defending herself, her blog, or Liberal blogs in general was more important than allowing a teenage girl who is in a, to say the least, trying circumstance to live her personal life outside of public scrutiny.

That was a choice I didn’t agree with (and perhaps hypocritically, as here I am posting indirectly about Bristol further… though I am trying not to describe her PERSONAL AND PRIVATE MATTERS).  However, in isolation, I can see why it was made.

If the post ended after the 2nd paragraph, my response certainly would not exist.  However… bluegal continues on and ties Bristol’s situation to Sarah Palin’s policies.  I am not commenting on Sarah Palin’s policies or beliefs (not in this post anyways), but just bluegal’s post.  bluegal appears to tie Sarah Palin and the Republican party’s policies about sex education (reproduction and STDs) to the controversy.  In a way, I believe she is implying (albeit with some care not to state it outright) that Sarah Palin and her party’s policies are to blame for Bristol’s circumstance.

I would summarize her post up to this point thusly:  “C&L does not want to discuss Bristol Palin as it is an inappropriate topic.  However, Sarah Palin says we started it and she is a liar.  Btw, did you know Sarah Palin’s policies lead to the exact situation that Bristol found herself in?”

And in case there was any uncertainty, bluegal repeats that final point and the implications of her opening disclaimer, once again, with delicacy:

“Is it a surprise to anyone that Sarah Palin is an advocate of abstinence-only programs, and opposed sex education in Alaska’s schools?

The New Republic reports that earlier this year Palin “used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.”

Again, this is not about Sarah Palin’s daughter. Although it would be if she were homeless, Governor.” [emphasis in original]

I cannot cite a particular statement that unequivocally holds Bristol “under vicious and unfounded media scrutiny”, however I believe that is only due to tactful writing.  I believe the spirit of the post is entirely to tie Bristol’s circumstance directly to the legitimate policies held by Sarah Palin, thereby making Bristol fair game.

And to those, and I’m sure there are many, who disagree with my interpretation of bluegal’s post, please understand I don’t do this to start a fight or because I’m secretly attracted to Sarah Palin or something (I am secretly attracted to Tina Fey, so it would definitely be a fair accusation).  Before you send me your best insults, please tell me:  What did Sarah Palin’s accusation have to do with her policies about sex education EXCEPT Bristol Palin?  And is making Bristol Policy a posterCHILD for the results of her mother’s policies anything but injecting Bristol Palin’s circumstance into the campaign?

I hope even those who disagree with me (and managed to invest the 30 minutes necessary to read this longass post) at least understand why I interpretted the post the way I did while not being crazy.

And who else thinks Bristol Palin is off limits?  As linked to and commented on in a previous post of mine, found originally at Polizeros:

“I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”

-Barack Obama

… and the cow goes moo

Doggie Stories

I lost my dog of 18 years some time ago and I still hear his paws on the floor, on occasion.  I never intended to use my little blog for reasons such as these, especially when it comes to unverifiable stories (besides the video and photo evidence, of course), but this seems worth spreading to dog owners who might have a toy that fits the description (not just those made by Four Paws Products).  Even if it isn’t in keeping with this blog’s ethos.

Read “The Chai Story” here.  This story will likely only be of value to pet owners (especially dog owners), and perhaps the sadistically softhearted.

Add:  Link, oddly, was originally found at Naked Capitalism.  Judging by the frequent animal subjects of the ‘antidote du jour’, Yves Smith must be a pet owner.

… and the cow goes moo

“White Elephants”: Commercial Structures Emptied in the Past, Destined to be Repeated

The wonderfully cynical (and fairly accurate) Mish posts in his blog about the constructions of boom-busts prior (of companies and suburbs more than national or global economies).

I have very little to add to his post.  It is fascinating to me though, based on the descriptions of the failed attempts to rejuvenate the derelict Motorola supercampus (his first subject, described directly at The Chicago Tribune) and the condition of the long-abandoned shopping mall, Dixie Square, in Harvey, Illinois.

It pains and confuses me that these multi-million dollar investments should be allowed to decay and fall to ruin rather than be utilized in some constructive way.  Could a mall be refitted to be a volunteer-run community center?  Could utilities be convinced to allow for free energy and water use for such a facility?  Would it save the community money for building a needed center elsewhere?  Would it save the decay and preserve the structure, so the mall could continue to provide some objective value, even in an asset/market sense?  Would it help involve young people in their community through volunteer opportunities that directly enrich their neighborhoods?  Would there be more need than just a few full-time (or even part-time) public administrators to provide an anchor for these projects?  Would it help improve property values by keeping young people engaged in healthy pursuits (engaging in training, or helping train other young people)?

Will this issue rise to import in that minor, oft-ignored, community-level once the current recession consumes the shopping malls peppering our current sprawling suburbs?

These are one of the many issues that benefits from my nerd’s imagination:  How would elitist, liberal, snobby space invaders (you know they’re out there, watching… judging…) evaluate our culture based on how much we allow bureaucratic and administrative impedance to stop us from making a rejuvenated shopping mall, the setting of so many happy memories for the community, a place for the rejuvenation of those in the community who suffer from the same inflictions that brought down the mall?

There can be poetry even in bureaucracy, sometimes.  But someone killed all the poets.

… and the cow goes moo

Ah shit. What am I supposed to do? Polizeros kick #4

Polizeros tried to take attendance on the anti-war movement.  A bunch of truants…

My comment (that I hope he will monitor and follow-up on a bit):

“You’re far better qualified to measure this than I am:

What’s the impact of the 2011 exit timeline (that is conditional upon a fuzzy undefined — and undefinable — level of security)?

Right when I saw that headline (picked up my head while on the stationary bike and accidentally saw CNN, as usual), I said to myself ‘good-bye anti-War movement’.

Rioting against a 100 year occupation is a lot sexier than whining about a 3 year death-vacation.”

… and the cow goes moo