Baby Gosling

Here is what you get when you Google image search "baby Gosling." First of all, why are you searching for that? That's redundant. All goslings are babies, dummy. Second of all, what the fuck is up with these images? None of these fucking goslings are cute. Why are their abs so undefined? Who knows. Fuck those goslings. What you're I'm really looking for of course is this. Look at that tinysexy! His shirt is so big! Timberlake towers over him! Is that Britney at the end? She towers over him too. (Btw, I never had Disney Channel as a kid, so even though 95% of this blog is pure pop culture nostalgia, this isn't an example of that.)

I've been on hiatus from the blog for a while, I know. And after a while, I got to thinking, when I make it back, it has to be big. Some kind of magnum opus. Will I finally sit down and write that careful reflection on John Edwards -- whom I lionized in this blog? That fuck-you column about how I was right -- 100% right -- about Barack Obama, you fucking fake-ass, horse-race liberals? (I was right. Seriously. Shut the fuck up. I was right.) No, I am going to write about my questioning my sexual orientation. I think I love Ryan Gosling. Putting aside the fact that he's white and kind of blonde-ish....he's...he's....he's....Canadian. I am a mapleleafsexual. Kill me now.

an open letter to e

below is my comment to e's comment to my last post. 

e, this point, that pakistanis are the greatest victims of terrorism, is perhaps arguable, but there is a very compelling case to be made for it. first off, we have to define what "terrorism" means in this context. in my view it's composed of activities by state or non-state actors targeting civilians, or activities resulting in civilian deaths in far greater proportion to legitimate military / insurgent targets. of course, i'm declining to define what proportion is inoffensive enough to exempt said activity from my working definition, but suffice it to say that i believe the drone bombing campaigns over western pakistan, and yemen, and libya absolutely qualify as acts of state-sponsored terrorism. i know that that this statement alone will, for some people, nullify everything i say below, but i think it's important for us to divorce ourselves a bit from our creeds and flags, and think of these issues in terms of our principles and principles alone. i consider you, e, a fair mind and a very serious thinker, so you are not among the aforesaid people. you do what a friend does best -- challenge my convictions and make me think more clearly about them. i hope you do the same here.

according to wikipedia, last year alone there were 50 separate terrorist incidents in pakistan (excluding drone attacks). these were generally carried out by al-qaeda in pakistan, or a like-minded group like lashkar-e-taeba or jamaat-e-islami. these attacks were generally low-tech acts of violence (e.g., suicide bombs) carried out in public spaces. notably, in the last few years, these attacks have taken place in places like lahore, where my family is from, which is far from the badland west where the pasthun population resides and which is largely indistinguishable from afghanistan. while the sheer volume of deaths that has resulted from these acts does not compare to, say, a single act of terrorism like the september 11th attack on the world trade center, the effect of these attacks is palapable in everyday pakistan in a way that september 11th's is not  (except when it's evoked by brain-dead shitheads like giuliani and schumer -- he of the genius "no-ride" list proposal -- and other cynical exploiters of that event). that is to say, terrorism has disrupted pakistani society much more than it has any other society on the face of the planet -- unless you count iraq and afghanistan, which i don't because i think those two places are uniquely fucked up places in which terrorist activity targeting civilian populations and insurgent attacks on military targets are caught up in a whole incomprehensible morass. to put in another way, afghanistan and iraq are sites of war -- unlike pakistan, at least officially,  which is a site of non-militarily justifiable acts of terrorism.

now, it should be said that the wikipedia numbers are pure nonsense. they account only for high-profile events that have gotten press. i rely more on think tank numbers like the pakistan institute for peace studies, whose 2010 report states that there were 2113 terrorist acts in pakistan last year alone (again, not accounting for drone attacks) in which almost 3000 people were killed and almost 6000 injured. now, if drone attacks are counted, an additional 1000 people in pakistan were killed. this figure, 4000 people, is simply staggering, and i have not seen anything else anywhere in the world that compares to it -- again, with the exception of afghanistan and iraq, which are active theatres of war. more important, each year since 2001 has seen an uptick in terrorist acts in pakistan and deaths resulting therefrom. and with the killing of osama bin laden, it should be clear that any reprisal will be visited first and foremost on the pakistani people. such has been al-qaeda's (whatever that even is now, given its many diffuse forms across the world) modus operandi of late.

as for your other point, i appreciate it fully. human beings have no obligation to act in a principled manner or to put their emotions at bay. i get this. i totally do. know that, but know also i have a monumental problem with the notion that it's unobjectionable to celebrate the death of "someone who specifically targeted americans for being american." why is this relevant? seriously, why is it? if a person kills one person in a botched robbery, do we celebrate his execution? if a serial killer kills ten blonde women because he has some insane sexual fetish, do we celebrate his? if he kills ten black people because he's a white supremacist, same question. i have a huge problem with hate crimes legislation -- let me state that from the outset -- but the notion that a person's intentionality should affect my view of his bad acts is totally lost on me. this isn't about osama bin laden -- or it should not be. this is about us. our reaction to his death -- indeed, the way his killing was comissioned -- that speaks to our best or worst selves. i have a convert's zeal for this country and its bedrock principles. therefore, i cannot understand how it can be that we, collectively, have asked so few questions about the conflicting details of operation geronimo. it turns out bin laden wasn't armed. it turns out he wasn't using his wife as a human shield. it turns out that he attempted to surrender. brennan -- the deputy national security guy -- stated this was a kill operation. why was he not arrested? why was he not haled before a civilian court in the united states and given full due process rights and made to answer for the mountain of evidence compiled against him. why was he dumped in the sea? seriously, why? he was a piece of shit who couldn't give a fuck how his muslim victims were buried, and we're, well, we're denizens of a country that couldn't give a shit how the muslim victims of our drone attacks are buried. why afford this man a so-called islamic burial? what constituency does this satisfy?

i know there are still many details not known about geronimo. i know that. and it may turn out some of my questions have legitimate answers. i hope so. but putting aside protestations about america's egregious violation of pakistani sovereignty -- an irrelevant point, as far as i'm concerned given the pakistani army and intelligence services' incompetence in catching bin laden / duplicity in allowing him sanctuary -- and putting aside the basic human need, perhaps, to celebrate something, anything, after 10 years of confused, neo-imperial brutality in various parts of the muslim world, i put to you this: upon hearing news of bin laden's death, doesn't a mature population push aside its base instincts, and think about all that has been lost and can never be restored? doesn't it think about what we -- as a nation -- have lost, but also allowed ourselves to lose? when bin laden was shot dead in abbottabad and then dumped into the arabian sea, i couldn't help thinking we're now a nation that cannot stomach its own core values. we cannot put one of the world's greatest criminals on trial. as a fiercely proud, and thoroughly skeptical american, i wonder if america is now a shadow of itself. would tocqueville recognize this country? would tom paine be proud of it?

also, and i mean this question seriously, say you're a ten-year old pakistani boy whose entire family -- none of whom were involved in any kind of terrorist activity -- was killed in a drone strike. say you're face is half-charred and you lost an arm in the strike. say you did nothing -- clearly -- to deserve this. nothing at all. say "it's rather human to enjoy the elimination of one's enemy." who is your enemy in this situation? the guy in missouri manning the drone? leon panetta? barack obama? what measure of vengeance are you allowed? put aside creed and flag. put aside who-started-what, and tell me. what kind of world are we barreling towards? what have we wrought?

yours,
c4ts

more douchebag, please.

an interesting recent poll of about 5,000 diverse americans revealed that people generally want the wealth distribution in this country to resemble sweden's:
"the top 20% to own just over 30% of the wealth and the bottom 40% to own about 25%."

what is america's actual distribution?
The top 20% of wealthy individuals own about 85% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% own very near 0%. Many in that bottom 40% not only have no assets, they have negative net wealth.

of course, to reach this desired level, we must seriously consider increasing taxes on the wealthy. but no, we're not going to raise their taxes. and how will the rich spend their money? not by trickling that down to you and me, fools. to wit (from the journal, no less):

We know the rich have been spending more than any other sector of the economy. But the real risk with the tax cuts is neither hoarding nor buckets of Grey Poupon. It is that the wealthy will invest their excess cash in ways that do nothing for the U.S. economy–either putting it in emerging markets overseas (which they’ve been doing) or investing in gold (which they’ve also been doing). Exporting capital and buying chunks of metal that sit in a safe do nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy.

warren buffett is basically begging congress to stop the extension of the bush tax cuts:
“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

fat effing chance, foreal. every dumdum with $10 thinks he's going to be a billionaire tomorrow. raise taxes on his fantasy earnings? no way.

oh yeah, more fallout from this year's elections?
- consumer protection finance bureau? yeah, that's not going anywhere under the weight of endless requests for reports and investigations from the GOP.
- green card lottery? your days are numbered, too.

omg i'm so bummed now.

on a relatively positive note, kanye's new album is as good as everyone says it is. on infinite loop. i need more douchebag*, please!

* quote from pusha t: "A lot of songs were made strictly from conversations. With 'Runaway,' the beat was down, some of the lyrics were down. And we’re having a conversation about us, as men, being assholes sometimes: admitting it, doing what you can do to get out of it, being well-aware that you do wrong and doing wrong anyways. And he's like, 'I like your perspective on this whole thing. I need a verse.' I had to write it four times. He kept begging for 'more douchebag.' That was his chant: 'I need more douchebag!'

He didn’t understand that I was going through a relationship turmoil at the time, out of my own douchebagness. In the verse, I'm really having a conversation with someone: I was in the wrong about something, so I’m saying it, but then I’m trying to ease it, too. And he’s like, 'No, I need more douchebag. No, please — more douchebag.' He’s killing me, he doesn’t even know it. Eventually I’m like fuck it, I'll just go all the way."

also, can we discuss how three separate individuals are credited on this album for "handclapping?" forealz.

fancy ride in a free car

in this week's new yorker (a decent issue so far, much to my relief), there is a cartoon of a man standing in front of his burning house. he's holding his hand out to stop the approaching firefighters and the caption reads, "no thanks, i'm a libertarian." it's a fairly typical new yorker cartoon, minus the dog on the therapist's couch and aggravatingly precocious kids.

well, except that there are people who really believe this. if you know me at all, you know i spend more than my fair share of time wondering about people who really distrust the government. i view them like a different species because they fascinate me in an unironic and not-too-judgmental way.

a few days ago, the journal featured an eye-opening story on colorado springs, the second largest city in colorado. voluntary labor and donations are taking over the administration of community centers, garbage collection, street lights and even the police force:

Taxi drivers have been recruited to serve as a second set of eyes for stretched police patrols. Residents can pay $100 a year to adopt a street light. Volunteers are organizing to empty the garbage cans in 128 neighborhood parks. The city is asking private swimming programs to operate its pools, and one of the city's four community centers soon will be run by a church.

granted, colorado springs is the home of focus on the family, not exactly a bastion of progressivism. and yes, colorado springs represents a trend of sorts. like most other cities in america, colorado springs must confront the twin problems of decreasing tax revenues and inflated budgets left over from rosier days (and, in the case of california, a third problem: the inability to raise tax rates). the numbers are not adding up, and more and more drastic measures are being introduced as a result. in fact, new york city just floated a proposal to charge the working homeless rent for shelters. in addition, unemployed homeless people (or at least one individual in a homeless family) will be required to obtain a job before qualifying for a shelter subsidy.

i definitely do not idealize government. it can be and is often inefficient, bullheaded and wasteful. and like in virtually every other aspect of life, many have figured out elaborate ways to game and manipulate the system. even though i've been tempted on more than one occasion to remind government workers that my tax dollars are funding their salaries, i don't really think i'm getting my money's worth when i'm arguing with time warner for the umpteenth time or the asshole at the apple genius bar rolls his eyes at my "problem." so what do people want?

"Let's start cutting stupid programs that cost taxpayers a pot of money," says Tim Austin, a 48-year-old former home builder now looking for a new line of work. "It's so bullying and disrespectful to take money from one man's pocket and put it in another's."

ok fine. but you know, while it's nice to believe that a group of local residents will convene to collect trash in the surrounding area, good luck with that. i'd much rather have a group of people with some degree of accountability and monetary incentives dealing with something as important as basic sanitation. and who's to say what's stupid?

then it makes me think, am i cynical for not believing in voluntary collective action or are the others cynical for eschewing government? is cynicism the issue? are we all mistaken about others' motivations? is there some public/private sweet spot?

you are the champion, my friend

c4ts, i hope you didn't make it into work today bc you were too busy overturning cars in celebration of dook's victory.

and little zoubekia, i hope to meet you soon.

problems i'd like to have - part 1 of an occasional series

the news media has long exhausted the usual supply of recession stories about job loss, healthcare crises, detroit, retirement, etc. running parallel to this theme of quiet desperation are stories about (what i like to call) problems i'd like to have. the chief source of PILTH (ha!) is, of course, the new york times, which consistently runs stories about people on the brink alongside tips on how to weatherize your second home.

example #1: you saw this story about williamsburgers who can no longer rely on their parents to support their lifestyles. you rolled your eyes, too, at ridiculous anecdotes like -

Luis Illades, an owner of the Urban Rustic Market and Cafe on North 12th Street, said he had seen a steady number of applicants, in their late 20s, who had never held paid jobs: They were interns at a modeling agency, for example, or worked at a college radio station. In some cases, applicants have stormed out of the market after hearing the job requirements.

“They say, ‘You want me to work eight hours?’ ” Mr. Illades said. “There is a bubble bursting.”

and the biggest PILTH of all:

Mr. Weinstein has been advising two brothers in their late 20s who wanted to buy a $700,000 apartment with $250,000 from their parents. But their parents’ investment portfolio has lost so much value that they now can give only $50,000. Since the brothers make about $45,000 a year each, they are now shopping for a $500,000 apartment.

bailout, please. and then it made me think, is this article meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

in contrast, the journal--which you expect would run out-of-touch to the max stories (here is one)--has been surprisingly practical with its advice. revise your resume, don't screw up that phone interview, y'know. it also featured this story about a former wall street banker turned waiter:

Recently, their oldest daughter asked Mr. Araya if the family would have to move. He told her he didn't know. She countered: "How much money do we need?"

"The way she looked at me," Mr. Araya says, "I could tell she was counting the money in her piggy bank." He went into the bathroom and cried. After a few minutes, he dried his eyes and walked back into the living room.

oh god, bring back the PILTH.

anyway, obligatory hockey reference--red wings, what happened?

pens...glorious pens!!

isn't it a little unsettling how happy nancy pelosi looks considering (a) she's giving away all of our money and (b) her state is on the verge of bankruptcy? click on the photo if you want the full effect. anyway, if you're not totally bummed out yet, read this article about the little meeting that possibly ruined our financial system. voluntary oversight! we should all be so lucky.

huh?

is this for real??

pandas to distract you from my secret shame

ooh, this is a good game - the telegraph of london asked authors which Great Books they were ashamed to admit they had never read. since that list would be MUCH too long, i'm going to present a less literary (and more new york magazine-y) version. at the risk of alienating the entire readership (i.e., c4ts), here is a list of Great Pop Cultural, uh, Things which i've not read/seen/heard:

• the wire - yes, i admit it! bayrex, i'm sorry. i made it to episode 3 of season 1. i will have to return the DVDs to you.
  
• sonic youth - pioneers, vanguard, forefather/mothers, etc. don't care.
• none of the russians (y'know, tolstoy, dostoevsky, chekhov, etc.) - i said that to someone once and he asked, "not even nabokov?" i dunno, i tend to not include him. am i wrong on this?
• big lebowski - everyone freaking fell all over themselves when this movie came out. i dunno, i don't get it. something about bowling or something.
  

anyway, if you have a Pop Cultural Shame, do let me know so that i don't feel so alone. and pedestrian.

you're outta touch

sometimes the new york times just makes me laugh/cringe with inane sections like this (no, not just sunday styles). because, y'know, we all were looking for advice on how to bequeath our vast sums of wealth so that our heirs don't turn out like brandon davis or hey! maybe i should consider moving my seven figure investment account into a hedge fund! oh gosh, there is always the question of whether my second home should provide respite or additional income. mo' money mo' problems, indeed.

anyway, this headline caught my eye. holy shit, dudes! i live in new york! my job is tied to wall street! the sky is falling! who knew "each Wall Street job supports three workers in other sectors?" dig a little deeper, however, and you'll find where the times's concerns really lie:

Last month, Shai Shustik, a broker with Manhattan Residential, was helping a 27-year-old client find a $700,000 one-bedroom apartment on the East Side of Manhattan. But then the client suddenly put her search on hold. Her father, a banker, said he had lost too much money in the stock market to buy such an apartment for her.

Until two weeks ago, Mr. Shustik was also working with a Credit Suisse banker who wanted to spend up to $1.6 million for a one-bedroom apartment in the West Village or TriBeCa neighborhoods of Manhattan. The banker abruptly stopped his apartment search because he was too concerned about the stock market and his future bonus potential.

what?! fuck you, new york times. seriously.

anyway, here is my promised rant on bear stearns, which seems more legitimate now that jp morgan has decided to up its bid to $10/share. at least at $2/share the fed could claim with a somewhat straight face that this was not a taxpayer-financed bailout of one of the most unsympathetic firms on wall street. after all, it wasn't so long ago that bear stearns refused to bail out long term capital management. so now the fed is rescuing one of the instigators of the mortgage backed security meltdown with my, no, our tax dollars. these renegades who decided that they were above regulations are now begging the government for a handout and so here we are. okay, i get it, what was the fed supposed to do, merely watch while the banking system fell one by one? i'm not naive: of course the big players have a direct line to the government while the vast majority of law-abiding taxpayers don't. i get it. it's just completely demoralizing to see it so vividly in play.

anyway, back to our regular programming...

what we're talking about when we're talking about the economy (aka what the eff is david brooks yapping about - part 3)

in this part 3 of what appears to be an infinite-part series, i again examine the latest and greatest david brooks column in the new york times and ask the question we've all been wondering: what the fuck is david brooks yapping about? [Ed note: finally, i came up with a photo to illustrate just how i feel about david brooks.]

i swear i approached today's david brooks column with a somewhat open-minded stance. everyone knows i hate him and that i think he makes no sense...pretty much EVER, but i told myself today: i'm going to take a deep breath before i start silently screaming.

he begins the column by delineating two ways we can talk about the recent and ongoing turmoil in the markets: the greed narrative or the ecology narrative. oooookay. i'm not sure whether he came up with these brilliant names himself, but the hostile nature of the first moniker vs the benign, almost warm & fuzzy image invoked by the second pretty much lets me know which one he prefers.

he gives a scant two paragraphs to the so-called "greed narrative", using inflammatory and over-the-top descriptions like, "absurdly overpaid zillionaires" and "obscene bonuses". apparently all those who express any cynicism or disdain for how the market has been operating of late are sugar high teenagers. don't describe paul krugman that way. please.

then he moves on and devotes thirteen paragraphs on his "ecology narrative", with sweeping generalizations like "Everyone seeks wealth while minimizing risk" and "The U.S. has enjoyed 25 years of strong economic growth". not to mention, apologizing for the recent volatility in the markets with this type of benign and naive explanation:

Most of the time, the complex new instruments diversify risk and serve the public good. But life requires trade-offs, and, as we’re being reminded this week, the innovation process involves a painful adolescence.

When a new instrument enters the market, it takes a while before people understand and institutionalize it. Whether the product is high-yield bonds or mortgage-backed securities, there’s a tendency to get carried away.

In the first stage of this adolescence, investors look around and see everybody else making money off some new instrument. As Nicholas Bloom of Stanford notes: “They assume they are fine because they see everyone else buying it.”

indeed, i think mr. bloom is describing GREED. as in, thinking only about their own gains and not about any of the possible consequences of their actions. if i can withhold my anger and use david brooks' jargon, the so-called "greed narrative" is merely a subset of his genteel "ecology narrative". anyway, brooks' basic stance, surprise, is that the government shouldn't do anything to intervene because that just hampers innovation in the financial markets. and tsk tsk, these guys just got "carried away"! don't reprimand them and don't attempt to change the status quo. following his whole adolescence into maturity metaphor, what type of overzealous adolescent reigns in his/her behavior without some supervision and/or discipline? on that note, i'd like to meet his kids.

Last Days of Disco

So, my long summer vacation's starting to wrap up. Radiohead's playing over the end credits, as I struggle in vain to get Comcast to correct their spelling of my first name (no, it's not "Adios.") As of Monday I rejoin the ranks of the gainfully employed (and health-insured). But I've learned quite a bit in my time off. For instance, did you know The Hills is fake? Sadly, with great knowledge come soul-rattling questions too: like, umm, wtfuck is up with Michel Gondry's new movie? And w(ho)tfuck is Bobby Trendy, and why didn't anybody tell me about him before?

beat em? join em?

just beat them up?

sometimes i find myself on the upper east side and i feel as if i'm in a foreign land. i see all these perfectly coiffed people in their pressed clothes looking indescribably content and i grow uncomfortable. why? because i'm not sure whether my resentment is directed at them for their complacency or at myself for secretly wishing i could be one of them? who the hell knows.

but i think that sentiment and ambivalence pretty much describes my feelings toward this times article on wealthy 20-somethings who forgo business school. yes, a caveat: i have virtually no talents in finance, so it's not a realistic assumption that i could join them even if i wanted. can you believe these quotes? omg!

* So he, too, decided to forgo an M.B.A.. Instead, he raised $5 million and started his own hedge fund, Alerian Capital Management, in 2004. The fund now manages $300 million out of offices in New York and Dallas, and Mr. Hammond, 28, enjoys seven-figure payouts.

* “The sales pitch of these private equity funds or these hedge funds is, ‘Come here, and you’ll make a million bucks in two years,’ ” says Gregg R. Lemkau, 38, managing director and chief operating officer of investment banking at Goldman Sachs, who passed up business school to stay at Goldman in the early 1990s when that choice was more rare.

* And because today there are more self-made millionaires — and billionaires — than ever before, 20-something traders seem bolder in their monetary ambitions. Business school often does not fit into these plans. [Ed note: where? i don't know any of these people]

anyway, as my sister once told me after i received my first real paycheck, "hey e, you're a thousandaire!"

pants off dance off

i have somehow managed to refrain from blogging about this ridonculous lawsuit. i mean, where to begin? the plaintiff is a judge, for chrissake. have some dignity, please. not to dwell on the obvious, but do some people really have this much time on their hands or are they deranged enough to believe this type of a claim is meritorious? and the judge presiding over this case - how can she (he?) let this go on for two years?? i don't remember much from law school, but common sense tells me roy pearson should be disbarred or disciplined at the least.

anyway, some people in dc took a brief respite from their megalomania to attend a benefit to raise money for the chungs, whose legal fees are somewhere above $83,000. [Ed note: read the comments on that post. some real gems out there.] i went to their fundraising website and realized omg, daniel dae kim donated at least $250! um afterelton, it's time to move him up your list.

speaking of pants, i don't know if anyone's noticed this story, but this shit is just a disaster.

gentrification kills

i don't believe in heroes. unless they are nerdy, japanese and appear on the show "heroes."

in any case, it's hard to argue against anointing firefighters with such a lofty title. would you train your ass off to run into a burning building to save people? doubtful. last night a twenty-three year-old firefighter died fighting a blaze in williamsburg. details are here in this article.

but the saddest part comes from another article:
Those two buildings, and the man linked to both of them, tell the story of the shifting dynamics of industrial Brooklyn: working-class neighborhoods settled by European immigrants, and the frontier of artistic colonization. The apartment that Mr. Pujdak had been trying to save had been illegally converted into an artist’s loft, according to city officials.

what, you couldn't afford to pay for a space with your trust fund, you fucking freegan?