Tuesday, March 17, 2009

the rich will always be rich


americans are going ballistic at the latest round of AIG bonuses -- $165 million contractually due to execs in the financial products division. yup, the same guys that broke the world. (that the total pay-out for 2008 and 2009 is actually $450 million seems to be getting lost in the blather) while some krazees are defending them as a necessary means of retention, ya know, keeping the really good guys on board (are psych evaluations part of this bail-out plan? cuz that's fruitcake nutso to say in your outside voice), bottom line is it's on paper. it's a legal obligation. that there seemed to be no performance standard required to receive a staggering bonus is something for another time when we visit opposite-land. the president, the treasury secretary and even andrew cuomo are all going brimstone and "up with this we will not put", but they're kinda stuck. it's like this plan was drafted on a cocktail napkin after too many gibsons in a final fuck-you gesture by the previous administration. that whole "let the market regulate itself" worked out so well, it made perfect sense to give all these recipients carte blanche, right? just push mountains of untethered money at them and it will all work out perfectly. (or maybe they had just watched that "dallas" episode where bobby wakes up in the shower and the whole season had just been a dream?)

rep. elijah cummings of maryland, a member of the house committee on government oversight, said he had been communicating regularly with AIG’s chief executive, edward m. liddy, about the bonuses ever since december. mr. cummings said he was particularly concerned that the bonuses were supposed to be paid by march 15, adding that he assumed treasury officials had the same worries.

from today's ny times:

i assumed that they were well aware of it and would take appropriate action” before the march 15 deadline. “in light of the biggest quarterly loss in history, you would think that AIG and mr. liddy would have been able to convince folks who were supposed to be getting these retention payments, based at least in part on performance, that they might want to voluntarily not take all or part of them.” i almost spat my tea reading this. guys with history's most bloated sense of entitled hubris, working under a bail-out plan that required zero transparency and even less accountability, are supposed to suddenly do the right thing? instead of taking the money and running? on what planet does cummings live? "aw, shucks, c'mon guys. make nice? once ? please? with a cherry on top?" except the cherry is the no-strings-attached gajillion dollar pay-out and a soon-to-be life of leisure on a tropical island or swiss chalet for these execs.

yesterday iowa senator charles grassley suggested in a radio interview that AIG executives "come before the american people and take that deep bow and say, i'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide." now some pundits are pointing at grassley and shaking their heads over such crazy-talk from the cornfields. republicans aren't exactly known for their comic delivery and the seppuku bit is over the top only because it was reserved for samurais who had tainted their code of honor. the whores at AIG and their money bros had none, so certainly don't deserve the glory of falling on their own swords. i do seem to recall a couple of european financiers committing suicide last year when the edges began to fray, but i can't think of a single failed american ceo who has stepped down out of this whole mess. the big 3 in detroit and the money houses still standing all are still run by the same white guys who ran them into the ground, and our economy and future right along with -- as gm goes, so goes the country, eh?

as this debacle continues to spiral, i don't know who should be more ashamed. i do know that nobody involved in any of this -- nobody-- seems to have a sense of contrition. it's being played as an "oops" instead of a melt-down.

and the guys with the money? they still have it. they hire sheryl crow for parties (northern trust got $1.6 billion) and commute on private jets (ceo of bank of america --$45 billion). at the christie's auction of yves st. laurent's estate a hand-made chair from the early 20th century sold for about $28 million -- 10 times its pre-show value. one chair.


"he who wishes to be rich in a day will be hanged in a year. " ~~ leonardo davinci

not.

Friday, March 13, 2009

we can't afford that

  • the metropolitan museum of art has laid off 74 people, and warns of more layoffs to come. we cannot afford art.
  • the number of foreclosures in NYC rose 44% last month. we cannot afford homes.
  • last year, american families lost 18% of their total wealth. that adds up to $11 trillion. we cannot afford wealth.
  • the leader of china says he's "worried" about the trillion dollars in US treasuries his country holds. we cannot afford credit.
  • six flags is on the verge of bankruptcy. we cannot afford fun.

but madoff is in the clink. that's something, anyway.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

all men are liars

more than once, i've danced to this song at a wedding and drunkenly wondered the odds of that particular union succeeding. i mean, really? your first official party as mr. and mrs. and bridezilla includes that on the playlist?

i don't check my voicemail everyday, i look at the caller id. lots of "unavailables" and "privates" and "out of areas". anybody i'd like to talk to would call my cell anyway. plowing through the cache last week, i heard a gruff voice who only called himself a "blast from the past". now, if anybody reading this knows me, that doesn't really narrow it down much. it wasn't until the third message and the familiar whine of "geeze, aren't you ever home?" that i pieced it together.

back story:

it has been close to 20 years since we first met. with friends at one of our usual haunts i was on the prowl. i saw him and decided. mercenary that i was, he didn't really have a choice. he wasn't the first, nor would he be the last, to be surprised at how open i was about what i was after, and no surprise to me he ditched his friends when he realized he'd hit the jackpot. my apartment was walking distance, on a posh street in a swanky building.

he wasn't allowed to stay over and i didn't give him my number, but a few weeks later, aided by liquid courage, he rang the bell. his luck, because i'd just gotten home from work. "ya know, this isn't the first time i've come by. aren't you ever home?" he was cute, it had been fun, so i let him in. after a few more visits proved his dedication and capacities, i surrendered my phone number. i made no secret that there would be times he wasn't welcome and more than once i shooed him out because i had plans for which he was making me late. he was a sport about it, i'll give him that, even when he expressed a rather puritanical astonishment. i mean, c'mon, i let you come by and told you we had less than an hour before i had a date. put on your pants and get the hell out, ok?

this went on for years. whenever i asked if he was seeing somebody, he'd ALWAYS say, "not really." i knew it was less than true, but if he felt like she (or they) didn't warrant mention, so be it. whenever i was in a fit of monogamy, he politely stayed away. he'd check in every few months to see if the coast had cleared. when it had, he'd be right back over. all those years, i never once called him or visited where he lived. i never even asked. over time, i met many of his friends all of whom expressed amazement at "how long" i'd been around. lol. if they only knew what i was doing around elsewhere.

after i finally extricated myself from the alcoholic latino, b. rang me up just days after e. had moved out. i swear he was over to my house in minutes. did he call from, like, around the corner? he had been seriously involved with somebody too, but that was over now. how he'd missed me. how he couldn't believe all those years how lucky he'd been to have me. how he loved me. WHAT? since when? almost from when i met you. um, you never thought to mention it? he had wanted to get his career in motion, get settled, be more serious and then see where i was in my life. i called crock of shit. he didn't care what i believed, he was saying it now and could we be together? i was very jagged from my break-up and said i have no idea. we both were living on the north shore then, and his house wasn't far. he confessed having stalked my house more than once. um, creepy tmi, tyvm.

we saw each other more frequently then we ever had. it was strange, but in a nice way. i almost started to relax.

one morning in bed. he swore his love again. i had yet to say it. then he dropped one of the biggest bombs possible. "i'm going to get married." i nearly vomited. the one from before had given an ultimatum. blah blah. he was still talking when i told him to please stop talking. i don't care what she said to you, or "is making you do." get out. but-but-but. get out. i couldn't allow him the pressure valve of confession. (long ago, i learned the power in that little maneuver, lol.)

he called shortly after they'd had a baby. no. i do not want to see you. i was involved with the owner. i certainly didn't need another married man in my life. jeebus. he was friendly and jokey as always. i was frosty to say the least. "i still care about you." "no, you just wanna get laid." "well, i'd come over if you let me." "um, no."

best estimate, that call was about five years ago.

i don't know how long it's been since he's crossed my mind, but it doesn't surprise me that he's again sniffing around. now he's got three kids. he's been looking all over for me. he's found the google stuff, of course, but seemed surprised i wasn't on facebook. i'm not on facebook so people like you can't find me. he's been here. i wasn't home. really, no surprise to either, right? "i'd come over if you let me." no surprise there and you suck. "um, no." bitching about his kids. complaining about his wife. she's not that nice to me -- not like you always were. "we all make choices." how he shouldn't have let me go. "you never had me." but could i have had? "it doesn't matter now." he just would like to know. "it doesn't matter, and either way, i'm glad it didn't happen." he assumed that i wouldn't let him at me because i had a man. "i do, he's a good one, we've been together a very long time. that's not why you can't come over."

he was sitting in the dark, in the driveway of his rambling farmhouse. it was late. his kids and likely his wife all asleep. some of his friends still ask about me and why he hadn't married me.he was whining about the life that he had chosen and how he wished it was different. how he thought it might have been better.

please stop.

we all make choices.

he assured me he will call again. i assured him i don't care.



Thursday, March 05, 2009

blinded, not by science

the vatican this week is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of darwin's "the origin of the species." by having a seminar about evolution.

notably excluded from the invitee list were members of the "discovery institute", who espouse creationism and intelligent design. in fact, nobody who believes that hooey was invited. to the vatican. to. the. vatican. the organizers said they had barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy.

most of the world is ok with it. the pope is ok with it. he is not in conflict that evolution can coexist with faith.
pope john paul II articulated the church's position most clearly in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, saying the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis."

my thoughts on faith aren't relevant here. yet i am again dumbfounded to realize that half of americans do not believe in evolution and think the world is less than 10,000 years old. i mean, c'mon, there are not THAT many mormon science teachers. i first learned about evolution from nuns, for heaven's sake.

in a poll i read today, 44% of americans could not name a "famous scientist". of those who *could*, they most frequently named bill gates, al gore and albert einstein. none of whom were scientists and one is dead.

bush famously crushed science during his tenure. any truth supporting climate change or rational discussion of deforestation, the effects of toxic waste, strip-mining, pesticides, big-ag, nasa discoveries, blah, blah, blah (god, i'm a broken record) was subverted or buried. cnn has let go all its science people. science coverage on the tv news is nearly non-existent unless a rover goes rogue, and although my papers still have a science feature on tuesdays, i somehow suspect that's not the case in smaller towns or more shrill publications.

obama has already got physicists (climate guru) and science geeks hard at work. what worries me is how much time has been lost. an entire k-8, or junior high to senior year school career being taught only enough rote and bad science to pass standardized tests. the equivalent of a generation. our tradition of curiosity, imagination and innovation squashed by disinterest and disinformation.

of course, maybe now that hedge funds and banking have lost their get rich quick sheen, perhaps some of those bright young things might actually think to look to the stars -- through a telescope and not at the hamptons.