So it appears that my suspicions about Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s accuser were right all along. Evidently she has a rather interesting history including connection to immigration fraud, money laundering and other fun stuff. After taking this new information into consideration, it is worth considering a possibility that occurred to me some time ago.
She might have supplemented her income by providing sexual services at her place of work. A hotel with 3,000 $/night suites frequented by rich and powerful men would be a good place for an attractive woman, of any race, to provide sexual release- for a price.
The very fact that she discussed the benefits of crying rape with her jailed “fiance” around the time she made the accusation suggests that she was aiming for some sort of half-assed extortion scheme.
another funny thing fact about her- apparently neither she nor her teenage daughter have AIDS, yet they live in a low-rent apartment complex meant for people with HIV or AIDS.
One of the most important features of our current socio-economic system is that rewards are a ‘bizzaro’ version of what they should be in a rational society.
A person’s income and stability of livelihood is inversely proportional to his/her utility to the upkeep, let alone progress, of society.
Don’t believe me? Here are some examples- add more if you want (in the comments).
Let us start with hedge fund managers, investment banksters and other assorted financial-type scumbags? Do they serve any purpose other than using other people’s money to bet on and manipulate the prices of everything from corn to crude oil? What about their role in creating fraudulent financial instruments? But we still reward them exceedingly well, don’t we?
What is the function of a CEO or anyone on the board of directors of a corporation? How often do they fulfill that obligation in anything other than the namesake? But aren’t they amongst the most well paid of “employees”? How often have you seen them destroy one company through their stupidity and then moving on to a better position at another? How do they get into upper management? Competence and ability or scam, accident of birth and luck?
Professionals are another category of scamsters, though far less richer than the ones we just talked about. Aren’t many professions from doctors, pharmacists to lawyers just monopolistic cartels with a significant percentage of incompetent, redundant and generally useless people? But aren’t those jobs great- with excellent stability, considerable latitude for malpractice, little scams and other perks?
Government bureaucrats are no different. Once again they have excellent pay, with considerable nepotism in recruitment and great job stability. Most don’t work hard, which is actually a good thing for everyone else. Private sector versions of these critters populate middle-management and HR. Once again they are often the last people to be fired and first to be rehired once their current company goes under.
Certain government jobs with utility such as law enforcement, regulatory agencies etc often end up doing stuff that is removed from their original purpose but nevertheless enjoy excellent compensation, something they share with education critters such as teachers and academics.
It is as if we deliberately choose to reward people based on how harmful, useless, incompetent and sociopathic they are. While I have written about the perverse incentives which partially fuel this problem, it is obvious that the real problem is even deeper. It has something to do with societies built on an ever-increasing amount of laws and regulations.As I have said before- a multitude of laws and rules are the best ally of sociopaths.
Do I really have to explain this one?
Germany and the USA had very high unemployment rates (effectively above 30%) and social unrest when Hitler and FDR came into power- in 1933. While they both went down the Keynesian path and achieved economic recoveries, their legacies turned out to be.. different.
The point here is that in the face of severe economic downturns, such “liberal” economic policies are inevitable. You can either have a megalomaniac seize power and implement them or elect a reasonable guy to do it.
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: June 28, 2011 NekkidCuties
Self Shots: June 28, 2011 Nudie Cuties
More Self Shots: June 28, 2011 NekkidCuties
More Self Shots: June 28, 2011 Nudie Cuties
Have you ever wondered why the average Indian who has any power is a petty bigot obsessed with control? This holds true both inside India, and outside it- though that appears to be changing.
Before we go any further, it should be understood that such attitudes are seen in all cultures- but seem to be especially strong in old world cultures.
Stagnant cultures, be they Indian, Chinese or French, tends to promote such people into positions of control and power. It is actually possible to quantify the degree of stagnation by looking at the prevalence of such attitudes in the governing institutions of that culture.
So what comes first- the chicken (dysfunctional people in government institutions) or the egg (stagnation)?
The chicken-egg analogy is especially apt since an increase in one leads to an increase in the other and vice-versa creating a ‘positive’ feedback loop. In my opinion, the egg (stagnation) comes first. All institutions have a certain percentage of scumbags, even if everything is growing and progressing.
The rise of scumbags can be traced to a certain type of magical thinking.
Let me explain that with an example- Imagine a culture where regular rainfall is necessary for good crop yields and is celebrated with a few human sacrifices. Now picture their reaction if the rains became irregular or started to fail. There are two distinct directions out of this quagmire-
1. Improve water management, population dispersion and grow alternative crops.
2. Sacrifice more people to placate the rain gods.
What do you think will happen? and why?
If you guessed that most cultures will go for option # 2, you are.. correct! The ‘why’ (aka reasoning) is however more complicated than most of you realize. People are likely to choose # 2 because it is easier and invokes good nostalgic memories. Option # 1, in contrast, represents the unknown and thinking through a problem- something most people abhor.
Therefore those who promote # 2 (tradition) will get more support during periods of stagnation when everyone is nostalgic for the good old days of plenty. Given that the ranks of such a traditional priesthood will most likely be filled with the most regressive and repressive scumbags, it is no wonder that such societies will start spending far more time thinking up more elaborate and rule-ridden rituals to please the rain gods. They will also vigorously oppose anything that even vaguely suggests they are wrong, fraudulent, ineffectual or just plain scum.
Prolonged economic or social stagnation therefore paradoxically selects the small-minded, control freak and ideologically rigid over those who can actually reverse the decline. Another related issue is that lay people will try to rationalize their initial choice for option # 2 by demanding ever more extreme CONservatism- something the human-sacrificing priests are only too willing to oblige.
In the end, petty bigots obsessed with control will wield most of the power.
Sheeple then rationalize and normalize the resultant dystopia. They expect people in positions of power and decision-making to behave like that. Of course, doing that leads to massive stagnation and dysfunction- but by then almost nobody cares.
People who have seen too many ww2-era documentaries and archival Nazi propaganda footage might believe that Mr. funny-mustache was always popular in Germany. Unfortunately, their version of history is lacking in facts. Prior to the severe unemployment crisis in early-1930 Germany, he and his ideologies did not have mainstream acceptance. Sure, there was always a minority of ardent supporters for his world view- but it was not something that most mainstream Germans were enamoured by or wanted to associate with.
While Nazism gained some respectability in Germany because of the onerous conditions imposed by the Versailles treaty– it never became mainstream till the early 1930s. Read a bit about how marginal the Nazis were, even at the height of disorder during the Wiemar republic. So why did that ideology gain popularity so rapidly in the early 1930s?
It has to do with loss of public faith in the established “elites”.
From the end of ww1 to the rise of Mr. funny-mustache, various combinations of the old “elites” had tried to fix the system and keep it afloat- often with disastrous consequences. They simply could not seem the fix things well enough, as each new solution seemed to work for some time and then unravel. The white- and blue-collar workers kept on suffering because of a drop in their living standards, destruction of savings and overt unemployment.
The straw that broke the camels back was the massive increase in unemployment in the early 1930s. Here is article about that phenomena.
and here is probably the most striking graph-
You will get Keynesian economic policies one way or the other.
Now have a look at this recent article-
Yahoo Article: Out of work for a while? Tell us your story
Read the over 1,600 comments and ask yourself- Why can’t something similar to what happened in Germany in the 1930s occur in the USA. Don’t forget that things were much more precarious during the 1930s in the USA than is widely believed.