Why Don’t You Grow Up Already, 20-Something?
by Christine Dinh
I’m on the brink of a quarter life crisis. (This does exist; the self-help section at my local Borders tells me so.) As my 25th birthday nears, I’m reassessing my goals and plans. I won’t deny I’m not where I thought I’d be when I walked across Alumni Park to accept my college diploma several years ago. I’m currently experiencing a second adolescence. And it’s not because I’m constantly being told I look like I’m 16.
And according to the New York Times, if you’re a 20-something, you’re experiencing it too. The article notes some key milestones that mark the “transition to adulthood”: graduating college, leaving the parental nest and buying a place of your own, financial independence, marrying and popping out some babies. However, those in my age range are taking longer to hit those milestones, if we’re working towards them at all.
[Fany in After Hours]
If you don’t want to read through all 20-something character profiles to get to the meaty facts, the good people over at Lemondrop have simplified all the data into a snazzy list. How can you tell you’re a 20-something according to the New York Times?
- Permanent residence is most likely your parent’s address because you’re more likely to move every year.
- You’re living through a second adolescence because we’re less likely to hit all five milestones by the time we’re 30 compared to previous generations. Not our fault of course. Let’s play the blame game with social and economic changes.
- Getting that MRS degree is no longer that important because you’re already cohabitating with them or planning on it.
- You’ve job-hopped, and will on average job-hop at least seven times because…
- You consider all your life options still open. We’re young and have the rest of our lives to get where we want to/need to be one day so why settle? The optimism and confidence is positively nauseating.
- You’re once again living under your parents’ roof. You’ve kicked the rules and the curfew to the curb, but hopefully…
- You’re back on the parental payroll, baby.
- You can’t help yourself; you’re reacting before you think.
- You want to take a year off to travel or chase those philanthropic pursuits. I’m sure Facebook likes to rub it in your face, as it does mine, that some of your friends are out and about doing just that post-college.
- You’re not the only one experiencing a quarter-life crisis. Your friends are too.
We were spoon-fed all through college that we were going to rock at life once we graduated. However, the world seems a little daunting now that the gold stars, high fives and words of encouragements are harder to come by.
You’re supposed to be who you’re supposed to be, meet who you’re supposed to meet, and try everything you want to try all during your 20s. But who can juggle climbing that corporate ladder, taking on another non-profit cause and squeezing in some playtime?
Is it possible that we’ve become too focused on personal enlightenment and personal happiness that we’ve delayed adulthood offsetting the chances we’ll even complete at least half of that list of milestones? Most likely, but hey, you know what, I’m pretty certain it’ll all work out in the end because we won’t be a bleary-eyed statistic.
Best Trend Article Ever
Joyce Wadler deserves the Pulitzer for innovation in trend pieces.
For most journalists, trend and lifestyle pieces are total drags to write. Journalism school grads get into the newspaper biz hoping to be the next Bob Woodward. When they get assigned to write fluff articles about people with eccentric apartments, that spark is often crushed. They start phoning it in, sending out email blasts to friends with subject lines like "re: bad dating/apartment stories. Pls help. Deadline tues. morn,"
Wadler, a longtime New York Times writer, has clearly gone the opposite route with her story about romance-disabling apartments. She has created a modern journalism wonder: the trend piece equivalent of a car crash.
While it contains some classic Times-isms (one prospective dater complains about a date's cliched Klimt and Robert Doisneau prints and another laments that a lover left because of a too-opulent apartment), Wadler profiles two fairly bizarre characters, and manages the very difficult feat of telling their stories with a straight face.
According to the story, 70-year-old millionaire Albert Podell has apparently had some trouble meeting the right lady, and blames his tiny, cluttered rent controlled Soho apartment for his problems. Which, judging from the description of the apartment, seems reasonable.
"It's totally unchanged, like it was when I went to law school in 1973, a time warp," Mr. Podell says of his small one-bedroom in SoHo, a description that seems plausible, given the hot pink living room with the futon seating and the fraying contact paper on the kitchen cabinets.
Then there's 46-year-old Bob Strauss, whose apartment seems far more acceptable for other human beings than Podell, save a couple of eccentric touches.
Bob Strauss, 46, who writes dating advice for match.com and has a real stuffed baby seal in his apartment. He didn't whack the seal on its silky little head, it's a family piece inherited from a rich aunt and uncle in Miami.
It is displayed along with Mr. Strauss's South Park and Sonic the Hedgehog figurines and Lego collection.
Thank god the article includes photographs. Otherwise, the reader would never know that Albert looks like Warwick Davis's Leprechaun in grandpa sandals and a too-tight bright red turtleneck. It took a heroic amount of restraint for Wadler to keep that out of the text.
The picture also illuminates the sad case of Bob Strauss. He looks like a salt and pepper-haired Frankenstein crossed with Subway spokes-schlub Jared, and apparently has a fair amount of trouble navigating a buttoned-down shirt. His collar is askew in about seven different ways and his shirt front is awkwardly stuffed into his droopy jeans, showing off a tasty weave belt.
Miraculously, Wadler kept herself from mentioning that the stuffed seal is obviously the least of this chief's dating problems or underlining the irony that Captain Suave allegedly writes a DATING COLUMN FOR MATCH.COM by, like, I don't know, writing it in all-caps or something.
Honestly, I read the article twice. It's an article in the "Home and Garden" section of the New York Times. Nothing in that section has ever appealed to me before. And I'm not alone: it's the most emailed story on the Times site.
Sweet, Sweet Manipulation
The news coming out of Washington was exciting this weekend: Iran is supplying the evil Iraqi militias with bombs! How dare they! They must be stopped! We must Bomb them, maim them, fucking destroy them! Only America decides whom arms and kills people in Iraq! Time to get our war on - again.
Or is it? The article that began this new storyline was written by the New York Times, a once grand newspaper that now cannot be trusted when it comes to matters of foreign policy and the Bush administration. During the build up to the war in Iraq, the New York Times ran several badly misleading or totally inaccurate articles about Iraqi WMDs. Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon wrote the articles. Judith Miller was eventually fired from the paper. Guess who wrote this weekends article about Iran? Mr. Gordon, please stand up.
Good old Gordon, the worlds shittiest journalist. His claims that Iran is supplying the deadliest weapon aimed at American troops in Iraq comes from very solid sources: "Administration officials," "intelligence experts" and "American intelligence." Im sure theyre the same intelligence officials who gave Gordon all that good intel about Iraqs WMDs. The story is covered quite differently in the New York Times than it is in the Washington Post.
The Times:
The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.
The Washington Post:
"Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence."
Really impressive reporting from the New York Times, but what else is new?
The article by Gordon/Miller that really got the ball rolling on Iraq was published on Sept. 8, 2002. It was about Iraqs aluminum tubes and was very influential in the administrations attempt to convince the American public that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program. The article cited administration officials who insisted that the tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, the story was total horseshit.
The New York Times eventually admitted some stories were wrong or overblown and specifically named the Gordon/Miller aluminum tubes story. But by that time the damage had been done. Iraq had been invaded and the US was now an occupying force. Oops.
Heres a choice sample of Gordons writing pulled from the article:
Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.
Ooo, not a mushroom cloud! Lets kill everybody who might do something! This weekends news has the same manipulated intelligence feel as the build up to the Iraq war.
Gordon greased the shoot on Saturday and liked a well-scripted play, US defense and intelligence officials followed up on Sunday. They showed reporters solid evidence that Iran was providing bombs to militias and accused Irans supreme leader of backing the smuggling of the explosives.
Of course, the US officials would not allow themselves to be identified by name and did not allow cameras or recording devices inside the room, so reporters could not take pictures of the Iranian explosives. Whats more credible than an anonymous, unsubstantiated claim from the military?
This blatant bullshit comes on the heels of the National Intelligence Estimate, released just over a week ago that states Iraq is completely falling apart and there is little the US can do about it. The NIE also downplays the role of Iran and Syria.
"The involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics," says the report, compiled by experts from the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.
The US claims also come on the heels of a report by the Defense Department's inspector general
That depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Interesting timing to start screaming, "Iran, Iran, Iran!" But unfortunately for Bush and co., soon to be fired General Peter Pace called bullshit on any link to the Iranian government today.
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this."
Note to military: Tell everyone about the lies, dont leave the guy visiting Australia hanging.
Jonathan Kesselmans Suicide Watch: The So-Called Nation Of Iran
The Middle-East-leaning newspaper, The NY Times has published yet another article about the so-called nation of Iran. I have been silent for too long; I will be silent no more! Frankly, I am sick and tired of the propaganda and so Ive decided to go on record and state that I firmly believe that there is no such place. This elaborate hoax has been foisted upon us by the leaders of the Western World, particularly the American and British Governments, in order to scare us into compliance. Before you dismiss my claims, please read further.
The supposed Islamic Republic of Iran, has been reported to border Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to the north, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the east, and Turkey and Iraq to the west.
First off, the notion that there is even a place called Turkmenistan is ridiculous! Think about it, people. Think long and hard. Have you EVER heard, read, or seen anything about a place called Turkmenistan? I sure the heck havent. And logic follows, that if Turkmenistan borders the so-called Iran, than the so-called Iran must be that; so-called, that is.
Are you following? No? Well, here are some more FACTS for you
It has been purported that the current President of Iran, a man that goes by the name of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been holding a conference to debate the existence of the Holocaust. In its reporting of this conference, The NY Times states that the conference was attended by Iranian Scholars, Holocaust deniers, and leaders from the White Supremacist movement. Lets examine this claim more closely. For starters, notice how many of the key words in this paragraph have quotation marks around them? This is typically a sign that someone has been making stuff up.
Still not a true believer? Than take a look at the following picture from the Times article:
In the article, the caption of this photo says that man on the left is none other than David Duke, former leader of the Klu Klux Klan. Now look closely.
No. Closer. Put your nose right up to the screen.
Okay, pull back a little bit. You just got a little shmutz on the monitor.
Perfect.
That isnt David Duke, is it!? That man is, in fact, the actor Mark Hamill (of Luke Skywalker fame), and the photo was actually taken at a 2005 press conference for the Nickelodeon animated program Avatar: The Last Airbender in which Hamill voiced the character of Fire Lord Ozai! Need more proof? If you click the link below youll find another photo taken of Hamill from around the same time in 2005, when he attended the Star Wars: Episode III Revenge Of The Sith premiere:
B-u-s-t-e-d! The NY Times calls itself the Newspaper of Record. More like, the Newspaper of RECREANT!!!
FYI - I scoured the thesaurus for a term that was similar to RECORD, but would sort of have the opposite meaning. RECREANT was the best I could do. Sorry.
Anyway, since the invention of the word, Iran, the leaders of the free world have been holding us hostage with it. Youre probably wondering why these shadowy Western World Governments would go to such lengths to create such an elaborate hoax; a fairy tale, for lack of a better two words? The answer is quite simple. As they bombard us with news stories of Jihad and the imminent threat of a nuclear attack, we quiver in fear. We drink their Kool-Aid as they start wars for oil and dominate the region of the Middle East (not including the made up Iran, of course). In the days of yore, world leaders would use religion to keep us, their peasants, in line while they distracted us from their agenda du jour. But today, religion is no longer enough! Now, they need things like Iran, and Starbucks Coffee, and Internet Porn to distract us. Well, strike the so-called-nation of Iran off that list, because it DOESNT EVEN EXIST!
Internet Porn, however, is alive and well. Dont believe me? Click the Sign Up link at the top right of this web page, grab a jug of hand lotion, and get ready to rumble.
Jon_Kesselman is the filmmaker responsible for THE HEBREW HAMMER. Everything that happened in that film was true.
New York Times Endorses Lamont - But Probably Too Late
Ned Lamont was supposed to be the Cinderella story of the year for progressive Democrats. His candidacy in the Democratic was originally thought to be little more than a mild diversion from "Joementum", the inevitable force that would easily propel one of the most prominent Senate Democrats back into office for another term. But something happened along the way, and Lamont's tireless ribbing of Lieberman for his pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Republican stances finally caught on, and in a surprise victory Lamont narrowly edged out the incumbent for the Democratic nomination. Not taking "No" for an answer, Lieberman insisted on running anyway as an independent. Common wisdom would have people believe that in a two-party system such as the US has, the election would come to a race between Ned Lamont and also-ran Alan Schlesinger, who is polling somewhere that easily rounds down to zero.
The icing on the cake for Lamont should be tomorrow's ringing endorsement for him from the New York times, which eloquently states why it makes sense to vote for Lamont this year, but it's not clear Connecticut voters are listening or even care at this point.
Mr. Lieberman, a three-term Democratic senator now running as an independent, talks about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Mr. Lamont, who beat Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, reminds voters what a mess the invasion created. When it comes to the next step, Mr. Lieberman seems to mimic the Bush administrations proposal to stay the course (while no longer mentioning that toxic phrase) with new tactics. Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail.
[...]
We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman. The country is full of Republicans who now realize the Iraq invasion was a disaster, either in its basic concept or in its execution. The most honorable of them are in agony over what has happened. Mr. Lieberman, who had not only continually defended the administrations Iraq policy but also attacked Democrats who criticized the president, had more cause for soul-searching than most.
But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to Al Qaeda types. His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.
Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image Its not about politics, say his ads. But it is very much about politics from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Liebermans way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error.
We are living in perilous times. Being able to work with the opposition party Mr. Liebermans claim to fame is hardly a sign of moral courage when the opposition party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. President Bush did not need Mr. Liebermans persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed and what Connecticut had the right to expect was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control.
The Times essentially echoes the opinions of most progressive pundits and web commentators on Lieberman, who has become the favorite whipping boy of the left (the video of him being kissed by George W. Bush didn't help). But Connecticut voters apparently aren't paying much attention to those pundits, with the most recent polling results showing Lieberman with what likely amounts to an insurmountable lead this close to election day.
Republican Alan Schlesinger trailed with just 6 percent support, versus 52 percent for Lieberman and 35 percent for Lamont, who has poured $12 million into the campaign.
Even if he isn't a Democrat (in a state that is solidly blue) Lieberman's name recognition, position of prominence and incumbency seem to be big factors in his winning the election anyway. So while the papers and the talking heads may support Lamont, it's looking a lot like Lieberman will be heading back to Washington this year.
New York Times Pulls A Fox News
The New York Times continues to go down the shitter as they attempt to fight off the conservative attacks by placating them. This time the story involves a blatant attack on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats by reporter Anne Kornblut.
Kornblut was reporting on Senator Clintons trip to Arkansas and decided to spice it up with some creative editing. This is how Clintons speech to the Arkansas Federation of Democratic Women was reported:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.
Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.
Wow, thats a pretty bold statement from Hillary, but mostly because Kornblut removed the part of the quote that mentions Republicans. Here's what Clinton said:
You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way.
The reporter also takes a shot at the Clintons marriage when she makes sure to emphasize that Bill was supposed to make the trip but instead went to Africa. She (Hillary) made the trip solo. Quality reporting from the New York Times.
Shhhhhh, It's a Secret
So the administration has their collective panties in a bunch over the New York Times story on financial transaction monitoring. The red-faced rhetoric cascading from Capitol Hill has reached almost comic proportions. Osama bin Laden himself doesn't even rate scare quotes like these anymore:
President George W. Bush (6/26/06):
"...And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
Vice President Dick Cheney (6/23/06):
"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends me."
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (6/26/06):
"The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live, and whether, in fact, the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans."
U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) (6/27/06):
"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason. What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in winning the war on terror.
Disgraceful. Offensive. Making it harder to win. Jeopardizing the safety of Americans. Treason. Aid and Comfort. That's pretty harsh language. They must be pretty sure that the Times really tipped off the terrorists and put us all at risk. They're upstanding like that.
But there sure does seem to be a lot of information about fighting terrorist financing on U.S. government public websites:
Whitehouse.gov (9/24/01):
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists...that a need exists for further consultation and cooperation with, and sharing of information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism.
[...]
Sec. 6. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other appropriate agencies shall make all relevant efforts to cooperate and coordinate with other countries, including through technical assistance, as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements, to achieve the objectives of this order, including the prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism, the denial of financing and financial services to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and the sharing of intelligence about funding activities in support of terrorism.
This Executive Order is part of a broader strategy that we have developed for suppressing terrorist financing:
A Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT) is up and running. The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place.
Treasury Department press release (3/03/03):
U.S. Treasury Department Announces New Executive Office for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes
The United States Treasury Department today announced the formation of a new Executive Office for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes (EOTF/FC) reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary. This office has been charged with coordinating and leading the Treasury Departments multi-faceted efforts to combat terrorist financing and other financial crimes, both within the United States as well as abroad.
[...]
To continue Treasurys leadership on these critical issues, the new Office is charged with the following duties: developing and implementing U.S. government strategies to combat terrorist financing domestically and internationally...joining in representation of the United States at focused international bodies dedicated to fighting terrorist financing and financial crimes; and developing U.S. government policies relating to financial crimes.
What specific procedures have U.S. law enforcement agencies put in place to focus their investigations, using the universe of financial information?
Mike Morehart also addresses the specific taskings of his Terrorist Financing Operations Section--which never takes its eye off money trails. Its mission?
- To conduct full financial analysis of terrorist suspects and their financial support structures in the U.S. and abroad.
- To enlarge its financial information base through private, government, and international sources.
- To directly share and work with the financial information of international law enforcement agencies.
- To work shoulder to shoulder on cases with prosecutors; with law enforcement and regulatory communities; and with the intelligence community.
- To develop predictive models and conduct data analysis that will lead to the identification of previously unknown terrorist suspects.
We have built an international coalition that is applying more rigorous financial standards and controls to help prevent terrorists' use of the international financial system.
In the media: via Lexis-Nexis (links unavailable)
The New York Times
April 10, 2005
SECTION: Section 1; Column 6; National Desk; Pg. 1
HEADLINE: U.S. SEEKS ACCESS TO BANK RECORDS TO DETER TERROR
BYLINE: By ERIC LICHTBLAU
The Bush administration is developing a plan to give the government access to possibly hundreds of millions of international banking records in an effort to trace and deter terrorist financing, even as many bankers say they already feel besieged by government antiterrorism rules that they consider overly burdensome.
Christian Science Monitor
April 8, 2004
SECTION: FEATURES; PLANET; Pg. 14
HEADLINE: The war on terror money
BYLINE: By David R. Francis Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Quietly and steadily, nations, police detectives, bankers, accountants, and others are striving to expose and trim back the shadowy networks that fund militant groups around the world. The campaign isn't likely to block all their attacks. Terrorist acts turn out to be relatively cheap to finance. But moves to deny funds to terrorist groups for recruitment and training could impede or limit future assaults. And the money-tracking efforts also sometimes provide leads to these violent groups.
[...]
On the international front, terrorism financing is on the top of the agenda at meetings of both the G-7 and the G-20, says the Treasury's Mr. Zarate. The G-7 comprises the seven largest industrial nations, and the G-20 includes these as well as major developing countries. The IMF and World Bank have just expanded their programs on terror financing.
The Boston Globe
November 1, 2001
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1
HEADLINE: NATIONS AIM AT TERRORIST FINANCING
BYLINE: By Scott Bernard Nelson, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON - Twenty-nine countries agreed yesterday to combine forces in an effort to choke off terrorist financing...
[...]
The announcement, following two days of emergency meetings called by the international Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, calls on governments to freeze assets linked to terrorist groups and to step up efforts to keep suspected terrorists from anonymously using the global financial system. The deal came less than a week after Congress revamped US regulation of banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and check cashers.
Maybe before those on the right (including more than a few elected officials) move any further down the road of treason accusations, they should look at how many times the administration has bragged about cracking down on terrorist financing, not to mention the coverage those boasts have received in the media. Even the clowns arrested for terrorist plotting in Miami aren't stupid enough to ignore all the attention heaped on financial networks post-9/11. Too bad the same can't be said for the people calling for NYT blood this week.