Comments on: How to Succeed in the US without Really Trying

By: Booknotes: A Strange Stirring - The Pursuit of Harpyness

Booknotes: A Strange Stirring - The Pursuit of Harpyness — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:01:40 +0000

[...] pressure has on individual lives continues. Just look at the way in which we’ve personalized unemployment during this most recent [...]

By: notmandy

notmandy — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:35:22 +0000

Ted Williams headed to rehab. Oh man, you mean throwing a bunch of money at him doesn't solve all of his problems?

By: flackette

flackette — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:30:03 +0000

Regarding that “Big Bank” who looked like they wanted to support small businesses…
I actually asked a small business owner about that campaign and they said that their shop doesn’t take the credit card of that Big Bank because the Big Bank charges a large fee to businesses to be in their network. So the campaign was really only going to reward those small businesses that already pay the fee to belong to the network of the Big Bank and their credit card. It’s not like they were promoting small biz in general, by a long shot – just trying to rack up more fees for themselves.

By: PetiteXL

PetiteXL — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:35:03 +0000

@BearDownCBears - Yes, I agree about the rhetorical switcheroos and that they've always happened, but has the "little guy" ever been so roundly blamed for his predicament in the news? I ask seriously, because in my own memory and what I can recall from what I've read about the past, I don't think they have. Certainly policies/politicians have been attacked, but the extreme emphasis on the individual these days seems new to me. There are just so many "news" articles implying this and the effects are so pernicious: Refusing to Hire the Unemployed

By: BearDownCBears

BearDownCBears — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:45:17 +0000

@petiteXL: Hey, rhetorical switcheroos are the name of the game. After they hiked up payroll tax to buy bonds for the SS Trust Fund in the 80s after they figured out the Boomers weren’t going to replace themselves, because SS had to “pay for itself,” that didn’t stop the government from using that cash-flow to cushion the impact of deficit-busting wars and tax cuts, because hey, it’s all revenue, right? However, when it’s time to talk about the deficit, SS suddenly has to pay for itself again.

By: PetiteXL

PetiteXL — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:03:53 +0000

Great post, PhDork. On a somewhat related note, I've really begun to notice how often unemployment insurance benefits are referred to in the news simply as jobless benefits or unemployment benefits, effectively erasing the fact that (with the exception of the extension of benefits) these benefits are INSURANCE that people have been paying into, sometimes for their entire working lives! Words really matter here, because this increases the perception that the unemployed are "getting something" others are not. Another thing I've noticed in the news is the disparagement of even workers who have been laid off, implying that those workers were laid off because they just weren't quite as good as the others and this was a convenient time to drop the dead weight. I have no doubt that sometimes this is true, but it sure is a convenient excuse for corporate America. See: Ben Stein is a jerk.

By: Ms. M

Ms. M — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:21:44 +0000

I’ve been really unhappy with the erasing of both 1) the family and people he left behind and 2) the way too many people who are homeless, showing just how shitty our societal support system is.

By: SarahMC

SarahMC — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:51:47 +0000
Relevant! NYMag on his ex-wife: "Not only did Patricia Kirtley raise four daughters alone after Williams ("who seems to be a nice guy," the paper speculates) left his family, but she also took in a baby boy he had with another woman. What's more, she did it all while being partially blind."

By: Endora

Endora — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:25:42 +0000

@BearDownCBears: I laughed at that.

I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s life and decisions, but so many people forget that a) many people in this world exploit other people and b) not everyone who is exploited has the power to change their situation. In fact very many don’t.

In fact most of us play a role in both a and b of that sentence, but some more to one side than the others.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:59:36 +0000

It’s the Calvinist world view: God rewards the good with riches and punishes the bad with poverty. Nowadays we see the lottery or some eccentric millionaire as God, that’s all.

What is with that silly study anyhow? Why does this nonsense get funded? What are they going to do, market women’s tears as a treatment for sex offenders?