Target Knows When You Are Pregnant

Charles Duhigg published a recent exposé in the New York Times about the information Target collects about its customers to try to change their buying habits. If I had overheard someone recounting the details on the street, I would have assumed he was a moderately deranged conspiracy theorist. But it's not a conspiracy. It's all true.

Most big companies now employ statisticians to try to predict and shape customers' buying patterns. Target is apparently just better at it than most. People are slaves to their own shopping habits. But there are certain times in their lives when they are more likely than usual to change their patterns. One of the primary such times is when a woman is pregnant. Any bush league company can search public records to figure our when a baby was born. And many do. So when a woman has a baby, she's instantly ambushed with piles of store ads and coupons. Once the word is out, however, it's hard for any one store to stand out above all the noise. Target realized that it would have a huge advantage if it could get its ads and coupons out to women before they gave birth. In particular, they figured out that pregnant women in the beginning of their second trimesters were the jackpot. That's when they started buying all the preparatory junk they figured they'd need when their babies came along, and when they were most susceptible to pressure to shop somewhere else.

The Target statisticians were able to come up with a "pregnancy prediction" score - a basket of 25 products that could determine, with about 87% accuracy whether a shopper was a pregnant woman. The basket included things like unscented lotion, hand sanitizers, calcium and zinc supplements, and large bags of cotton balls. Coming up with a list of names and home addresses of tens of thousands of expectant mothers was easy. Target realized quickly, however, that sending ads and coupons for baby products to women who had never told Target they were pregnant was a good way to make those women completely flip out. To be confronted with the stark reality that a giant corporation was peeping into the most intimate corners of their lives crossed some line. Too big brother. Too skeevy. So Target further refined its methods to be a bit more subtle. Having the technological capacity to create individualized ad and coupon mailings for specific people, the materials they sent to pregnant women had lots of baby stuff, but just enough other unrelated items - lawnmowers, wine glasses, whatever - to make the ads seem random. The strategy of profiling customers, but in a way just subtle enough that the customers didn't realize they were being profiled, was a blockbuster for Target. Its revenues went through the roof when they started profiling customers in this way.

So. Anything wrong with this? People react strongly, negatively, when they learn that they're being profiled. That Target is so secretive about the fact that it uses statistical profiling, and that it knows it has to be subtle enough about it so that people don't realize they're being profiled, suggests that the practice is at least somewhat questionable. On the other hand, nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. We're all adults. Ads are ads and we all know to take them with a grain of salt. The Target PR team would probably say that the company is just very effective at figuring out what people want and offering it to them. And maybe that's right.

It seems like there's a line to be drawn between making people aware of the products you have to offer and nefarious psychological manipulation. But exactly where one leaves off and the other begins is, of course, almost impossible to pinpoint. When do our actions stop being subject to our own conscious free will and start being controlled by imperceptible manipulation? What about babe-o-licious light beer ads, for example? Every guy knows, rationally, that buying a case of shitty, watered down swill is not going to give him firm pectoral muscles and make a gaggle of hot women want to drag him off to bed. But the ads work. Beer companies wouldn't spend billions of dollars a year on them if they didn't. None of us think we're gullible, stupid, subject to obvious manipulation. But alas, we are.

So what to do? I can think of a few alternatives:

1) Surrender. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Watch more TV. Construct a self-image based on material possessions, impossible physical beauty and brand names. Buy lots of stuff on impulse, especially things that are right at eye level when you walk into a store. Show off your car. Play a lot of Keno.

2) Withdraw. Don't subscribe to magazines, use credit cards, send e-mails, get a mortgage or post anything on-line. Move to the third world. Live in a hut. (There are ads out in the bush too. So maybe poke your eyes out to be safe.) Cut off all ties to the modern world. And if you still can't shake the manipulative forces of 21st century capitalism from your scent, you might just have to go drown yourself in a river.

3) Trust no-one; Believe in conspiracy theories; Become paranoid. A little disconcerting, I know. But this is the choice I'd advocate for. Our every move is being watched and recorded! It's not a conspiracy theory if it's real. It's not paranoia if it's justified. The forces at work out there aren't part of some evil empire trying to conquer and destroy us. They're just engaged in the old-as-humanity-itself game of trying to separate us from a few bucks. But they're getting really good at it. So, follow the money. Be aware of which of your desires come from deep within yourself and which are being subtly imposed by some well-honed ad campaign. Don't buy shitty light beer. And, next time you go to Target, pick up some calcium and unscented hand lotion to throw them off your trail.

If Corporations are People, They’re Pussies and Should Have Their Asses Kicked on the Playground

Lowes announced last month that it was pulling its ads from the TV show “All American Muslim,” a reality show about five Muslim families living in Dearborn, Michigan. By all accounts, “All American Muslim” is about as mundane and innocuous a show as exists these days. It shows real-life Muslims talking about things like whether their shower tiles need to be re-caulked and whether their little sister’s new boyfriend is a douche. It’s not a hugely popular show; most people I know had never heard of it before the Lowes brouhaha. And, ironically, it’s probably about the best kind of show possible for easing racial and religious tensions. It shows Muslims, in their natural habitat, worrying about the same kinds of boring, mundane minutiae of modern life that concern human beings of every race, color and creed. The only thing notable about the Muslims portrayed in the show seems to be how utterly unremarkable they are.

Lowes pulled its ads after getting a letter from the Florida Family Association. FFA told Lowes that “All American Muslim” was “hiding the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values” and demanded that it stop supporting the show through its advertising. Not only is this accusation hysterical, bigoted and just flat out stupid, but the FFA is a piddly, piss-ant little lint ball of an organization effectively run by one person, David Canton, with an annual budget of less than $200,000. Mr. Canton’s strength seems to be his ability to write scary letters that make it sound as if his organization is supported by more than the handful of assholes who actually do back his mission. Before getting all wound up about Muslims, Mr. Canton focused on shows that promoted the homosexual lifestyle, such as “Modern Family” and the always envelope-pushing “Degrassi High.” And what did Lowes – the country’s second largest home improvement retailer, a corporate behemoth with 1,749 stores, 197 million square feet of retail selling space and $48 billion in annual revenues – do when it received a demand from one twisted little white guy in Florida who probably didn’t get enough attention from his dad as a kid? It folded like a little bitch.

When it came to standing up to a bully and doing the right thing, Lowes proved to be a quivering little twerp, the most groveling, insecure little pussy on the playground. But I don’t blame Lowes itself. Lowes is just a person, as we know from Citizens United (which, in case you haven’t heard me mention it 8 or 10 thousand times before, is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that held that corporations are people whose free speech rights cannot be suppressed by laws created through the democratic process by human beings). And public corporations are, down to their very DNA, pussies.

Private corporations sometimes have a little more spine. They are owned by smaller, concentrated groups of people and can run themselves in whatever way they see fit. If they want to pay more than minimum wage, or give better benefits than is market, or support causes that are non-mainstream or controversial, they can do so, even if it would result in slightly reduced quarterly profits. But public corporations are different. Capital markets are fluid and fickle. Maintaining a steady but even business is deadly. If you’re a corporation with a large, diffuse shareholder base, you have no choice but continuously to expand. Without fast, consistent growth, your shareholders will flee, your financing will dry up and you, poor pathetic corporation, will be left for dead. And if you’re a corporation that has reached a certain critical size, the only way for you to continue to grow is to become ever more bland and ubiquitous, so utterly mainstream and inoffensive that every last person in the country will find you just tolerable enough to send some disposable income your way. From a marketing perspective, a large corporation simply cannot, at any cost, rock the boat one teensy weensy little bit.

David Canton is an outlier. I’d like to believe, and I actually do believe, that very few people in this country agree with him that seemingly workaday Muslims in Michigan are in fact hiding some radical flavor of Islam, waiting for just the right moment to spring it on us and take over the country. But the issue is not quite settled yet. There are plenty of Americans who are still scared enough by 9/11 or ignorant enough about what true Islam stands for in the first place, that any mere suggestion of radicalism or terrorism can put them on edge. And putting people on edge is not what makes them buy shit from you. And so, if you’re Lowes, even if David Canton is an outcast idiot with no followers, you worry that maybe he’s onto something. Maybe some people will think he’s right, and won’t like you if you don’t do what he says. And so just in case, you listen to him. You capitulate.

It takes balls to stand up for a cause that’s real and current and divisive. Corporations are all about waiving the banner for principals of justice and equality, but only for causes that have been long settled. Standing behind Martin Luther King, Jr. or Jackie Robinson or Rosa Parks is a great way to sell sneakers. But it’s not all that impressive to declare your allegiance to a battle that was won two generations ago. In the end, Lowes probably got its comeuppance. The backlash against Lowes’ having removed its ads from “American Muslim” got more attention than the show ever did on its own. Lowes came away looking like the scared little wussy that it is.

Anti government types have done a good job convincing people that government is the source of all oppression. But there will always be, and there always has to be, some source of power that controls our society. As power shifts away from government, the most likely candidate to sponge up the power and fill the void is corporations. Whatever weaknesses and flaws democratically elected governments have, at least, at their core, their fundamental purpose is to protect and help their constituents. Corporations don’t have that mandate. Their reason for being is to create perpetually increasing shareholder value. To do that means pandering to the broadest base of spenders. And that means offending no-one, never taking a stand, and capitulating to any force that threatens even the most miniscule hint of discord. If we want the contours of our modern existence to be defined by the Lowes of the world, by the most insecure little ninth grade girls at the high school dance, trashing government and standing up for corporate personhood is the way to go. But if we prefer that the “people” we want to be in charge not be the most spineless, pathetically weak among us, we need to get things moving in another direction. Corporations may be people, and they may be good at making money, but they’re not the ones we want calling the shots. They’re pussies and should have their asses kicked on the playground.

Would Jesus Really Eat Mor Chikin?

I read an article this morning about a silkscreener in Vermont who's being harassed by Chick-fil-A about tee shirts he started making that say "eat more kale." The guy's neighbor is a kale farmer, and the slogan was meant as an expression of the benefits of local agriculture. It caught on and is now apparently a common sight on tee shirts and bumper stickers in central Vermont. Chick-fil-A owns the trademark "eat mor chikin" and asserted in a cease and desist letter that the kale slogan would confuse customers.

The slogan "eat mor chikin" is misspelled because it is written by cows. Chick-fil-A's main ad campaign has pictures of cute cartoon cows holding signs encouraging people to each chicken instead of beef. If you think about it a little, it's sort of a sick concept. One species of animal effectively lobbying children to spare them from genocide. Instead of slaughtering and factory-processing caged, hormone fed, covered-in-their-own-feces bovines, the cartoon cows are begging to be spared at the expense of caged, hormone fed, genetically-modified-to-the-point-of-hardly-remaining-actual-animal birds. Nonetheless, factory food is a very competitive industry, and its titans cannot risk diminishing market share as a result of kale propaganda.

From an intellectual property standpoint, Chick-fil-A has a pretty weak case. Its argument turns on whether the "eat more kale" slogan confuses consumers. A lot of people have never heard of kale. Most people could probably not make a positive ID of kale in a lineup of other leafy greens. It's hard to imagine a single person buying an "eat more kale" shirt from a hippy in Vermont, all the time thinking they were supporting Chick-fil-A. Whatever top-tier law firm that has the honor of serving as Chick-fil-A's corporate counsel probably knows perfectly well that it would lose this case if it ever went to court. But in most corporate behemoth vs. Vermont farmer cases, a threatening letter is enough to scare off the alleged infringer. In this case, the kale guy got some pro bono legal help from the University of New Hampshire law school. So he'll probably be OK. Some bright-eyed student will make a name for himself standing up for kale in the face of oppression by genocidal cartoon cows.

But beyond the legal issue, what about all the larger underlying principles that are in play here? When I hear about idiot corporate moves like this, I usually jump right into the company's SEC filings to learn about what principles of morality, decency and plain old common sense are being violated. In this case, however, it turns out that that despite being the second largest chicken restaurant chain in the country (after KFC) with annual revenues of more than $3.5 billion, Chick-fil-A is still a privately held company. It's owned by the Cathy family of Atlanta. The Chick-fil-A website has a link to the Cathy family website. And the Cathy family website has a whole section about the family's values and faith, which, in turn has a link to the New Hope Baptist Church. As a private company, Chick-fil-A does not have any reporting obligations to the SEC. But its owners report to a higher power. Jesus.

So when evaluating the morality of silencing hippy kale farmers in Vermont in the name of hawking fast food chicken, it seems fair to check out the institution Chick-fil-A's owners point to as being their moral compass, and see what they have to say. Here are some of the principals the New Hope Baptist Church explains in the "What We Believe" section of its website:

"Primarily, businesses are driven by profit. Some people are driven by the desire to accumulate wealth while others may be driven by image, success, or acceptance. Jesus had a clear mission. Jesus came to 'seek and to save that which was lost' (Luke 19:10 )." "Jesus lived a sinless life. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Jesus rose from the dead and will return to earth to gather His children and judge the world." "The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears. Since God's Word is the only completely reliable and truthful authority, we accept the Bible as our manual for living. Our first question when faced with a decision is 'What does the Bible say?' The Bible is the basis for all we believe." "But you, the King's priests, God's own people, chosen to proclaim the wonderful acts of God." 1 Peter 2:9 (TEV)

In a nutshell: when evaluating the merits of salad versus factory-produced fast food, conglomerates versus individuals, and threatening baseless litigation on the theory that deep pockets will win out over some dude in Vermont before an issue ever makes it in front of a judge, we should see what the Bible has to say, and we should follow Jesus' example. I know very little about what the Bible says, so I'm just working off of my own perceptions and stuff I've overheard on the street. If I could spend ten minutes interviewing Jesus about his take on kale produced on a small farm in Vermont, I imagine he would bring up things like: it's a vegetable; it's healthy; it sustains people without killing animals; family farms are nice; it doesn't require deforestation. Stuff like that. Kale was around during the time when Jesus was alive, but deep fried fast food was not. So I'd have to explain how that whole system works. And while it could be that Jesus would see some virtues in the network of factory food, mass distribution and advertising that underpins any fast food conglomerate, I have to think that he would have some issues too. Genetic manipulation and torture of animals; destruction of the environment; brainwashing kids through cartoon advertisements; loading people up with enough chemicals and fat to make them obese, diabetic, and, ultimately dead before their time. I think Jesus would be concerned.

"Eat more" anything is a plain English term that is probably not legitimately subject to trademark protections in the first place. Most companies don't purport to report to any higher power than its shareholders and government regulators. But Chick-fil-A does. Its owners say that Jesus and the Bible are the go-to manual to consult for moral guidance. Trying to silence a kale farmer in the name of selling shit food to kids seems hard to reconcile with the teachings of the Bible. Jesus would probably choose a salad. Chick-fil-A and its religious owners should leave the Vermont silkscreener and his kale farming friend alone.

Genocide in Wilmington - Save the Corporations!

We hear all the time about the genocides taking place in Rwanda and Sudan and the Congo. But there is another genocide taking place much closer to home. Quietly, with little notice, during normal business hours every day of the year, people are being killed by faceless bureaucrats. It happens in all states, but the epicenter is in Wilmington, Delaware. The office responsible – operating under the sadistically ironic moniker “SOS” – is the Secretary of State.

As publicized recently by human rights activist Mitt Romney, the Supreme Court of the United States declared boldly and unequivocally in its 2010 Citizens United decision that corporations are people. The court noted that “certain disfavored associations of citizens – those that have taken on the corporate form – are penalized for engaging in the same political speech” as other kinds of people – those who have taken on the human form. The Citizens United decision has gotten a huge amount of attention in the national dialog about free speech rights. But, astonishingly, while we, as Americans, have gone to great lengths to assure that our corporate brothers and sisters can express themselves as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, we seem to be utterly un-phased by the fact that these same corporations are being systematically and summarily exterminated in clear violation of their even more fundamental right – the right highlighted in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence – to life.

Corporations are people. These people are being exterminated every day. Systematic and widespread killing of a people, based on the kind of people they are, is the very definition of genocide.

If a person in the form of a corporation ceases to be useful to its “owners,” it can be eliminated. The process is easy and doesn’t take more than a few minutes. It just takes filing a one page Certificate of Dissolution with the SOS and paying a $204 processing fee. It can be done by fax. No originals needed. Expedited 24 hour confirmation can be obtained for $50 more. The form has to certify that the dissolution was approved by the corporation’s board of directors and shareholders in accordance with the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, list some contact information, and that’s about it. No reason has to be specified. No due process. No testimony from loved ones. The execution is easy, efficient and – the moment the SOS worker’s rubber stamp hits the paper – absolute.

Government death panels can order “judicial dissolution.” Failure to file an annual franchise tax report can result in repeal of a corporate charter – one more euphemism for the same termination of a corporate life.

Corporations that have not paid their annual franchise taxes in Delaware are dragged out for what is essentially a gruesome public hanging by no less than the Governor of the state. Each year, shortly after the March 1 payment deadline, Jeffrey Bullock, Secretary of State and, Jack Markell, Governor, sign, and post on their website, an elegant certificate listing all the corporations whose charters have been repealed for failure to pay taxes. As a society, we decided centuries ago that people in the human form cannot even be jailed for failure to pay debts. But if you’re a corporate person who, when the bell tolls on the first of March in any fiscal year, is unlucky enough to owe the state a few bucks, you will be executed and your lifeless corporate shell dragged out in front of the masses as a morbid reminder of the government’s power to kill at will. This year’s genocidal proclamation can be viewed here (caution – graphic contents!): http://corp.delaware.gov/VoidProc/11VoidProc.html

It gets worse.

A large portion of corporate executions are performed in the context of what the killers call “reverse triangular mergers.” A reverse triangular merger is a way for a buyer to structure the acquisition of a target company. As part of this innocuous-sounding process, the buyer creates a corporation – often given an impersonal, throw-away name like “Merger Sub, Inc.” – for the purpose acquiring the shares of the target company and then being merged into the target. Very often, Merger Sub will have been created just two or three business days before the merger. The Certificate of Merger that must be submitted to the Delaware SOS to consummate a merger has required fields for the names of the “constituent corporations” and the “surviving corporation.” That’s all. It doesn’t ask for the name of the “sacrificed corporation” or the “murdered corporation.” It’s just understood. One of the constituent corporations will be the surviving corporation. One will not. Simple as that, a life is ended.

There are all kinds of other ways to structure an acquisition, including ways in which all corporate entities involved will remain fully intact. But structuring an acquisition as a reverse triangular merger can often save a buyer a few bucks in federal taxes. It’s hard to even imagine the outcry that would result if human babies were created to serve our commercial desires (organ harvesting? smaller bodies that can fit more easily into mine shafts?) and then thrown out. But if the purposeful execution of a week-old baby happens to be one of the externalities of a business deal, and if that baby happens to take the corporate form, well so be it.

I wish I could say that I was just a neutral observer of this genocide, but, unfortunately, no, I am an active participant. Over the course of my career as a corporate attorney, I have created and killed hundreds of corporations. Sometimes I have my subordinates do it for me. I can set the process in motion with a 20 second phone call to a friendly, smiling paralegal. The deed is done. I don’t usually have to give much more than a glance at the paperwork that will be filed. Until Citizens United, the process never bothered me. I thought corporations were just a web of contractual agreements and statutory constructs. But now that I know that corporations are people, just like you and me, how can I live with myself? A recently proposed amendment to the Mississippi state constitution declaring that life begins at conception would make it even worse. If a client wanted to incorporate an entity and I talked them out of it, or if I got to the SOS office after hours, effectively preventing the filing to be made, impeding corporate conception, what would that make me? A condom in a suit?

Now – disengage sarcasm. We are not bothered by corporate genocide because corporations are not people. They are not living beings, and they do not have inherent Constitutional rights that trump the desires of people – actual living, breathing people. That laws made by human beings, through their democratically elected representatives, can be overturned in the name of inherent free speech rights of corporations is ridiculous. The Citizens United decision does not even pass the laugh test. It is disingenuous and absurd. Yet it is the law of the land, enacted by the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution of the United States. The only real way to correct this ludicrous insult to our collective intelligence is to amend the constitution to say what it obviously was already meant to say – that to be a person, you must be a human being. Great minds are already at work on this. Check out http://movetoamend.org. In the meantime, like Heinrich Himmler, I’ll continue to just “do my job.”

Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell

I was in a little bit of a funk last week. Nothing major. No discernible reason why. Just generally felt slightly annoyed and unsympathetic toward the rest of the world. Leslie brought me home a cupcake, which made me feel a little better. And then I listened to a song I had read about in Rolling Stone – “Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell” by Das Racist – and I was cured. Check it out:

http://youtu.be/EQ8ViYIeH04

The first time I played it, I laughed a little. Then I listened to it three more times. And I don’t know what it was, but my state of mind turned on a dime. My bad mood melted away and I just felt better. Strange but true. Strange because, in a way, this song is among the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. The lyrics are pretty much “I’m at the Pizza Hut. I’m at the Taco Bell. I’m at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.” There are a few different slightly-altered riffs, but that’s about it. It’s catchy, so I ended up singing it to myself all day. The more I sang it, the less stupid it seemed. And after a few takes, it became downright hilarious.

Maybe it’s because combination Pizza Huts and Taco Bells – those nasty, filthy not-even-real-fast-food-restaurant counters you sometimes see at rest stops and third-rate food courts – are themselves so profoundly stupid. Yum! Brands, Inc. (yes, the exclamation point is part of its actual corporate name), the international conglomerate that has grown Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (and KFC and A&W and, in China, the strangely-named Little Sheep) into their glorious current incarnations, doesn’t think they’re stupid. The holding company doesn’t discuss combination Pizza Huts and Taco Bells in its SEC filings per se, but rather refers to “multibrand units, where two or more of our Concepts are operated in a single unit.” It further notes that “each Concept has proprietary menu items and emphasizes the preparation of food with high quality ingredients, as well as unique recipes and special seasonings to provide appealing, tasty and attractive food at competitive prices.”

Seen through the lens of earnings per location, co-branding and product delivery, with synergies and distribution efficiencies to be found everywhere, a combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell doesn’t seem stupid at all. But when you visit one, and look just a little bit closer at what the “concept” really is, it all starts to get a little dicey. Microwaved Chalupas glued together with sauces that come out of a caulk gun designed to be operated by barely-conscious human beings (at least for the time being, until machines can take over the very few remaining “food” delivery tasks that require some kind of human functionalities) served side-by-side with factory-made pizzas that just have to be fed through a conveyor belt oven and plopped into a cardboard box before being unveiled for an eagerly awaiting gourmand. A little shared freezer space and the same idiot-proof cash register / inventory management software, and there you have it – a combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.

Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing at all against Pizza Hut or Taco Bell. I actually love their food. It’s quite delicious, albeit in a sort of awful, disgusting, self-loathing kind of way. As any college student can tell you, if you’re shitfaced, hungry and only have $2.36 in your pocket, there is no oasis in the world you’d rather stumble upon than a Taco Bell. The crack team of Yum! Brands executives assigned to the Pizza Hut and Taco Bell concepts are probably quite proud of the attractive value proposition they offer to consumers desiring an easily accessible dining product at a moderate price point. And they could probably make some quasi-legitimate claims about cost per calorie and even take some righteous position about preventing poor Americans from starving. But when you live your whole life subject to their ads and marketing campaigns, product placements and celebrity endorsements, and see their well-lit spaces and funny talking dogs and good-time-having people in their commercials, it’s impossible for some part of you not to believe, even just a tiny little bit, that Pizza Hut and Taco Bell have so much more – fun! happiness! excitement! – to offer. And if each one alone is so great, it’s almost incomprehensible how monumentally wonderful a combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell must be.

But it’s not. It’s just a shitty little kiosk at the rest stop. When you sing a song about something, you put it in the spotlight. And when you shine a light on something that was never meant to be considered for more than those few seconds in-between pumping gas and taking a leak, trying to get back on the highway as fast as possible, what you see might be disturbing, provocative or just plain hilarious. Das Racist is onto something with their sort of idiotic tune. Maybe they didn’t mean for it to have any deeper meaning. Maybe it was just a joke. But something about it – the contrast between the promise and the reality? the focus on something so utterly mundane and stupid? – made me laugh like hell. The Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell song really turned my week around. I’m in a much better mood now. Maybe I’ll head out and celebrate with a Gordita and a P’Zone.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a Despicable Piece of Shit

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, is on his way home. The InterContinental Hotel maid who accused him of rape had too sketchy of a past to be credible to a jury. So that's the end of that. All will be forgotten in a few months, and we'll see if DSK throws his hat in the ring to run for president of France.

Here's why I think Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a despicable piece of shit. He fucked the maid. That's not in question. He admitted it. Probably because there was DNA evidence showing that he did, so denying it was not an option. My question is, why did the maid fuck him? By her account, and his, the "encounter" took place within a minute of her walking into his hotel room. DSK is a shrively old-ish man, and it's hard to imagine that the maid walked into the room and was so instantly juiced up that she just had to have him. So what are the other possibilities? DSK is such a smooth operator that, in 30 seconds, he can talk the clothes off of any tired service industry worker that crosses his path? Maybe there were quick negotiations for some money to change hands? Or maybe it went down exactly as the maid said and she was just plain ol' raped.

I simply cannot believe option one - that this was just a spontaneous, spur of the moment, fully-consensual, good-time roll in the hay. If I'm wrong, then sorry DSK. I take it all back, and I'll buy you lunch next time you're in town. If any of the other options is the true one, then DSK is more horrible by a thousandfold than any typical John or rapist. Why? Because he was, at the time, the head of the IMF.

The IMF is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. From the perspective of a poor person in a third world country - really poor, like a $1 a day tax bracket type - the IMF may well be the single most powerful organization in the world. The IMF provides economic relief, and is the enforcer of austerity requirements designed to assure that the money loaned to the third world does what it's supposed to do - prop up national economies. The IMF is often in a position of having to make incomprehensibly wrenching decisions regarding what proportion of funds can be used literally to feed and vaccinate children versus how much must be used to service national debt. An organization like that sometimes has to do things that look horrific. The only possible way to justify withholding money from dire, imminent life or death situations is to believe unquestionably that the longer term benefits will outweigh the immediate horror. Not an easy calculation to make.

I would hope, from the bottom of my heart, that the people making decisions like this at the IMF truly care about their fellow human beings. All of them. I hope that they care not just about their friends and families and colleagues, but equally about the poorest, most powerless people in the most remote corners of the third world whose lives are quite literally in their hands. Because if they don't, and if they are in positions where they sometimes have to take actions that effectively sentence people to death, then we have created a system that is horrific beyond words.

For the reasons I talked about before, I believe that the maid at the InterContinental fucked Dominique Strauss-Kahn because he was exerting some kind of power over her - physical, monetary or coercive. Her background is what it is, and it's not relevant to what was going on in the mind of DSK. If the maid - a person with virtually zero power of any kind (and, incidentally, originally from a mud hut in Guinea, the very kind of country whose citizens are most thoroughly dependent on the IMF) - didn't really, truly want to have sex with DSK, and if DSK- one of the most powerful individuals in the world - had sex with her by asserting some variety of that power, then his opinion of this one fellow human being is starkly clear. And if he could treat one single person like that, then why should we believe that his opinion of the hundreds of millions of people over whose fate he presides would be any different. That is why I believe, with all due respect, that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a despicable piece of shit.