MJ

RIP The King of Pop.

Matt Yglesias links to a post at the Cato Institute (leading libertarian think tank for allyall newbz) who are now mourning the loss of a "Great American Capitalist".

The King of Pop’s creativity allowed him and his family to make hundreds of millions of dollars, yes, but it also created thousands of jobs in the music and marketing industries and brought joy to fans around the world. Whatever his personal eccentricities — perhaps, in part, as a result of them — Jackson represents a capitalist success story. No central planner could have invented him, and no government bureaucracy could have transformed pop music in the way he did.

First off, the guy was $500 million in debt. That lifestyle is not exactly a testament to the American capitalist system...or is it.

Secondly, part of the justification for American-style capitalism is it makes us happy. We know we'll get our just rewards without interference, and we're okay with some winning/being rich and some being poor. MJ was a sad, twisted character for Cato to pick as the face of Capitalism.

I'll leave you with the Yglesias response:

It’s unquestionably true that central planning’s record in pop music is extremely poor, though they did okay in film, but this seems to have limited relevance to our current policy debates. Suppose that Jackson had paid somewhat higher taxes over the course of his career, and that the funds had gone to provide nutritious meals to poor children? I think the world of pop music would have been just about as strong under that scenario, but America as a whole would also be a stronger and more just society. After all, among non-Anglophone countries I think you’d have to say that it’s Sweden which has had the most pop music success. High tax rates don’t seem to discourage their music entrepreneurs.

What’s more, if you consider musicians operating outside of the “child star with horribly abusive father” paradigm, I think it’s clear that a more social democratic system is going to be advantageous. Consider that in the United States quitting your day job to focus on your promising band can have dire implications for your ability to obtain health insurance. This is particularly the case if you have the misfortune of a pre-existing medical condition. An up-and-coming Canadian or British guitarist is taking a financial risk by choosing to focus on the band, but an American can be really putting his life on the line.

Wow. As someone new to the blogging thing, it's really hard not to just quote Yglesias all damn day and be done with it. Oh, and Waxman-Markey passed!

PS - Here's an interesting Nate Silver post on Senators being bought off.

PPS - Wayne vs. Royksopp.

"Elections have consequences"??

Okay, Russ! So the fight for a just and rational society is stacked against us -- even if we do elect justice-seeking pols (as ranted about below)! WTF can I actually do? This part is hard. Entrenched interests are...entrenched.

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor and current political bigwig tells us waz POPPANG. Read it here.

Basically, he argues for what I'll call the "crowd-sourcing" approach; everyone call, email, text (?) their elected officials until its politically untenable for them to not support cap-and-trade, pass health care reform, repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, support Net Neutrality, support Obama's nominees etc etc instert cause here. Reich:

We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill ... As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."

This is what I thought...but is that really all? Short of quitting the day job and joining PowerCorps (hi, Will!!) or interning for a media reform non-profit (WHUDDUP.), this is the usual advice I both receive and dole. I think it's fundamentally right, but you have to admit ... a tad bit disappointing. In a world of Spell Check, instant oatmeal, and internet pornography, this whole delayed (slash maybe never) gratification politics thing has GOT to be getting to the kids. We've been Obamanos'd for nearly seven months now! They say, "elections have consequences," but I'd like to see more of those now. More on this later; I'm heading out to Chilean food with some friendsss!



I'll leave you with this smart-ass link, and a rump shaker.

Permanent Government

This summer I'm working in DC for the first time. The following is a hyperbolic yet earnest rant about what the fucks up with DC and 'Merica, with a focus on three big problems. I will summarize these in a pseudo-integrated, car-crash-esque rant -- you won't be able to look away.

3 Major Probs:
The $$$.
The status-quo-rewarding structure of our government.
Our bottom-line-worshiping, consolidated media system.

Wonder why Obama and our gigantic Democratic majority can't pass a climate change bill -- especially not one that will do anything? Wonder why we don't universal health care -- despite the fact that every Democratic presidential campaign since Truman '48 has focused on the issue?

Elected officials aside, we have a permanent government. Cash money rules this town. Business and industry can get what they want around here -- which then translates to the entire country. And I'm not talking about general "pro-business" policies, but specific corporations lobbying specific politicians and getting specific, favorable outcomes.

I have spent days looking up public records of former politician/politico who now make obscene amounts of money to lobby for various corporations. These are Democrats and Republicans alike -- including Senators, Congressmen, top staffers/lawyers -- who are ridiculously well-connected and experienced in certain policies. They now rake in the cash. I can go into the specs later, but let me say this: way worse than I imagined. I'm guessing half the people I see on the metro lobby, in 2005 there were roughly 35,000 registered (which technically means they spent 20% of their time actually lobbying on the Hill and thus had to register. The true number is much higher).

So why can't universal health care pass? Today the defining debate is over the "public option" (essentially a government-created insurance plan that would be added to the menu of private insurance plans to dramatically lower costs). The public option polls as extremely popular -- at roughly 70 to 20%.

The private insurers happen to have spent $6.4 million lobbying, just in the first three months of this year. And because our government is set up in a conservative way, it's easier more them to have influence than it should be.

As smarter-than-everyone-I've-ever-met-put-together blogger Matt Yglesias -- who I met last month omgomg I was so xxcited! -- points out, over half of the nation's population is represented by only 22 senators. Then, because of the supermajority/filibuster rules our Constitution never intended, you need 60 votes to pass a bill. Lastly, shit has to go through both the House and Senate along with multiple overlapping committees. No matter how it will affect our citizens and economy as a whole, it's damn near impossible to get shit done if certain moneyed groups are opposed.

How does this translate into the political debate on the Hill and in the media? Again, Yglesias:

...suddenly here public opinion becomes irrelevant. You never hear a Blue Dog say “my seat is so vulnerable that I can’t afford not to back a super-popular public plan.” Ben Nelson’s not talking about how if Democrats want to stay viable in red states they need to robustly back a 70-20 issue like the public plan. The WSJ doesn’t run a headline saying “Opposition to Public Option Spells Political Trouble for Republicans.” Public opinion, in other words, can be a reason to eschew sound progressive policy but never a reason to enact it.

Yes. Politicians can pretend to be moderate and claim their constituents demand it. Big media plays dumb, goes with the digestible and status-quo supporting storyline. In case you were unawares, 5 companies control most of the media you see/hear/read everyday.

Am I saying get cynical and give up? (No.) But these basic problems need to be widely understood in order to work towards the Change we elected.

That's the end of my rant for now...yeah...here's Tracy Morgan from 30 Rock singing "Werewolf Bar Mitzvah"! Also, a Portland DJ's mix of MGMT - Kids, nicely done. Going to Raleigh-Durham, NC for the weekend to visit bro, Russism OUT!!

Soft paternalism -- everyone's doing it!

Today the Senate approved an anti-smoking bill with provisions against advertising to children. Cool. That got me thinking (ohhh no Russ :) loll!) - Why do we allow advertising to children at all?

Creating lil' super-consumers out of children is big business. Wiki tells me that American children under 13 account for $600 billion in sales a year. They also see $12 billion in advertising specifically for them -- each child averages 3,000 ads a day via TV, Internet, magz, and billboards. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported in 2006 that children are particularly vulnerable to advertising, as "young people below the age of 8 do not understand the difference between advertising and programing."

First off, this is clearly an unethical and manipulative way to make money. Secondly, welcome to Capitalism and the hegemonic order, Russ.

Advertising, from a classical econ 101 perspective, is something I've never really understood. The market relies on rational actors with perfect information to self-regulate prices and supply. Advertising is a conscious effort to emotionally or subconsciously undermine the rationality of these actors.

From a market fundamentalist view, this makes perfect sense. Capitalism requires growth and new markets. Hyperbole: Is it better to create markets among our easily coerced children, or to create markets abroad through war (and subsequent battles for "hearts and minds")?

It's weird that we, the public, allow companies access to children this young. These are formative years. Values are being formed. Allegiances to Coco Puffs and Bratz dolls get the kids buying now. Allegiances to everyone's favorite cartoon Joe Camel helps those companies later. How is this productive, and why does everyone seem to be cool with this? On a concrete level, because voters don't give a shit and plenty of moneyed folk give a big shit. Plus, it's now $600 billion of our economy. On a pseudo-intellectual level, because our way of life needs our babies salivating for shit early so they buy now and, once old enough, start working for the Man to support the habit.

Back to the kids -- in Sweden and Norway all advertising to children under the age of 12 is illegal. In the United Kingdom, Greece, Denmark, and Belgium advertising to children is significantly restricted (from Wiki).

For the record, I actually do heart markets. I just think advertising, in particular to children, is fucked up. This calls for some soft paternalism. Someday when the economy is awesome, let's ban this shit for children under 8 (age based on the APA study).

Some related food for thought - On brain damage, gambling, and markets.

Some unrelated food for thought - from Feministing.



ps - this reads like Adbusters...or a mommy. fuckkkk

The Hangover made me think real deep n' stuff

Went to "The Hangover" last night. Basically, it's about a bunch of guys getting drunk in Vegas for a bachelor party, trailer here. As lame as that may sound, the script was hilarious and often really clever, and a lot of the acting was great. Got mostly good reviews. On the downside, it'll no doubt reinforce the conventional wisdom among d-bags worldwide that doing stupid, drunk shit is awesome ... not that it isn't ... when I do it.

Naturally, I wanted to share some bullshit on both A) the state of masculinity and B) the film industry/Hollywood.

Every time a "buddy movie" like this comes out--usually from the Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen crew--there's talk all over NPR or some magazine about the state of manhood/man friendship...I've even heard the "New Homosociality." We hear about how--at least in film--the vulnerable, lazy, usually kind-hearted yet somewhat cynical beta male has usurped the handsome, All-American, chest-pounding alpha. The machismo of film heroes past is openly mocked. The betas no longer have to mope and masturbate in secret about "the girl"--they get her, no matter how smart and smoking hot she may be. We see the alphas portrayed as overcompetitive, overzealous assholes who still play into/win the old macho games.

This rejection of the alpha holds true for "The Hangover." Yeah, Bradley Cooper's character fit the basic alpha mold--his chiseled jaw/black on black suit is too fly for a beta male. Still, he was the framed as unlucky enough to already be tied down with marriage and a kid--and his anxiety came through.

I think this celebration of the non-alpha is awesome (for me) but raises a couple of basic questions. With the focus on the new, goofy-looking guys, what's the role of women? We'll...they're certainly hotter and often more conventionally successful than the dudes they end up with. Do/should female audiences like these pairings/portrayals? These unconventional pairings satiate the fantasies of the mostly non-gorgeous male audience, but seems like a shitty deal for women.

I think these movies critically and financially succeed because lots of women also find something to like: typical gender norms are challenged. The asshole alpha doesn't win. It's less important that the lovable (or loser) beta wins--this is a refreshing shake-up of the patriarchy. Still, most of the women are stereotyped, flat, boring--you get the shrew, the Madonna/whore. As Katherine Heigl told Vanity Fair "[Knocked Up is] a little sexist...It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys." That quote, and more on that here. But wait! Is goofass Liz Lemon and 30 Rock the pro-woman evolution of all this beta-celebration?...I think I've read something bout that, actually.

On a related note:

After a lifetime of shitting on Hollywood and studios' never-ending effort to make a film for everyone--or at least all 20-somethings--these buddy films have me a bit nonplused. We can all recognize the demographic-wrangling, profit-maximizing formula of big Hollywood movies. Usually they suck, yet include enough violence, sex, fx, marketing etc. to get butts in the seat. Yet they miss the cleverness or the snarkiness or self-deprication or armchair philosophizing that put liberal arts assholes like myself (and the real film critics) at ease. But "Hangover"--and a lot of these criticially-acclaimed buddy films--seem to have hit the jackpot on the cheap. They win critics and cash without explosions/space travel/huge budgets. "The Hangover" managed to keep everyone laughing pretty much the whole time last night; the clever bullshit in the script may not be appreciated by everyone, but the physical gags, boobs, and beer compensated.

The take away?...As much as we all love to shit on the capitalistic filth coming out of Hollywood, they seem to have found a formula to even make guys--and critics--who fancy themselves not-tools buy their formulaic guy-movies...and like it. So do I have to stop whining now?

ps - this reads like hipster runoff, fuckkk

My first shot

Yes! After years of tip-toeing around the blogosphere, it's time to start MY OWN BLOG!

This is a trial-run. For those who know me personally, thanks for reading me and being tight. For those who don't, creepers are welcome.