Archive for the ‘Body Politic’ Category

Nick Hornby, McSweeneys, E-Readers and Cultural Elitism

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Last night I attended an author event in San Francisco where Nick Hornby was interviewed by Dave Eggers.  Towards the end of the evening, an audience member asked Hornby’s opinion of E-readers.  A palpable shudder went through the crowd; you could feel the room waiting and rooting for the bash to come.  Hornby went one better, bringing up the new ‘Vook’ debuted by Simon & Schuster earlier this week.  The crowd hissed, groaned, booed.  It was the kind of reaction that San Franciscans usually reserves for Republican party leaders.

Essentially what the crowd and the speakers agreed on was that there is something negated from the reading experience when you move from a book, which is singularly dedicated to the content at hand, to an electronic device, a more promiscuous format for lack of a better term.  Think for example – as Hornby did – of the difference in experience between playing a record and selecting an album to play on an iPod.

Even as a Kindle user, I’ll be the first to agree that consuming content on a Kindle is a much different experience than from reading an actual physical book.  In my mind, carrying a book around is the last stand for analog content; I long ago came to think of music and movies as files or folders, but until recently I had never thought that way about books.  In a discussion led by Eggers, the founder of an imprint that publishes some of the world’s most physically beautiful books, there is bound to be some bias towards the aesthetic experience of buying, holding and reading a book.

The most striking thing about the Kindle Bestseller list about it is its utter dominance by serial fiction – the stuff you find in supermarkets by popular authors like Janet Evanovich, Richard North Patterson and so forth, plus right-wing screeds by the likes of Glenn Beck and cohorts.  What the [ahem] cultural elites fail to understand about these books – the actual physical books – is that they are produced to be the very worst of aesthetic experiences in publishing: poorly bound, grey-papered budget paperbacks.  For devotees of these kinds of books, the Kindle actually represents an enormous step up from what they’re given today.  It’s not for nothing that Goodwills and St Vincent De Pauls are piled high with mass-market paperbacks selling for a dime each.  Nobody wants these when they’re done and there’s no meaningful secondary market.  They’re consumed and then they’re trash.

So when a San Francisco crowd starts booing a delivery device for popular fiction because it’s some kind of lowering of their standard of what a book should be, I can’t help but compare it to the same ‘cultural elitism’ that makes it impossible for them to understand the appeal of a George Bush, Fox News, or any mysteriously popular icon of so-called Red State America. E-readers are the most democratic of devices, moving the words and ideas in books out of their hallowed packaging and leveling them for all readers.  As Hornby himself discussed, there’s nothing wrong with having books be easy to read and fun for all; it’s the very cornerstone of his considerable success both as novelist and frequent Hollywood adaptee.

There will always be a market for books so long as people crave them as a key aesthetic element of their reading experience. Boutique houses like McSweeney’s may be well prepared where publishing is going: beautiful editions for those who need that experience, just as there continues to be a market for vinyl records for a certain kind of collector.  But “Democracy In America,” the kind you find in supermarkets, will increasingly go electronic.  Deal with it.

Why is Oakland antagonizing its residents?

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

Yesterday the SFGate reported that the City Of Oakland had stepped up its enforcement of parking rules in residential areas and increased fees in commercial areas.  On the surface that seems like a good thing, but in practice it’s a bit trickier than it sounds.  Huge swaths of Oakland – not so much the flatlands, but many of its tonier neighborhoods – are full of streets barely wide enough for one lane with a parking strip.  As such, social norms have evolved throughout the city where it’s OK to park facing the wrong way, right up to the lip of a neighbor’s driveway and even sometimes on the sidewalk.  (I’m not really that sympathetic to the latter, though I can see its necessity on some nearby streets.)  On my street, there is parking on either side but not enough room for two facing cars to pass each other without one pulling over.  I’ve lived here two years with nary a complaint or a second look from my neighbors.  (Well, except once from a KRAZY neighbor, but that’s another story…)

Now, virtually unannounced, the City has sent its parking enforcers into residential neighborhoods to pass out parking tickets enforcing the law 100%, plus a mystery $10 recession panic surcharge.  OK, I can understand the City needs to raise some fees.  These are hard times, revenue is falling and the City has a ridiculous budget shortfall: $70mm over on a $500mm total budget, a mighty hunk that needs to be cut.  But somebody should have thought through the Game Theory on this a bit.

Let’s say every car gets ’surprised’ once.  The ticketed owner pays the ticket and the City gets itself a little bonus.  But the cost of resentment, especially in a city with notoriously poor schools, might be too much.  This is a bad time to make people feel angry about their town and government if the goal is to elevate public perceptions, the first psychological step in raising property values and eventually revenue.  If people feel oppressed or underprotected, they will move away.

The connection between the perception of Oakland’s relative quality of life and its schools is especially compelling.  My neighborhood is full of toddlers but curiously free of children over the age of 8 – and no teenagers whatsoever.  Is this because people move away to avoid Oakland’s public schools?  I believe there may be a connection.  Please, Oakland, let’s not give folks any more reason to move & sell their property at when values are low, compressing revenue even further.  Just let us park our damn cars where we’ve always parked.

Related: Rich ‘Big Vinny’ Lieberman would rather have ‘Chicago-style’ governance for Oakland than cluelessness

5-4 vote

Sunday, December 30th, 2007

A bigger influence than you know

Back in June, the Supreme Court issued its decision invoking Brown v Board Of Education to end racial quota systems in Louisville and Seattle public schools. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, legal support of diversity is a an assumptive underpinning of our lives that anyone born from 1965 forward has had to take for granted.The reaction dramatized what a swing this was:

As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his blistering dissent, this decision “upsets settled expectations, creates legal uncertainty, and threatens to produce considerable further litigation, aggravating race-related conflict.” Judge John Paul Stevens went further, noting the “cruel irony” in the majority opinion’s evocation of Brown v. the Board of Education as justification for its position, proclaiming that “it is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.”

Regardless of whether you think this decision good or bad, it’s still a fascinating twist in our recent history, and that twist is the subject of Jeffrey Toobin’s new book The Nine: Inside The Secret World Of The Supreme Court. Using the same style Bob Woodward uses to mixed effect in his books — top to bottom sources speaking without attribution — Toobin paints a colorful, if incomplete feeling, view of the last 15 years of the Court’s life. The color comes from the obvious high level of access he had to certain of the Justices or their top staffers (especially O’Connor, Souter and Scalia) , while the incompleteness stems from the sense that other of the Justices were less willing to participlate (Thomas, Stevens, Roberts and Alito).

The book’s core thesis is that the Supreme Court, as one might fear, is led more by ideology than legal sense. Of course, this on its face is not surprising when any Court vote, with the same set of facts before it and high level of intellect applied, can lead to a wide variety of opinions on the same issue. The Nine’s true value is in tracing the story of how the Court (and its people) moved from left to right on so many issues and basic tenets in the last few years, from reliable protector of certain attitudes about privacy, liberty and a certain style of government to something far less willing to support these assumptions in the years ahead. It also clearly demonstrates that the centrists still hold the true power in the Court, though because of the hyper-political climate around Court nominees, the number of centrists is declining over time.

Toobin misses the chance to be explicit about the biggest implication of the rise of the Roberts Court. This book is really about the dismantling of the last line of defense of the New Deal. It also could have used one last edit-rinse (at least four times we are told that Souter’s judicial heroes are Harlan and Hand), but it I’m pleased to report that he also clearly and efficiently explains the contentious legal issues behind recent key cases.

All in all, The Nine is a valuable read for anyone who wants to understand the often-eccentric people behind the Court and how the institution uses its power.

Excerpts at CNN

Mourn The Loss, Find The Center

Monday, September 11th, 2006

MP3 – John Adams: On The Transmigration Of Souls (34.4 MB)

http://entroporium.com/mp3/01%20On%20the%20Transmigration%20of%20souls.mp3

From Tony Kushner’s Homebody/Kabul:

Ours is a time of connection. All must be touched. All touch corrupts. All must be corrupted.

Foreign Policy: The Day Nothing Much Changed

[I]f you look closely at the trend lines since 9/11, what is remarkable is how little the world has changed. The forces of globalization continue unabated; indeed, if anything, they have accelerated. The issues of the day that we were debating on that morning in September are largely the same. Across broad measures of political, economic, and social data, the constants outweigh the variations. And, five years later, the United States’ foreign policy is marked by no greater strategic clarity than it had on Sept. 10, 2001…. Perhaps the truest thing that changed because of 9/11 was the way in which the Pentagon’s budget soared.

From In The Shadow Of No Towers by Art Spiegelman:

Martin Amis reminds us in The Guardian that the Iraq War may be but a distraction to the war in which we have been engaged:

Suicide-mass murder is astonishingly alien, so alien, in fact, that Western opinion has been unable to formulate a rational response to it. A rational response would be something like an unvarying factory siren of unanimous disgust. But we haven’t managed that. What we have managed, on the whole, is a murmur of dissonant evasion… Contemplating intense violence, you very rationally ask yourself, what are the reasons for this? And compassionately frowning newscasters are still asking that same question. It is time to move on. We are not dealing in reasons because we are not dealing in reason… The opening argument we reach for now, in explaining any conflict, is the argument of moral equivalence. No value can be allowed to stand in stone; so we begin to question our ability to identify even what is malum per se. Prison beatings, too, are evil in themselves, and so is the delegation of torture, and murder, to less high-minded and (it has to be said) less hypocritical regimes. In the kind of war that we are now engaged in, an episode like Abu Ghraib is more than a shameful deviation – it is the equivalent of a lost battle. Our moral advantage, still vast and obvious, is not a liability, and we should strengthen and expand it. Like our dependence on reason, it is a strategic strength, and it shores up our legitimacy.

Bringin’ It All Back Home

Thursday, August 31st, 2006


Ars Technica posted an interesting article on US soldiers’ use of personal technology in Iraq. It brings to mind a number of questions about not just how Americans look to the less-developed world, but also about the ability to keep troop discipline and our operations under wraps. And that’s just the start. In a world where copyright violation is considered a serious problem and child labor is often used to make "Frauda" knock-off bags, is it really appropriate for our military to be shopping for bootleg DVDs in the local markets, encouraging that kind of commerce? If, as The Atlantic’s correspodent Robert Kaplan asserts in a number his books and articles, the future of warfare is to acculturate our soldiers to train the locals, should the US military continue to allow its foreign bases to be a "little piece of America" amongst hostile locals?

Thinking about the long-term and "victory," in a world more and more besieged by "Inconvenient Truths," does it really make sense to have the values inculcated by our presence to be so overtly comsumption-based? What local children are going to see all of our cool gadgets and huge cars and not want at least a chance to own those items? If we’re worried about the pressure on our oil economy that China poses now, just wait until the rest of the equitorlal world realizes that it can afford air conditioning in every building.

It’s not just democratic values our military ventures should bring to the developing world. It’s sustainable values, too.

Ars Technica – iPods at war
Also: Miltary.com: David Sears: American Stuff

 

World Cup Detour #2: Japan takes on the USA

Friday, June 30th, 2006

“During a visit to Graceland, the Memphis home of Elvis Presley, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sang a few famous lines of his musical hero’s songs.”

World Cup World Tour #19: United States

Thursday, June 22nd, 2006

american_flag.gif elvis%204%20times.jpg

Random thoughts on a day of defeat:

Isn’t it appropriate that I have the US entry following the Saudi entry? We’ll follow those guys anywhere. (rimshot) I’ll be here all the week, don’t forget to tip the waitresses.

Rant coming: If people get so upset about American flag-burning, why is it OK to wear Old Glory as a bandana or a T-shirt or facepaint or a bikini top or a towel or…? I am always shocked when I see alleged patriots displaying old faded flags, flags touching the ground, faded flag bumper stickers, flags left out at night, unlit… It’s fundamentally wrong and easy to see & know that it’s wrong. When the military has elaborate routines about how the flag should be hung, folded and destroyed with honor, surely my fellow citizens should easily see that wadding up their faded American flag t-shirt and throwing it on the bedroom floor or drooling ice cream on it is disrespective and certainly not patriotic. Am I wrong in thinking that the people who are most likely to “wear the flag” are closely related or perhaps even the same people who get so upset over flag desecration? Shouldn’t proposed constitutional amendments banning flag-burning also cover bikinis?

Which is all just a way of working to this next thought: When I see people from other nations at the World Cup wearing their national colors, I usually think “Wow, that’s so great that they have such spirit.” On the other hand, if I see a bunch of Americans with stars and stripes painted on their faces or chests or whatever, I’m embarassed. Am I wrong to feel shame? Or would it be worse to be at the stadium and not proudly display the colors?

My colleague Simon over at My Name Is Betty, who has some pretty great World Cup music coverage going himself, heard this same complaint from me and responded “As for the people in national dress, you’re embarrassed? English national dress seems to be a shaved head and a beer gut, maybe a novelty hat. I’m fortunate to live in London though – my street alone has Ghanaian, Trinidadian, English, Australian, Portuguese, Italian and even Jamaican flags out, and it wouldn’t take me too long to gather the rest. It’s good fun, every four years doesn’t come often enough.” It must be nice to live in a place where immigrants are considered pluses.

I worked for a Frenchman for a number of years and he told me several times how amazing he thought it was that there so many flags displayed in America. I plead ignorance until we looked out at the view from North Beach and, sure enough, every building in downtown SF was flying the colors. It was shocking to really see this, and this was long before 9/11. It’s nice to be patriotic, sure, but it looked more neurotic than anything else, like the old saw that nothing is Cool that has to continually tell you it’s Cool.

And now to the task at hand. It’s completely ridiculous to try to sum up my home country’s rich musical tapestry in a couple of songs. Just think of the musical forms that are indigenous and original to the US: rap, jazz, surf, tin pan alley, musical theatre, blues, country… When I think of how my “World Cup World Tour” is trying to put this same straightjacket on 31 other countries, it brings home that I’ve taken on an enormous task with at best well-meaning chutzpah and at worst total arrogance. (And doesn’t that make me so quintessentially American?) But just to be clear, I’m not trying to sum up or size up countries or their musical output with just a couple of songs, but simply trying introduce a taste of the musical life that floats through each nation’s cultural aether. Hey, I can try, right?

So in that spirit, I offer for the United States its greatest living songwriter ruminating on natural disaster & cultural collision and two of its most rockin’ clown princes having a cultural collision and just being silly. Enjoy.

Bob Dylan – High Water (For Charley Patton).mp3
Jon Spencer Blues Explosion with Rufus Thomas – Chicken Dog.mp3

Insult to injury: There was no baseball on the night after the US-Ghana game.

Two views on the power of communal music

Monday, June 5th, 2006

Tradition: Our primeval ancestors’ language and communal behavior were music-based. “This wasn’t language as we know it, in which words are assembled to convey meaning, but was more like a phrase of music. The individual notes mean nothing, but the sound as a whole can touch us to the quick. Or, in the case of Neanderthals, sing everyone to come to supper.”
Reuters: Hominids’ cave rave-ups may link music and speech

Transgression: Somebody plays Brian Eno’s hour-long ambient piece “Thursday Afternoon” on the jukebox at their local drinking hole. Anger and discomfort ensue. Remember this next time you want to conduct an anthropological experiment (or a prank).
NYT: True Life Tales – Unhappy Hour

Bad Behavior has blocked 693 access attempts in the last 7 days.