I'm switching to tumblr because it's beautiful. Change your bookmarks:
http://glenna.tumblr.com
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Speech Flaw
While I agree that it is good to put aside childish things, economically speaking, I reject this part of Obama's speech:
That line implies that we needed all the goods/services of last year, for example collateralized debt obligations and $42,000 cats. Actually we didn't, and it's a good thing that the markets for them collapsed. Also, our capacity isn't diminished, but it was never as high as our collective lifestyle, anyway. We were living beyond our means.
The solution to homelessness and poverty isn't hopefully, confidently reinflating luxury and financial markets. It's feeding poor people with rich people's money until someone creates an actually useful product and opens up a market that way; plus investing in new ideas with rich people's money.
Right now we should redistribute the wealth we do have, not pretend to create more wealth.
Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.
That line implies that we needed all the goods/services of last year, for example collateralized debt obligations and $42,000 cats. Actually we didn't, and it's a good thing that the markets for them collapsed. Also, our capacity isn't diminished, but it was never as high as our collective lifestyle, anyway. We were living beyond our means.
The solution to homelessness and poverty isn't hopefully, confidently reinflating luxury and financial markets. It's feeding poor people with rich people's money until someone creates an actually useful product and opens up a market that way; plus investing in new ideas with rich people's money.
Right now we should redistribute the wealth we do have, not pretend to create more wealth.
Monday, January 12, 2009
journalism shouldn't make THAT make much money
Lately journalists are writing about how to get people to pay for newspapers even though they're used to free news (NY Times; Slate). I'm all for it because, paradoxically, it would lead to higher quality journalism and higher chances of me writing it.
But charging has failed so far. Not because readers are cheap, I think, but because journalists/their owners get greedy and charge unfairly. Here's a clue in the Slate piece:
Ew! Bundling is bad for consumers because it makes people pay for stuff they don't want. Even if it's just an option, not mandatory, it leads to inefficiency in the market generally. One of the great features of digital media is that there's no physical product, so everyone can build her own package. For example, you can buy your favorite 5 songs off an album for $4.95, instead of five you want and five you don't for $12.
The news should be sold a la carte too. I should be able to buy the Times' news and opinion content without paying for Dining & Wine. In the days of paper they could argue that they couldn't possibly tailor to each reader's tastes; it would cost more money than it saved. With digital media, tailoring is free. The Times has no excuse to bill me for Gaston Lenotre's obit.
As long as news organizations insist on bundling, readers will--rightly--decline their bloated product.
But charging has failed so far. Not because readers are cheap, I think, but because journalists/their owners get greedy and charge unfairly. Here's a clue in the Slate piece:
The aggregators could bundle publications, giving you a financial incentive to subscribe to, say, the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all at once.
Ew! Bundling is bad for consumers because it makes people pay for stuff they don't want. Even if it's just an option, not mandatory, it leads to inefficiency in the market generally. One of the great features of digital media is that there's no physical product, so everyone can build her own package. For example, you can buy your favorite 5 songs off an album for $4.95, instead of five you want and five you don't for $12.
The news should be sold a la carte too. I should be able to buy the Times' news and opinion content without paying for Dining & Wine. In the days of paper they could argue that they couldn't possibly tailor to each reader's tastes; it would cost more money than it saved. With digital media, tailoring is free. The Times has no excuse to bill me for Gaston Lenotre's obit.
As long as news organizations insist on bundling, readers will--rightly--decline their bloated product.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Obama's stimulus bill, wiles, & defense mechanisms
Even though Obama only needs a few republican senators to support the stimulus bill, he's trying to get at least 20. In courting them he's ditched a lot of healthy ideas and included steak brownies instead (that's what republicans eat). Angry liberals argue that Obama is fetishizing bipartisanship or wimpy. Right wing bloggers have another theory:
(Conservatives, unlike liberals, tend to assume that Obama is a Harvard JD and not someone who won a school-wide MLK Day essay contest last year by arguing that it should be illegal to make people cry.)
There's support for the evil genius theory deep inside Jeffrey Toobin's profile of Barney Frank. In Frank's words:
This is good for democrats but bad for the economy. How could Obama, the anti-bifurcation crusader, straddler of aisles, verbalizer of happenings such as "we play baseball in blue states and have gay sex in the red states," sell out the common good for politics?
The same way all those ministers, politicians, and my mom have secret gay sex and then argue against gayness in public. It is a psychological process called reaction formation, "in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency."
[I]f Obama buys significant Republican support for his bill, Republicans will own the deficits, tax hikes and intervention, as well. The stimulus bill will be for Republicans what the Iraq war was for Democrats - a policy they first supported, then regretted, then tripped over themselves to explain.... Obama doesn't want bipartisan support, so much as he wants political immunization.
(Conservatives, unlike liberals, tend to assume that Obama is a Harvard JD and not someone who won a school-wide MLK Day essay contest last year by arguing that it should be illegal to make people cry.)
There's support for the evil genius theory deep inside Jeffrey Toobin's profile of Barney Frank. In Frank's words:
“[Obama] was being conciliatory [by supporting the Wall Street bailout], because he thinks it’s very important for us, both in public policy and politically, that we don’t get blamed for fucking up the economy.”
This is good for democrats but bad for the economy. How could Obama, the anti-bifurcation crusader, straddler of aisles, verbalizer of happenings such as "we play baseball in blue states and have gay sex in the red states," sell out the common good for politics?
The same way all those ministers, politicians, and my mom have secret gay sex and then argue against gayness in public. It is a psychological process called reaction formation, "in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency."
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Two arguments against punishing hate
Last month four men gang raped a woman in California while "taunting her for being a lesbian." Authorities are calling it a hate crime. If convicted, should the men do extra time for hate?
Pro-hate crimers will argue that "hate" is just an aspect of motive, which of course matters in charging and sentencing. But that's because motive usually shows what kind of person the defendant is. Jealous husband, butterfingers, or stubborn sadist? It matters when you're deciding whether to kick someone out of the neighborhood.
But discerning whether these rapists are homophobes? First of all that's not important compared to other motive questions, like whether it was an accident. Second, let's be practical: most people who gang rape strangers are probably homophobes. Rapists are not all "it is so beautiful when two women fall in love and raise a cat together!" Whether these men raped a woman because they hated her gayness, or raped a woman in addition to hating gay women, they're equally dangerous and equally foul minded. No excuse to lock one group up longer.
Also, rapists shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the state is. As long as California gets to discriminate in their laws against lesbians, criminals should get to discriminate in their rapes.
Pro-hate crimers will argue that "hate" is just an aspect of motive, which of course matters in charging and sentencing. But that's because motive usually shows what kind of person the defendant is. Jealous husband, butterfingers, or stubborn sadist? It matters when you're deciding whether to kick someone out of the neighborhood.
But discerning whether these rapists are homophobes? First of all that's not important compared to other motive questions, like whether it was an accident. Second, let's be practical: most people who gang rape strangers are probably homophobes. Rapists are not all "it is so beautiful when two women fall in love and raise a cat together!" Whether these men raped a woman because they hated her gayness, or raped a woman in addition to hating gay women, they're equally dangerous and equally foul minded. No excuse to lock one group up longer.
Also, rapists shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the state is. As long as California gets to discriminate in their laws against lesbians, criminals should get to discriminate in their rapes.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
if Obama can make RI popular, imagine what he'll do for America
The most viewed story at washingtonpost.com right now is "In R.I., Obama Makes Inroads."
Unfortunately the piece describes RI as "heavily blue-collar, working-class and the most Catholic state in the country," neglecting all mention of our delicious clam cakes:
Unfortunately the piece describes RI as "heavily blue-collar, working-class and the most Catholic state in the country," neglecting all mention of our delicious clam cakes:
Saturday, February 23, 2008
On Beauty was boring not only because it took place at a highly ranked liberal arts college
Some British lit mag held a short story competition and Zadie Smith was the judge. After reviewing hundreds of entries she decided to give the 5000 pound prize to charity instead. She explained why in an open letter.
The publishing industry discourages writers all the time and in a lot of ways. Usually it seems pragmatic: editors want to control the volume of submissions they receive. A rich novelist putting amateur writers down in the pursuit of the GOOD, on the other hand, is just snobbery. Smith should have followed the damn rules and picked the BEST. (Note: I didn't enter this contest. I swear! I found the story through VQR's blog because I was thinking of submitting to lit mags. But now I feel too sad to.)
Almost everyone trying to break into an industry faces this kind of cattiness-- its own version of passing a certain Cambridge alum's personal coolness test. You can't be a law professor unless you cite check an obscure journal for two years; you can't be a vet unless you ace scantron biology tests when you're 18; you can't lead a Roman Catholic community unless you are an overweight man. Sometimes I figure these barriers are fair enough and developed for a reason.
But sometimes an established professional discourages her less established peers in all caps. That makes me suspicious of the establishment. Hey friends-- maybe we should kill all the successful people and start shit over again.
[W]e could not find the greatness we'd hoped for. [...]
We have only one principle here: MAKE IT GOOD.
The publishing industry discourages writers all the time and in a lot of ways. Usually it seems pragmatic: editors want to control the volume of submissions they receive. A rich novelist putting amateur writers down in the pursuit of the GOOD, on the other hand, is just snobbery. Smith should have followed the damn rules and picked the BEST. (Note: I didn't enter this contest. I swear! I found the story through VQR's blog because I was thinking of submitting to lit mags. But now I feel too sad to.)
Almost everyone trying to break into an industry faces this kind of cattiness-- its own version of passing a certain Cambridge alum's personal coolness test. You can't be a law professor unless you cite check an obscure journal for two years; you can't be a vet unless you ace scantron biology tests when you're 18; you can't lead a Roman Catholic community unless you are an overweight man. Sometimes I figure these barriers are fair enough and developed for a reason.
But sometimes an established professional discourages her less established peers in all caps. That makes me suspicious of the establishment. Hey friends-- maybe we should kill all the successful people and start shit over again.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
sometimes I wonder what it would be like to have a boyfriend
Spotted today (Valentine's Day) on a Brooklyn-bound F platform: two men swinging identical Victoria's Secret bags around their fingers.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
wouldn't it be cool if the staircase had gay paraphernalia on it every day?
The military recruited on campus the other day so NYU unfurled rainbow flags in strategic locations. The protest irritated me in a vague way, as if in addition to being futile NYU was missing a point. But what point?
This one, as articulated by the Berkeley town council:
Hey, why didn't we think of that?
This one, as articulated by the Berkeley town council:
"Military recruiters are salespeople known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits."
Hey, why didn't we think of that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
