|
 Saturday, January 19, 2002
See "Gosford Park." Excellent. One of the few films that's focused on the work behind the wealth, rather than pretending it all comes without a price. Plus Ryan Phillipe actually does a fine enough job you don't have to feel too silly that you think he's cute. 11:38:26 PM 
|
|
|
Me: Is there a 12-step program for internet addiction?
Xian: Yeah, I think they meet online. 4:30:18 PM
|
|
|
An interesting take I hadn't heard before on how big media works to maintain a certain status quo in the book publishing field. In a discussion about how entry-level publishing/editing jobs pay nothing and work you to death for years, before either firing you or maybe moving you up if they find another slave willing to do your drudgery:
I illustrated an editorial piece where the author's position was this: since
media companies (TV, publishing, etc.) have this system of paying entry level
employees next to nothing for years (or demanding free labor in the form of
interns), only those with rich folks can afford to enter the industry,
(inadvertantly?) keeping our media under the control of the upper income
groups, and edging out any possible class dissent... that old 'freedom of the
press for those who can afford a press" angle. I totally agreed with has
observation, since I'm in NY and frequently enough come into contact with the
publishing kids... they're a pretty carefree, well-heeled lot. I don't believe
they have much trouble affording bookshelf space...
Maybe that why it's for me that the whole Franzen/Oprah debate felt vaguely
like an argument between classes (upper vs. working)...
-- via wallace-l (digest #1299). I'm not sure about the Franzen/Oprah connection. I mean, the Franzen/Oprah debacle was about class, certainly, but I can't tell how that would be working here. Is she saying that, since Franzen and his agent/publisher are all from money (upper-class), they couldn't or didn't want to communicate with what they deemed the lower-class tastes of Oprah and her readers? Ok. That works. But the bigger and more intriguing immediate issue is the way the economy of publishing functions to ensure that what gets published is decided by a very select group of (moderately to filthy wealthy people with largely homogenous (class) values. See What's wrong with this picture? if you still don't believe this is a problem. 11:38:53 AM
|
|
|
The United States of Enron. "Washington ... is busy debating whether Enron the Scandal is as hot as Whitewater. This should be a no-brainer. While The Wall Street Journal published an encyclopedic series of tomes to parse a low- rent Arkansas land scam to a public that never did quite understand it, everyone instantly gets an epic fraud in which arrogant high-fliers stacked the deck to fleece thousands of peons to the tune of zillions. "
[The New York Times: Politics] 9:32:46 AM
|
|
|
Here's where the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Nyiragongo volcano are. 9:26:10 AM
|
|
|
Nader rocks:Nader and his lawyers "argue that Microsoft may be breaking the law by not paying dividends on the basis of US accumulated earnings legislation, which states that company cash piles 'beyond the reasonable needs of the business' should be subject to the 39.6 per cent rate. Microsoft is currently sitting on something in the region of $36 billion, a sum analysts reckon far in excess of what it might 'reasonably need,' so they may have a point." -- I should say they do!
[The Register] (Read the letter Nader sent to Gates. ) Article linked via: [Radio Wiredfool] 9:15:48 AM
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  
Top 10 hits for conspiracy on..
 | 5/7/02; 7:38:05 PM. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
