Posts tagged "america"

thesinglesjukebox:

MIRANDA LAMBERT - AUTOMATIC
[4.30]


"My Nokia 5150 didn’t have Flappy Bird but, by gum, that was a cell phone with heart…"

Jonathan Bradley: “Where the traditionalist takes the objects of his desire for granted, the conservative cannot. He seeks to enjoy them precisely as they are being — or have been — taken away,” Corey Robin wrote. “But as soon as those objects enter the medium of political speech, they cease to be items of lived experience and become incidents of an ideology.” I’m tempted to end my blurb there: return fire in a culture war against a singer who, if you’ve convinced yourself that all her words are polemic, prefers women to end marriages through murder rather than divorce. But though ideology and culture are intertwined, they’re not equivalent, and, truthfully, most Americans are simply not political. Lines on “Automatic” like “We drove all the way to Dallas just to buy an Easter dress/We’d take along a Rand McNally, stand in line to pay for gas” are about memory and the hazy process of constructing personal narrative, not literal Luddism. There are more moments in “Automatic” like this, but there are also list items, which are not particularly interesting, especially not over a guitar arrangement that remembers what it was like to wait for hours until that OneRepublic download had completed. “‘Remember when’ is the lowest form of conversation,” Tony Soprano once sniped, and even if he’s right, it’s one in which we are nonetheless all too likely to engage. That propensity crosses party lines.

[5]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox ]

What was I just saying b/w the footnote here b/w stop thinking like a campaign consultant. With bonus track: look, if Miranda Lambert’s obviously not interested in maintaining ideological consistency across her work, why should I go looking for it?

Maybe also check Soto on Eric Church.


So here is a story about friendship and Taylor Swift (but mostly about friendship)

I wrote a thing about felon disenfranchisement in America and how Eric Holder says it should stop, but then it became about how America and Australia actually have quite different understandings of the relationship between voting and democracy (that pic above is from the Australian Electoral Commission’s FAQ for people in prison). And then I quoted a bunch of stuff the Founding Fathers said at the Constitutional Convention because American history who can resist. And I could do it because I’m my own editor what do you mean I can’t ramble on about differing cultural approaches to government when I started out commenting on a speech by the US attorney general?
And now you can go read it.

I wrote a thing about felon disenfranchisement in America and how Eric Holder says it should stop, but then it became about how America and Australia actually have quite different understandings of the relationship between voting and democracy (that pic above is from the Australian Electoral Commission’s FAQ for people in prison). And then I quoted a bunch of stuff the Founding Fathers said at the Constitutional Convention because American history who can resist. And I could do it because I’m my own editor what do you mean I can’t ramble on about differing cultural approaches to government when I started out commenting on a speech by the US attorney general?

And now you can go read it.


Since the modern era began, men and women in subordinate positions have marched against their superiors. They have gathered under different banners—the labor movement, feminism, abolition, socialism—and shouted different slogans: freedom, equality, democracy, revolution. In virtually every instance, their superiors have resisted them. That march and démarche of democracy is one of the main stories of modern politics. And it is the second half of that story, the démarche, that drives the development of ideas we call conservative. For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on, and theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

[…]

No simple defense of one’s own place and privileges, the conservative position stems from a genuine conviction that a world thus emancipated will be ugly, brutish, and dull. It will lack the excellence of a world where the better man commands the worse. This vision of the connection between excellence and rule is what brings together in postwar America that unlikely alliance of the capitalist, with his vision of the employer’s untrammeled power in the workplace; the traditionalist, with his vision of the father’s rule at home; and the statist, with his vision of a heroic leader pressing his hand upon the face of the earth. Each in his way subscribes to this statement, from the 19th century, of the conservative creed: “To obey a real superior … is one of the most important of all virtues—a virtue absolutely essential to the attainment of anything great and lasting.”

Corey Robin, “The Conservative Reaction,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 8, 2012

Jesus Christ you guys, have you seen these Ralph Lauren Team USA Olympics outfits? I need basically everything here. But especially that sweater.


“Just trying to be like George Washington" 
!!!!!!!
(Taylor “This morning I bought books about John Adams, Lincoln’s Cabinet, the Founding Fathers and Ellis Island" Swift aka epic history nerd.)

I don't like when progressives say "stay away" from conservative states or that those states should secede or be kicked out of the country or whatever.

But the larger issue here is simply that the letter is extraordinarily stupid. Its author, successful as he was in business, was still perfectly capable of writing an extremely stupid letter to the editor. The political and historical analysis contained in the letter is stupid. But beyond that, the idea of publishing it was stupid. Anyone with the slightest sense of public opinion would recognize that the analogy is offensive and counterproductive. There is simply no viewpoint on economics or American politics from which writing this letter was anything other than stupid. And yet Tom Perkins, a very successful businessman and co-founder of one of the most important VC firms in the world, went and wrote it anyway.

Concurrently with the publication of the Perkins letter, a fair swathe of the world’s elite was gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for a conference based on the presumption that a Tom Perkins would never write a stupid letter. The presumption of the annual World Economic Forum meeting is that leading policymakers and scholars ought to mingle with very, very, very rich businessmen (and, yes, it’s overwhelmingly men) to talk about the leading issues of the day. The idea, in other words, is that CEOs and major investors have unique and important insights on pressing public policy issues. After all, they’re so rich! How could they not be smart?

Matt Yglesias, “Stop Listening to Rich People,” Slate, January 28, 2014

The letter in question is one that compares criticism of America’s wealthiest to Kristallnacht. Continues Yglesias:

Of course, if there were just one somewhat obnoxious conference like Davos, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But the Davos mentality—the assumption that managing a for-profit enterprise gives you special insight into social ills—is all around us, from the Aspen Ideas Festival on down. It has also infested more formalized policymaking settings. Rich businesspeople wield disproportionate interest in the political system simply through their ability to make campaign contributions and hire lobbyists. But over and beyond that, they are regularly invited to enter policymaking circles.

I mean, yes. Right? Even in a US in which public opinion is turning against the one per cent, it’s hard to shake the idea that the rich are, at some level, worth listening to. Part of this is that, even when they say dumb things — which they have just as much of a propensity to do as the rest of the population — they know how to use the language of public debate. But it’s also that the notion of meritocracy is so ingrained in society that its logic now flows in the opposite direction; not she can be successful because she is smart, but he must be smart because he is successful. Successful means rich, natch.

That ain’t make no sense. Rich people are morons, mostly. They’re talented at making money, but apart from that, they don’t know shit. You wouldn’t believe the idiocy I’ve heard come from the mouths of the wealthy, and I don’t mean clueless idiocy of the privileged, but just your regular run-of-the-mill type ignorance. And yet we still think rich folks are worth listening to because they’ve piled some commas together.

A particular, related bugbear of mine is how we’re supposed to all be so persuaded that when it comes to disreputable prejudices, the wealthy are somehow inured. Like we’re supposed to imagine that the real unreconstructed racists in the Republican Party are the working class, the hicks, but never the money-men. Naw, money doesn’t stop you being racist. It might buy you the nous to not say certain words in certain public settings, but just like smarts, the well-off don’t have any special claim to morals either.

Stop listening to rich people!


politico:

Did you catch the #SOTU? Our cartoonist Matt Wuerker’s interpretation.

How does he keep up with the news like that?

politico:

Did you catch the #SOTU? Our cartoonist Matt Wuerker’s interpretation.

How does he keep up with the news like that?


“We live in cities you’ll never see on screen”: On Lorde and growing up on the periphery


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10