Atlantic Privilege

From the Atlantic article 

"Where I Live, No One Cares About COVID"

Few articles provoke rage, but this one from the tweed wearing twit who bragged about flaunting restrictions (I spent 100s of hours in bars unmasked) and then engaged in gauche finger wagging (in oh so pristine prose) towards those concerned about covid. Did he lose a loved one? Watch them get really sick or die because of some entitled dumb ass like him. Well, I'm glad he's pleased with himself. Good for him. According to the article, this was the most embarrassing moment of his life:

"When I read such things, I experience the same secondhand embarrassment I felt upon witnessing an American tourist in Rome ask a waiter at a trattoria to remove the ashtray from the outdoor table at which the employee in question had just been smoking."

Seriously, fuck this guy.

Book Review: Strange Rites: New Religions For a Godless World by Tara Isabella Reed

Tara Isabella's Reed incisive work of non-fiction Strange New Rites: New Religions in a Godless Culture looks at how the digital world has changed spirituality in America and how it's now shaping culture and politics. Reed provides the historical context between conflicting impulses towards religious belief in America: the institutional vs the intuitional. Online life allows anyone to find meaning, purpose, community, and ritual among the like-minded. While the spectrum of belief emerging is wide ranging, they all share a fundamental distrust of institutions and are embracing alternative belief systems. These communities reflect both progressive and reactive impulses driving cultural discussions. 

The 21st Century has witnessed a dramatic rise in "nones" who check the "spiritual, but not religious" box on surveys. During the 2000s secularism and atheism appeared to be on the rise with bestselling polemics and viral YouTube clips by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins "destroying" religious thinkers in debates. Yet the past ten years have revealed there's a deep spiritual hunger among Millennials and Gen Z. The famous Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan predicted the global village we now see appearing in digital and real life. Reed writes of a new generation of "remixers" combining and blending various spiritualities to suit their own personal tastes. Practice traditional Catholic liturgy by morning, some meditation on your Headspace App after a stressful work day, and maybe experiment with Tarot cards over the weekend. 

What I like about the book is that it reads like Sci-Fi film from the 70s that never got made. We're now in a world where a pop culture phenomenon can evolve into religious ones based on Star Wars or Harry Potter. Reed traces the mass popularity of Harry Potter contributing to a rise in beliefs in magic, witchcraft, and astrology among millennials. In recent years Potter fandom even turned on author J.K. Rowling for her controversial views on gender, of course it's nothing new for fandoms to turn on a creator. Reed writes, "Stories now exist not to teach us or inform us, but serve us." (87). In other words, fan service. While online toxic fan culture has been written about ad nauseum, there are some compelling possibilities in this new landscape, a chapter is dedicated to the Sleep No More experience, an interactive version of Macbeth that gained popularity a decade ago. Blurring the lines between creator, audience, and culture does hold untapped possibilities. 

Tom Wolfe's famous essay on "The Third Great Awakening" took a satirical approach to new spiritual currents during the 1970s, in some ways we're living in a more streamlined version of it. SoulCycle promises physical fitness and inner piece, only asking in return your heart and soul - and money of course. The same with various self-care products whether Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop or hyper-masculine products hawked on extreme right-wing outlets. Dating Apps offering services catered to specific tastes make huge profits. There's always a profit angle whether selling customized beads or dropping $200 an hour for a therapy session with Dr. "clean up your room" himself - Jordan Peterson. Megachurch pastors make millions of tax-free dollars, Hollywood celebrities moonlight as entrepreneurial influencers. 

Yet it's not like the 1970s either. Tribes forming and coalescing on various web platforms are influencing and changing political culture. Reed sees three distinct groups: the social justice left, the atavistic right, and the libertarian minded "tech-utopians." The "Gamergate" controversy from 2014 when angry dudes launched online verbal attacks on female video game designers and journalists marked one of the first notable confrontations. "Gamergate" was mere preliminary to the 2016 election, hailed as a victory for reactionary forces everywhere raging at the social justice movement, yet at the same time gave the social justice movement a common enemy to resist. 

Reed identifies religious thinking since the three groups have specific visions of the future. Right wing atavists, in their white supremacist world view long for an apocalypse, wanting the world to revert to a pre-modern ethos as preferable to a technological/ gender fluid civilization. Techies believe advances will pave the way for immortality and a capitalist paradise, maybe even the colonization of Mars (it will be Total Recall).

Social justice activists hope for a future almost free of injustice based on race, gender, or sexuality. The "call out culture" of social justice, a mass attack on social media towards someone expressing regressive views is according to Reed, the mark of a religion. Maybe? While the atavistic right revels in being overtly racist and sexist, triggering and harassing progressives defines their own identity. Right wing violence has spilled into the real world from self proclaimed incels (young men who blame feminism for all of their problems) and conspiracy theory fueled white supremacists. The January 6, 2021 terrorist attack on the Capitol marked a dangerous escalation, a point when a reactionary movement embarks on political violence.

Much of the divide also comes down to the classic nature vs nurture debate, or biology vs sociology. Social activists believe (aligning them with liberals) identity is shaped by social conditioning, while those on the right believe biology is fate. Yet much of their reasoning rests on pseudoscience rooted in 19th Century racism. Silicon Valley technocrats are lost in Sci-Fi fantasies, oddly emulating the antagonists of those stories. 

I don't think Reed is equating social justice activism with right wing extremism, since the goals of each are quite different, but many make the equivalency, arguing social justice is just as illiberal as the right (I would argue that's a false equivalency) One is rooted in the darkest forces of the past, the social justice movement is a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement in that both fight against injustice. That doesn't mean any movement, even if working for just purposes, should be above criticism.

Reed seems both fascinated and anxious with the growing tribalism in America, pondering if fragmentation become the driving narrative of the coming decades.  Did the election of Biden signal a rebirth of the center? What does the center even look like in this swiftly evolving landscape? Class is often left out of the conversation, a subject Reed also avoided, but it does warrant more coverage in this sociological puzzle. While a lack of economic opportunity does translate into reactionary politics gaining traction, it also begs for alternatives to capitalism. There's so much static these days, Strange Rites is a work that rises above the static.

And Summer 2021 is Ending Playlist . . .

 1) That Summer Feeling - Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers

 2) The Ballad of El Goodo - Big Star

 3) Total Trash - Sonic Youth

 4) You Never Know - Wilco

 5) Fall Breaks and Back to Winter - The Beach Boys

Book Review: Wild and Crazy Guys: How the Comedy Mavericks of the '80s Changed Hollywood Forever by Nick De Semlyen

For better or worse the debut of Saturday Night Live changed American comedy, the 2019 book Wild and Crazy Guys provides a group portrait of the male performers (there really needs to be a book on the female cast of SNL who are mostly ignored here). The book's focused on Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Steve Martin, John Candy, Eddie Murphy, and Rick Moranis. For what the book lacks in providing insight on the era, it does provide a compelling rise and fall narrative. 

The debut of SNL, an outbranch of National Lampoon, is often cited as the moment boomer comedy went mainstream. Chevy Chase emerged as the star, his detached wisecracking persona and physical comedy propelled him to fame. Leaving the show in the middle of the second season, Chase embarked on a movie career. Chase looms large in the book, a difficult man but a constant presence throughout the Eighties. 

So much has been written on the early years of SNL, none more than on John Belushi. In the wake of Chase's departure (which he resented) Belushi raised to even greater heights of fame, at one point in 1978 simultaneously having a hit TV show, movie, and record album. His early death in 1982 from a drug overdose became a case study on how not to handle fame. While Belushi's exploits have been covered elsewhere, his quick fall continues to haunt those who knew him decades later. 

Meanwhile SCTV based in Toronto, more acerbic and polished than SNL, propelled the careers of many comedy stars. Avuncular John Candy and the cerebral comedy of Rick Moranis would also break into movies (among many others from SCTV). 

Steve Martin, a Californian, filled arenas with is "anti-comedy" stand up act and became a regular host on SNL. Comedy prodigy Eddie Murphy joined the show at age 19 and became the biggest star of them all. 

The shadow of Belushi hangs over the era despite his early departure. The 1980s became an age of excess and drugs, which often fueled the comedy. The fame and money that came to them tended to complicate their lives above all else. Chase became known for the amount of bombs he made, scoring the occasional hit. Bill Murray eschewed the spoils of fame and chose his projects with more caution. Martin grew tired of standup and embarked on a movie career, scoring a hit with the The Jerk, but would agonize over never being able to replicate the success of that film, although like Murray he graduated into more serious roles and became a critical darling. 

Murphy swiftly became the most versatile cast member on SNL and scored a string of early hit movies like 48 Hours and Trading Places. Ready to take over Hollywood, Murphy signed a major five picture deal with Paramount. He avoided drugs and alcohol, but totally embraced an extravagant movie star lifestyle. By the end of the 1980s, Murphy's career had also suffered after a string of misfires, mirroring the pattern of his peers, always trying to recapture the magic of the early years. 

Wild and Crazy Guys is built on anecdotes. Murray arrived on Ghostbusters after months of traveling the world filming his own ambitious film The Razor's Edge, tired and grouchy on the set but eventually taking to the material. During the filming of one of his most loved films Groundhog Day he was in the midst of a divorce and clashed with his director/friend Harold Ramis. John Candy was liked by everyone, generous to a fault. Tired of the game, Moranis retired from acting and now lives the quiet life. There's also the pariah of John Landis who directed so many comedies of the era, he's one of the book's primary raconteurs.

A breezy and engaging read, Wild and Crazy Guys covers a bygone age of comedy, which for all its faults, will continued to be studied. 

Podcast Review: Gene and Roger

The Ringer recently ended its eight-part podcast Gene and Roger, a retrospective on how a weekly TV show featuring two film critics influenced pop culture in their storied run from 1975-99. To those born after the show aired, they're a curiosity: two middle aged white guys from Chicago talking movies was a thing? Yet to any young movie fan who came of age when the show aired it was must see television. For anyone interested in their history - Gene and Roger is a fun place to start.

The podcast moves on two tracks: how their rivalry/friendship evolved over the decades and how film culture changed during their tenure. Both found their critical voices during the New Hollywood era. Ebert was a phenom on the literary scene at the University of Illinois, writing the screenplay for the Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. He got a full time gig at the Chicago Sun-Times reviewing films, and in 1975 earned the Pulitzer Prize for criticism (a first for a movie critic). Siskel graduated from Yale with a philosophy degree and became the movie critic for the Chicago Tribune. As competing writers in the same town, each developed a dislike towards each other in the early days. 

In 1975 they agreed to do a television show for PBS, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was their first review. The tone was serious for the early episodes, but they eventually found a rhythm. Always competitive towards each other, a grudging respect developed. They were also film journalists, hustling to get the interview and exclusive from a star or director. Both savored the chance to be the first to write a review of a new movie, and even more to proselyte for an underdog movie. In 1982 their show Sneak Previews moved into syndication, and they became fixtures of pop culture, making regular appearances on talk shows, even hosting SNL at the height of their fame.

The podcast features narration and interviews with those who knew them best including family members, co-workers, and fellow critics. I always got the sense Ebert was generally more passionate about movies, while Siskel was more interested in movies as a reflection of culture. Ebert lived movies 24/7, watching and writing about them as if his life depended on it. Siskel had interests outside of reviewing movies, he spent a lot time at the race track. In the 1990s he became a fixture at Chicago Bulls games during the Jordan era. The most persistent myth is that they despised each other and always disagreed, when they usually agreed.

Their rise paralleled that of the Hollywood blockbuster, a trend they generally championed. Both loved Star Wars and Spielberg movies, famously defending Return of the Jedi against John Simon's blistering critique. They also made a point of discussing diversity voices in cinema, always reviewing at least one international film a week. Indie movies and filmmakers were championed alongside mainstream releases. Entire episodes were devoted to trends in movies, film history, and filmmakers. Film appreciation often took precedence over criticism. 

Gene and Roger creates a compelling narrative around their friendship and ends on a bittersweet note. They were antagonistic, but a respect developed over time.  They rarely socialized and moved in different circles, but each realized their together they had a chemistry that brought to fame. When Siskel was diagnosed with brain cancer he never informed Ebert about the seriousness of his condition.  In retrospectives Ebert always spoke highly of Siskel and would often get emotional. Ebert transitioned well into the social media, embracing twitter and keeping up with contemporary films despite the health problems that plagued him. 

The internet would change film discourse forever, no longer would a handful of critics in major markets dominate the discourse. In a way Siskel and Ebert midwifed a generation of crazed movie geeks with explosive opinions, making the internet their home base. They also introduced many to the wide variety of cinema available. Each had their weak spots. Ebert still gets dinged by horror fans for his dislike of slashers, while Siskel's takes often varied wildly, ranging from prescient to superficial. Most of it's all on youtube for anyone to view. 

If you want to go back and reminisce and reflect on the state of current film criticism, I'd recommend Gene and Siskel.

https://www.theringer.com/gene-and-roger-podcast

A Kubrick Short Set in Ohio

 

"Margaret Stackhouse's speculations on the film [2001: A Space Odyssey] are perhaps the most intelligent that I've read anywhere, and I am, of course, including all the reviews and the articles that have appeared on the film and the many hundreds of letters that I have received. What a first-rate intelligence!"

- Stanley Kubrick, circa late 1960s          

March 6, 1999

          Guiding my nephew Robby over to the kid's section, which was oddly situated next to the horror section at Vince's Videos, I stood back waiting for him to pick out something, knowing he was fond of Pinky and the Brain and Power Rangers. Vince's seemed more active than usual for a Sunday, typically the day everyone returned their tapes. I noticed a gathering of customers at the classics section, and I heard someone say, "Stanley Kubrick died." The words got my attention, "Stanley Kubrick died." 

          My mind drifted back to 1986 all squiggly TV lines/harp sounds style when I worked at the video store to scrape through college, you could do that with part-time job back then. My co-workers were a social melting pot of working-class intellectuals, wannabee filmmakers, and college students like me. Most of all I remembered Lisa. 

          Lisa went to art school and for a time was the only female employee at the store, although she later got a few of her friends hired. There was a power structure. Video stores were a boy’s club, dudes endlessly debating the virtues and vices of American cinema. It wasn't like the 20-something cinephiles of today who proudly compare their Criterion Collections of Ozu and Bergman, Manhunter was considered the pinnacle of cinema in Mid-Eighties Ohio. There were many characters. A few I remember: Monroe made his own little films with Super 8 and blustered on all day about his favorite cult classics like Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and The Mack. Travis majored in film studies, a sort of self-appointed cultural board of authority. 

          While Monroe and Travis clashed all the time, Lisa often jumped into the fray, pouring cold water on their egotistical rants. I typically stood clear when a fracas between the three of them broke out, but they are lodged in my memory. 

          If Monroe and Travis had anything in common, it was their endless fascination with Kubrick. Travis preferred the earlier New York City guerilla filmmaker fare like Killer's Kiss and The Killing, both progressing to the formalist precision of Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove. Monroe argued A Clockwork Orange was the true masterpiece, a dark and spectral vison of the future influencing all the arts from punk music to comics.

    On that particular day, a customer was renting out The Shining, providing Travis with the opportunity to recommend Kubrick's earlier work. A trigger for Monroe, he butted in with his opinion, "Don't listen to him, The Shining is great. You'll love it, almost as good as A Clockwork Orange."

    As the customer walked out, Travis was pissed at Monroe, "Stop interrupting me in front of customers!”

    Monroe cackled, "With all of your horrible recommendations I cannot remain silent. Last week you recommended Balthazar to a five-year-old child.”

    Travis, always ready to for a sparring match, "The Shining is an overlong exercise for anyone's patience. Nicholson is in self-parody mode, and Shelley Duvall cannot act." 

    Lisa jumped into the fray, "Nothing's more obnoxious than a guy critiquing a female performance. What do you know of acting Travis?"

    Travis in his most condescending tone sounding like a cardiologist proclaiming a diagnosis, "Kubrick only cast her because of that helpless look in her eyes. She was skilled at looking terrified - that's all."

     Fed up, Lisa threw a rhetorical wrench at them, "Besides, Kubrick is the most overrated director of all time anyway."

    They both snickered with wry amusement.

    Lisa continued, "All of his movies are about male obsessions. Women are pretty much absent."

    Travis jumped in, "My point exactly. Shelley Duvall has nothing to do but look terrified in The Shining. That sums up Kubrick's view of women."

    As per usual, the discussion gave Monroe a chance to deliver a rant, "I don't disagree with you Lisa. Most of his movies are fixated on men. Kubrick movies are a rite of passage. The pointlessness of war and bureaucracy in Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove. Spartacus and Lolita have their moments, but they're minor. 2001 expanded the possibilities of cinema, A Clockwork Orange made screen violence electric, disturbing, and thought provoking. Barry Lyndon is a beautiful, haunting film. The Shining is a masterpiece of modern horror. We're obsessed with his movies for reasons that are difficult to articulate, but they hit something primal within us."

    With a fierce look in her eyes indicating she was about to strangle Monroe, "You're full of shit. So full of shit."

    Monroe cackled, "You know I'm right."

    Lisa demurred, "Nope. You do know it was a 15-year-old girl who decoded 2001, way before all those male critics jumped in with their own interpretations. Look, his films provide insights into the male psychology as you just went to great lengths to point out. They're all about self-destruction. My takeaway from Kubrick: If the patriarchy isn't shattered like right now, before the year 2000 at least, humanity is doomed."

    Travis droned on about the humanistic messages embedded in Kubrick movies and I tuned out. When Full Metal Jacket came out a year later, I thought it paradoxically confirmed both Lisa and Monroe's points. The film acted as a warped recruiting tool for the Marine Corps, perhaps even more successful than Top Gun in the war propaganda department. 

                            *                    *                    *

    Robby had decided to go with the Power Rangers video. On our way out there was clerk, a dude, naturally, droning on about Kubrick and what a loss it was for cinema. I got the sentiment, but his need to display expertise was grating - and predictable. That’s it, one day people are wondering what your next project will be, the next you shuffle off the mortal coil, and the trajectory of conversations change. Stanley Kubrick was dead. 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Dawn Music

Thinking of many things, people I miss & places long gone.

Simple Twist of Fate - Bob Dylan

See No Evil - Television

Glory - Television

Days - Television

Sad Song - Otis Redding

You and Oblivion - Robyn Hitchcock

Little Lou, Ugly Jack, Prophet John - Belle and Sebastian 

Sweet Part of the City - The Hold Steady

Lost Love - Golden Smog

Book Review: Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydide's Trap? by Graham Allison

The U.S.-China relationship will probably shape the course of the 21st Century. In Destined for War scholar of international relations Graham Allison takes a historical approach based on the method of Greek historian Thucydides who wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War to speculate on the future of this fraught relationship. When the most powerful Greek state Sparta was challenged by Athens, it led to a destructive conflict that upended the ancient world. Allison sees a parallel with China emerging as an economic and military competitor to the United States. While no one can accurately predict what will happen, Allison uses historical analogies to provide perspective on a dauntingly complex and concerning relationship that will shape the future.

Destined for War documents the remarkable resurgence of China over the past 70 years. Most Americans are reluctant to realize the Chinese have not only caught up with the United States but surpassed it in many ways. Since 1980 China's economic has doubled every seven years. Allison estimates their economy will be the most powerful in the world - leaving the United States in the dust after 2024. China has already surpassed the United States in manufacturing, producing cars, and countless other consumer products with a specific advantage on cell phones. Their infrastructure is exploding with growth, skyscrapers are built in terms of weeks not months. In 2015 the 1300-ton Sanyuan Bridge was constructed in 43 hours! (13-14)

Economic power almost always translates to military power and China under Xi Jinping has embarked on expanding the military and is approaching parity with U.S. naval power in the Pacific. Their use of cyber weapons has already made waves would be used if conflict should ever occur. Xi's leadership has focused on rooting out corruption, instilling a nationalistic pride, maintaining the economic growth, and establishing China as the dominant power in Asia. With a growing fleet and increasingly assertive gestures towards the United States many believe a war is likely within the next 20 years.

Allison provides sound analysis throughout on the possible likelihood of war. He identifies 16 instances in history when an established great power has been challenged by a rising power. The statistics suggest war is likely since only four ended peacefully (75% chance of conflict).  Cultural differences between America and China are also a factor since both believe in their own superiority which makes a misunderstanding more likely. Chinese society emphasizes hierarchy and "knowing one's place," while Americans emphasize individuality. Xi envisions China as a superior alternative to Western democracy.

Despite the ominous assessment one gets from history, Allison believes a possibility exists for the two nations to become partners. Domestic politics are crucial. China's internal problems revolve around preserving a traditional society in a world driven more and more by digital technology. Meanwhile America under Trump witnessed democracy undergo major strain and the threat has by no means disappeared with his exit from office. While the 2020 election of Joe Biden suggest a majority of Americans still believe in truth and democracy, 74 million Americans were solidly behind Trump's anti-democratic rhetoric and actions. The January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters denied the country a peaceful transfer of power and most Republicans continue to believe the big lie of a rigged election. China is watching closely. 

With slim majorities in Congress, Biden has passed massive relief bills in the wake of the pandemic with no GOP support. Whether the house divided era in America will calm down or flare up will directly influence the China relationship. Americans remain unprepared psychologically on the challenges posed by China and may take a Sputnik type event to change perceptions before its too late. 

There are many flashpoints for a China/US confrontation that could spiral into a shooting war, Taiwan or the South China Sea are the most likely places. Trouble in North Korea would also likely lead to a confrontation. The prospect of a war is just as apocalyptic of a full-scale war between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Cyber weapons would certainly be used, attacks on power grids, banking systems, and broadband networks would happen within 24 hours of conflict. Space would likely be another front in the war as each side attacks each other's satellites. As to the nuclear question, each side also has the ability to destroy each other many times over. 

Allison takes comfort from the fact that the Cold War never went hot. A realist, Allison argues containment and deterrence worked in the long term in preventing a third world war. Both sides realized going to war would result in their self-destruction, so they found a way to coexist however imperfect. As awful as they were, wars in Korea and Indochina remained limited. While there were many close calls such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1973 Middle East War, and the Able Archer Exercises of 1983 neither side ever went through with the unthinkable. Did we survive by blind luck? Or did creative diplomacy work?

Allison argues America must reconfigure its China policy through creativity and realism harkening back to the containment policies developed by George Kennan in the late 1940s. Policymankers will have to make concessions with China, while at the same time find areas of common ground and establish rules of conduct - the parallel being arms control during the Cold War. If America can reinvigorate its troubled democracy, it could also provide a viable alternative to the China (and Russian) model.

Destined for War is thought provoking use of history to make sense of current events. Yet studying history never tells anyone what decision to make, it's merely a guide. China's rise is a world historical event, far more significant than the rise of the Soviet Union and other great powers throughout history. Relations with China have worsened since the book was published in 2017 and it will be one of the key challenges facing the Biden administration which has yet to venture too far from its predecessors. The book demands one ponder the future and the potentially unnerving existential arc of this century. 

Cable or Streaming?

I was born in 1979, wedged between Gen X and Millennials, so I was among the last to look upon cable television as the ultimate luxury in home entertainment (next to owning a VCR). When my household finally got a cable TV subscription when I was a teenager it was like seeing the light after living in exile under the umbrella of network television. Being able to flip through 40-50 channels (as crazy it sounds) mind blowing for a certain generation.

The novelty of watching music videos all day or Clint Eastwood marathons on TNT is probably lost on anyone born after 1990. Flipping around from 24-hour news to 24 hour sports to 24 hour weather felt like freedom! Far from it of course! I'm not of the set who believes the only way to save humanity is ban all mass media*, it comes down to using the tool, so it doesn't control you. I'm trying to be a realist today.

Later my parents got Direct TV which was superior to cable in terms of quality and customer service. Direct TV had a lot to offer in the 2000s with some excellent radio channels and a user friendly interface. The IFC and Sundance channels actually showed independent movies introducing to all sorts of offbeat films like Primer or Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai. Today those channels only air banal studio product interspersed with endless Law & Order marathons.

As streaming began to gradually takeover by the 2010s the phrase "cutting the cord" entered the parlance. Why bother with cable subscription when you could pay an easy $7.99/month for Netflix? Younger people I knew found getting cable to be a ridiculous expense, understandable in the austere economic days since the 2008 crash. Streaming appeared to be the ultimate antidote in the scramble for cheap entertainment.

With a new streaming service popping up every month, it's way too easy these days to subscribe to only a few services and pay the equivalent cost of cable - so cutting the cord is not the money saver of a decade ago. Many services charging higher prices to avoid the intrusion of ads raises the cost is even more. I always considered the DVR a godsend since I can speed through the commercials. DVR is VCR programming one better, just a few clicks can assure you can watch anything you want without the ads. 

So, while I've considered cutting the cord over the years, I'm a holdout to cable. As homogenized and corporatized Cable TV has become, from the abysmal turn so many channels have taken. The "History" and "Science" channels devote hours to dull paranormal topics. Ancient Aliens has contributed way too much into the devolution of critical thinking. Turner Classic Movies remains of the few bright spots, although the variety in their programming has fallen off lately. 

Maybe I'm trying to talk myself out of keeping cable. I guess there's comfort in TNT and TBS with their wall of popular entertainments or local channels keeping the spirit of local news alive. Or it could just be holding on to something from the past, not in the since of remembering where you were for the Seinfeld finale, but more in the sense of remembering TV bonding families or even groups of people together. 

Looking into the crystal ball we appear to be years away from having access to the ultimate cloud where everything ever produced is simply a click away. In terms of music, we're close, with movies and TV getting edging closer. Will there eventually be three major streaming services offering quantity but not much in the way variety and quality? Back to 1979.

*I often see the book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander being promoted on social media. Published in 1978 when network TV still ruled, Mander provides powerful and prescient arguments in support of his title. Much of what he wrote can also be applied to social media in the 21st Century. Compelling as it is, not enough time to go into detail here, an uncompromising attitude that has all the passion of the newly converted. Eliminating TV or mass media will not happen (of course individuals have that option) I'm more in the camp of let's adapt to the technology and look for creative solutions. And that includes more government oversight because an unregulated social media is now a public safety issue. 

Waiting for the Ultimate Podcast (The Year of Living Digitally)

The year 2020 may will be remembered as the high water mark for podcasts. With millions of people at home most of the time, feeling bored and isolated, what's better than listening to other human voices talking about your mutual passions. For myself it was movie podcasts. I learned a lot about movies, corners of cinema I had no idea existed. All the better for it. The personalities almost start to feel like you're friends. You might start to feel you are part of a . . . . drumroll . . . . Community!

Yet at some point it all starts to feel like an illusion. The digital world is really not all that different than its analog counterpart. Social hierarchies come into play. Not all podcasts are equal to others, nor in terms of their communities. The pros have corporate sponsorship and mainstream appeal. Those in the minor leagues cultivate a niche audience. Everybody wants to rule the digital world, infinite content to fill many lifetimes. 

Even within podcasting networks a dynamic begins to develop. Members of the audience may compete for attention from the hosts. Everybody wants attention and some want it more than others (see discussion boards or twitter feeds). In the early days listening to podcasts was like being invited to a party with an eccentric group of friends and acquaintances, then it gets bigger and suddenly what used to be novel starts to feel like the lunch room in High School. Who has fond memories of that? 

There's a difference between being bombarded with ideas and being bombarded with opinions, the former is slightly more worthwhile. Ideas are processed; opinions are simply given. The web allows anyone with an opinion to have a platform beyond their front porch, some have nicer porches than others. Some live on mountain tops.  A digital provocateur at the end of the day becomes a nothing more than a blowhard, armed with a gift for repetition and skewed outrage. Exchange of ideas has its Orwellian undertones as well I suppose. Maybe someday the AI will create holograms of all the top thinkers of history or whatever their algorithm will produce will be the ultimate podcast. I imagine it would be somewhere between Bill and Ted's history report and a Ted Talk (which already have an AI vibe).

We all want to be a part of "the conversation" of the things we care about. And a podcast simply cannot make that happen for all involved, which in the end frustrates. While anyone can start a podcast - anyone can make a film or write a book as well, it's the idea of it more than actual doing of it that's more attractive. All the conversations and all the talking, analyzing, and interviewing in the end turns us into mere antiquarians of knowledge. 

Burnt out on podcasts. Burnt out on social isolation. Burnt out on everything Where does one go? We have to find some way to fill our time. I suppose there's far worse things than consuming podcasts. But what can provide a respite from alienation is just that . . . a respite. And to paraphrase Estragon from Waiting For Godot, we're all just looking for the impression we exist. Sometimes, that's enough.

In The Zone/Feeling Lost Type Night

Holly Martins : A lot of good your money will do you in jail.

Harry Lime : That jail's in another zone.