Taco trucks, Twitter and the next Apple tablet.

Yesterday I saw a group of working class Jose’s standing around a taco truck at midday eating lunch. There were four or five pickup trucks parked near the taco truck. There were no other patrons.

The scene reminded me of photos I’ve seen of the original lunch wagons from the 19th century which in turn became the fast food franchises of the 20th century – or even the trendy food carts of the 21st century.

Certainly, the hamburger or steak sandwich would not be as popular today if it did not allow for Americans to eat on the go and for restaurants to serve more customers than they can seat.

In a way, a similar transformation is taking place now with information products. It used to be that you could only do computing by going to a place with a giant computer. Then the computer got smaller and cheaper and you could compute from inside your home.

Now, you can compute on the go and the result is a great deal more computing and many more “computers” – meaning both the people doing the computing as well as the devices they use to compute. (Which could make Twitter something like a hot dog stand or a bag of nuts. Or both.)

All of which prompted me to think: if Apple builds a daylight-compatible Retina display, the next lock-in cycle for tablet computers is probably theirs.

Update, two years later: I was barking up the wrong tree. It’s not about seeing the display in daylight. It’s about speech recognition.

business/technology

Movies about the lives of adolescents.

A few weeks ago I panned the movie Easy A as a teen drag performance and a bad one at that.

Using teens and teen scenarios to tell adult stories is not inherently a bad thing. Allegories like the movies Election, Mean Girls and Rushmore are rich with meaning despite treating adolescence as a pretext rather than a dramatic purpose.

But these rare successes may come at the expense of movies that actually and accurately depict the lives of teens. Such movies don’t disregard the feelings and struggles of adolescents as immature or shallow – i.e., as something you “get over” like a cold or a sprained ankle – but rather as pivotal moments in a person’s life; the stuff of drama.

Below is a short list of such achievements. Not all of these movies are equally good and a few have some real problems but they are all focused on what life can mean to teens:

I have excluded some “canonical teen movies” (e.g., by John Hughes, Cameron Crowe) from this list on what is a perhaps a technicality: while they are clearly movies for teens, they strike me as movies about overcoming adolescence rather than muddling through it. They are fantasies rather than dramas. It’s a distinction that surely says more about my taste for narrative than any shortcomings in these movies.

Update: Fish Tank would now be at the top of this list.

ideas/movies & television/people

Goat heads.

From the Wikipedia page for Wōden:

Gregory claims that the Lombards demanded of 400 of their Christian prisoners to bow before the goat’s head in adoration, and as they refused slew them all.

What better way to confirm whether your captives will acquiesce to your will than by first imposing on them the most arbitrary idea in your culture: your religion.

people

A Cuban thought experiment for an American public.

Imagine having the same president for 50 years — and for at least 42 of those years no longer agreeing with him.

What if the U.S. had been attacked by foreign terrorists in the summer of 2000? Let’s say the attack was slightly worse; instead of part of the Pentagon, the whole thing had been destroyed. Plus the Towers. Maybe even the White House.

What if we had invaded Afghanistan in July and the 2000 election had been postponed or a third term granted. And then the opposition party had tried to regain domestic control by “heightening the contradictions” only to see their plan backfire when allies deviate from the playbook in the Middle East. So the war worsens and the U.S. is now entangled in a very tricky, multiparty power shift — a world war — as well as a paranoid security state at home.

Then the 2004 elections come around and maybe another term for a war-time president doesn’t sound so bad. The civilian commander in chief has now been in power for 12 years and is safely ensconced for another four. That’s double the term of any modern administration. (Imagine if dogs lived to 30 or if winters lasted from November to June.)

The coalitions that make up the reigning party are breaking apart due to the policy shifts of a war administration and so are the coalitions of the opposing party due to their failures at regaining control. A new alignment of previously competing blocs takes place and an unprecedented coalition is created around the commander in chief.

The war is going well for this bloc. They’re physically and politically safe, their allies in the private sector are doing well with the war effort. They also have support in key parts of the civilian populations (television news, radio networks) as well as within the domestic forces — the cops, the FBI, etc.

Incredible things are happening abroad as players around the world are responding to a bloody and expensive global realignment as well as the unprecedented realignment inside the U.S.. Other democracies also harden and begin to reaffirm the reigning U.S. worldview.

Now you’re 24 years into a single presidency. (Imagine if dogs lived to be 50 years old and winters lasted an entire year.) The soldiers entering the conscription army were born a few years after the war began. They’ve never known a nation not at war nor a different president.

Now you’re just half-way through the regime of Fidel Castro.

Truly a nightmare, no?

work

The nightmares of PTSD.

Emma Young:

“When you look at the dreams of patients with PTSD, you see these nearly veridical ‘replays’ of the actual trauma event,” says Stickgold.

This sort of dreaming just doesn’t happen in healthy people. “When you collect dream reports from normal people and ask if they know what actual events might have caused their dreams, the dream event has always been changed in that bizarre, somewhat meaningful, but crazy way,” he says. Stickgold thinks this is a window into how the healthy brain processes new, emotionally-charged memories, integrating them with others in dreams, and in REM dreams especially. In patients with PTSD, that process has broken down.

The definition of hell: to repeat an act for eternity. The association between dreams and freedom – “in your dreams”, “follow your dreams”, “dreams are free” – and the life sentence of a nightmare which is anything but spontaneous, stripped of all potential.

ideas/mental illness/people

The Democrats and pessimism as self-pity.

David Rothkopf:

There seems to be a reluctance of the Democratic Party to actually embrace their record of achievement during the past two years. Either because of successful opposition spin work or because of the consequence of voter unease or, likely, both, Democrats have concluded for some bizarre, misguided reason that they should run away from what is is almost certainly the most productive initial two year period of any presidency in recent memory.

work

Shorter Taibbi on Tea Party: Many older Americans believe colored people don’t deserve equal rights.

Matt Taibbi:

“Let me get this straight,” I say to David. “You’ve been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?”

“Well,” he says, “there’s a lot of people on welfare who don’t deserve it.”

My understanding of domestic politics changed after I learned about the research that conclusively links views on welfare to diversity.

There are many who would rather starve than share the table with a “stranger”.

work

Sports and other games for self-understanding.

Will Self:

Men – and some women – watch football, dispute and debate football, and even occasionally kick a ball around, because it offers them a small-scale model of life, not necessarily because it distracts them from life altogether. Claude Lévi-Strauss observed in The Savage Mind that the virtue of a small-scale model is that it sacrifices the sensible in favour of the intelligible. Life, it is true, can be grasped in all its confused futility merely by opening one’s eyes and sitting passively, a spectator on the stands of history – but to understand the social processes and conflicts, the interplay between individual and group, even the physicality of human experience, we have need of small-scale models.

I heard recently that Tim Robbins is involved with theater workshops in California state prisons. What a great idea.

ideas/people/play

Holey vessels.

I spent at least an hour today retracing my steps of the last day on the web, in search of a passage I’d just read that suggests we can no more think outside our bounds than a bird can understand itself from the point of view of its predator.

That I have misplaced this quote is a testament not just to my sloppy reading habits but even more to my aging brain. I will increasingly rely on tools to “offload” my memory to the cloud. This is, perhaps, as it should be. We are not meant to hold on to information for very long.

We are fragile vessels, bound to break. If we’ve served well, we’ll have carried some information a little bit further along.

work

We have little idea how people talked a hundred years ago.

Graham Robb:

The problem is, do we know how “a human being” spoke a hundred years ago? Even a perfect recording could not restore the familiar backdrop of the time, the contrastingly normal voices in the foyer, the daily pantomime of gestures and expressions, nor, of course, the theatergoers’ notion of what constituted a “natural” performance.

A hundred years from now, though, we will have a record of how we spoke. Not the end of history, but perhaps its opposite.

ideas/language

Teen drag.

We went to see the movie Easy A last night.

Casting adults to play the role of teens is nothing new. Neither is writing adult dialogue for teens to recite. (At the behest of Hollywood writers, kids do say the darndest things.)

But it did make us wonder: who are these ageless, genderless mutants on the screen and for whom was this movie made?

First, the characters were thoroughly uncanny. Droids. Clones. Replicants. You will know them by their quips. An Invasion of the Culturally Jewish Liberal Body Snatchers.

Second, the movie is an unabashed pastiche of other teen movies. It not only references them it actually cuts to scenes from other teen movies.

Being self-aware, however, is no guarantee that you will transcend your own condition. If anything, it can be a hallmark of bad faith.

Rather than being a remarkable or reliable account of coming-of-age, this movie, like so many others (e.g., Juno), is a subgenre onto itself. The teen drag performance: adults knowingly performing in the guise of adolescents for other fans of impersonation.

update: as opposed to movies about adolescents.

ideas/movies & television

Right wing frustration over Colbert’s testimony to Congress is the best news I’ve heard this week.

Our society and economy would be much, much better off if debaters, especially on television, were able to call each others’ bluff with the simple use of the word “ignorant.”

“You’re ignorant and here’s why.” That is, “You do not know what you are talking about. Here’s why. Now, prove me wrong, right here, right now.”

Too often, we take a speaker’s word that they know what they’re talking about. Given the intellectual pedigree of most of the talking heads on television, this is not only a baseless claim, it’s contradicted by fact.

This culture of mediocrity, of baseless assertion being trotted out as studied fact is precisely what Stephen Colbert has satirized in a very public appearance before the U.S. Congress:

“Does one day in the field make you an expert witness?” Mr. [Lamar] Smith pressed.

“I believe that one day of me studying anything makes me an expert,” Mr. Colbert replied.

The apoplexy on the right over Stephen Colbert’s testimony to Congress is a loud, clear signal that he hit the nail on the head: he has exploded one of their most useful tools. (When your opponents protests a tactic, it’s often because that tactic is near and dear to them or they would like it to be.)

He and others should proceed to hit that nail again and again and again.

art/journalism/movies & television/power

Our problem with drugs. Which is not the same as our drug problem.

Knowledge is shaped by subjectivity. This is not my opinion but rather an objective fact that has been independently confirmed by many different disciplines, from philosophy to the study of witness statements, from physics to economics.

Therefore, what we know about drugs is based on who is asking the questions and why.

To date, most studies on drugs like marijuana (really, THC) have been motivated by the enforcement of a taboo and legal prohibitions. We see THC through the lenses of the criminal or epidemiological investigation because that is how most studies of the drug are funded. Thus, our elite or formal understanding of this drug has largely been produced through the filter of a political and moral struggle.

There is, however, a popular or informal understanding of THC which is at odds with the formal understanding. This is the common knowledge of “pot” as the drug of respected artists (and a few politicians), of stoners and their rituals and artifacts. Reconciling these different understandings is a large part of what is taking place in the many popular referenda on the “legalization of marijuana.”

There are notable exceptions to our knowledge of mind-altering drugs. For example, LSD and later MMDA were produced by industry. They were thus studied formally outside the scope of their morality. (In fact, LSD was studied by our most respected authority – the U.S. government – using tests deemed illegal.)

While this formal knowledge has not had much impact on the legality of these drugs, they weaken the claim that all psychoactive drugs are inherently deleterious. Rather, they suggest that a prescribed use of psychoactive drugs is possible. Today you may legally go to a doctor, describe certain psychological symptoms and be prescribed valium. It is not a stretch to imagine going to the same doctor, describing a different set of symptoms and being prescribed THC. (i.e., not because you’re dying of AIDS or cancer.)

In sum, our problem with drugs is in large part a lack of shared or common knowledge. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Our lack of formal knowledge about the social and cultural uses of THC, for example, is an impediment to its use as a tool rather than its misuse or abuse.

Perhaps, the only distinction between medicine and poison is the dosage. Recreational drugs like alcohol, for instance are governed not just by legal prohibitions but also by well-honed social and cultural prescriptions. For example, consuming alcohol alone is frowned upon while consuming alcohol in a group (e.g., in a bar or party) is celebrated.

Developing a similar understanding of the proper consumption of THC would help its proponents make a more reasonable case.

ideas/power

News as meat: raw vs. aged prime, ground vs. choice cuts.

Or, to fight commoditization, provide analysis.

I pay to read The New Yorker because its reporters provide a service that is rare in the information marketplace: they not only quote people accurately, they also tell me whether or not that quote is factual.

It’s an added service that requires the writers at The New Yorker to analyze and research the statements they quote. From a business standpoint, it takes a deep and specialized know-how to hire people who can consistently create this added value. (Like manufacturing computers or race cars, fact-checking can be a highly complex process since the people who make inaccurate statements for a living often spend a great deal of time and/or money to cover their tracks.)

The product of such labors is thus what is commonly regarded as “quality.” Because The New Yorker can report both the fact that someone said something as well as the truth of what they said, they have a competitive advantage over those who are only competing to be the first to report the statement.

Unlike so much of the news that is available to consumers today, the news in The New Yorker is not a commodity.

“Speed kills.”

Receiving inaccurate news immediately is less useful than receiving accurate news later on. This is difficult to believe given how much emphasis our market has placed on timeliness since the advent of the afternoon paper, the dedicated news station on radio and later television, or, most recently, the Twitter headline.

But if someone tells you the movie theater is on fire when it’s not, you are not going to be happy towards the person who first made this inaccurate report – nor will you have warm fuzzies for every other person who quoted the first reporter verbatim without corroborating the facts before doing so.

When all the news provides is quotation marks they’re basically putting an asterisk next to the statement they’re reporting. The asterisk says: “This statement might or might not be true. We can’t or won’t say. You decide, right?”

While everyone may want to decide few have the means to do so. They will need to make time and spend money to find, visit and interview the people who can corroborate the quoted statement. Most people want to do other things with their free time and hard-earned money rather than tracking down authoritative sources. (That is, doing the work of journalists.)

Many news services make a half-hearted effort to get at the truth by quoting competing claims and thus contradictory statements. However, few news services actually synthesize these antithetical statements.

So what is the consumer to do when they’re served two contradictory statements. Surely one of those statements is a live one and the other is a decoy? When consumers aren’t sure if the catch they’re being served is a lure, they’re less likely to go with that brand of news.

Alternately, when the consumer is served a story so full of nonsense words that they’re left chewing for hours on cartilage, they’re less likely to want a repeat of that experience.

“It’s ‘prime’ time.”

I believe that if consumers are served different cuts of news (Prime, AAA, AA, A), they will gravitate towards that news that is more useful even if it costs them more – “cost” in terms of their choices, of choosing between content that inspires, energizes and educates them.

The ratings and revenue success of Fox News in prime time as well as of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report in late-night suggest that many consumers do value the news more than other entertainment options when that news is provided with analysis.

Neither Fox News in prime nor the news on Comedy Central are focusing on soft stories* about dancing dogs or celebrity divorces; they’re tackling the “hardest”, life and death news of the moment. (The most recent Daily Show, which featured extensive coverage of the United Nations General Assembly and an interview with the King of Jordan on the Mideast Peace Process, is a good example.)

The fact that Fox News programs in prime and Comedy Central’s late night news shows are hosted, respectively, by clowns and satirists does not mean that providing engaging analysis requires humor. The New Yorker, The Economist and many programs on the BBC Radio provide entertaining news analysis without recourse to the rhetoric of comedy.

Not only can quality news be produced in a variety of formats, consumers across the spectrum have made it clear they are willing to pay for quality with their time and money.


*If anything, you are more likely to see a squirrel water-skiing on the local news than in these prime time news shows. The local news often tries to make a more entertaining product without access to the requisite resources: writers and specialist producers. This trend towards an inferior and thus less competitive product is a result of poor tactical moves – personnel cuts – made instead of the correct trategic shift; hiring the writers and producers needed to produce the product now being requested by consumers.

journalism/technology/work

A massive multiplayer movie experience.

Reading Michael Heilemann’s celebrated investigation of how the character of Chewbacca was crafted, it struck me that movies are multi-player text-based virtual reality games caught on film.

With movies, you start out with a script and then you enlist a bunch of players – artists, craftspeople, actors, musicians, etc. – to they work out the tens of thousands of possibilities of that script well enough to put those thousands of decisions on film for other people to play with – or, really, just “play back.”

The large, highly organized teams who make video games are engaged in a similar activity. They create logic and coordination challenges for individual players to solve and, increasingly, social challenges that allow groups and individuals to take on both scripted and improvised roles which in turn create additional challenges for players.

Role playing in games creates dynamics and opportunities for performances that cannot be produced otherwise; they can neither be simulated without humans nor ever fully anticipated. (As an aside, it’s an established critique that the best Star Wars movies were made by large groups of players and the worst were made by just a few.)

Returning to the economy of films, we know that not everyone can or would want to participate in the making of a movie. However, many enjoy watching the record of such performances. Are movies of massive multiplayer games on the horizon?

“A cast of thousands.”

There is already a vibrant tradition of recording individual performances (see “speed runs“) in games. I suspect we are on the cusp of seeing similar recordings of group performances – thanks, in large part, to the foresight of video game developers who are including more sophisticated recording tools along with their games.

If you could coordinate (orchestrate, record and edit together) the performances within a massive multi-player game, you might end up with a continuous movie experience that is closer to the vitality of theater than most films ever get.

art/ideas/movies & television/play/work

Anger management and politics as child rearing.

I have an anger problem. It’s not something I’m proud of and definitely one of the habits I’d like to break.

The Democrats also have an anger problem. Theirs, however, is a distinct lack of anger.

It’s as if the they are afraid of raising their voices so as not to upset the children. Meanwhile, the children are eating out of trash cans and running at each other with knives, giggling.

Yes, the correct way to engage in a discussion about serious issues is with a measured, steady voice. However, the best way to get your audience’s attention is not always to speak softly.

Especially not when the person next to you is yelling encouragements like “Run faster! Grab another knife!”

people/power

LCD Soundsystem vs Pavement

As they’re back in the news for a reunion, I have been listening to and thinking about Pavement recently. Their songs are still as fresh for me as they were 15 years ago when I last listened to them – at that time, obsessively, for months on end. But they are not as rewarding – not after listening to LCD Soundsystem.

While playing in different genres and a product of different decades, both groups explore fundamentally similar angles. Both are droll and earnest, obscure and precise, layered and clear. Yet only one of these two epoch-defining projects transcends their own contradictions and thus their time and place.

For me, it’s LCD Soundsystem for the win.

music

When reciting the Pledge to America, place your hand over your wallet, with pious solemnity.

Matthew Yglesias:

Perhaps the most telling thing about where the modern conservative movement is now, however, is their pledge on spending which says that “with common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” Of course once you except Social Security, Medicare, and defense from cuts you’re talking about not touching the government’s three largest programs.

…Instead it’s a plan that says we’ll cut spending on children, the poor, and the next generation’s infrastructure in order to ensure that taxes can be cut on the rich while protecting our own base constituencies—old people, defense contractors, veterans—from the scythe.

power