I got a new job. I’ll be working at G2, an interactive marketing agency, mostly interfacing with video game companies. Pay bump, better benefits. Career change FTW. No more hassling reporters (praise Allah). And I get to write about stuff (videogames!) that I find much more…well…engaging!

I’m gonna start surfing again. Surfing was an activity I never really got into when I was younger as I didn’t really live near the beach and didn’t really have too many friends that surfed. However, now that I’m older and more in control of my life and don’t have to rely on anyone to tell me what I can and cannot do, I’ve decided to pursue that ‘great feeling’ of the waves. Hopefully I’ll meet Matthew McConnaughey along the way at some point, and we’ll go surfing and I’ll annoyingly recount numerous lines from Surfer, Dude to his disdain (or…possibly to his “stony” pleasure..). “All we need is love and waves for these dark days.”

I’ve been saving up for a car for almost a year and I’m almost there. Volkswagen golf, 4-door, you’ll almost be mine. And then I can finally use it to take trips up to the snow this year. Hopefully lift ticket prices won’t be massive bitches this year (like they have been increasingly so for the past several years!), but, apparently resorts are having a tough time covering costs…or so they say. $70-80 bucks for a lift ticket is almost a crime, and just about enough to make any decent man cry.

I rode a motorcycle for the first time last weekend. And let me tell you (yeah! you!) that it is awesome. Even though I was probably at most only going 20 or 25, it felt awesome. Everything about it is just awesome. How many more times can I use the word awesome? I don’t know, I can’t count, but, trust me…it’s awesome. If you haven’t ridden a motorcycle yet (or haven’t been convinced just yet by Ben’s somewhat “hostile” persuasions), I implore you. Try it. It’s awesome.

Back to work! Signing out! Peace!

I don’t believe that anyone should have to explain how dangerously conspiratorial these offenses are, especially considering how far all the misdirected fury and rage was allowed to escalate. But when considering as to how such anger was able to be demonstrated, one simply has to look at the state of conservative media, where figures like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin have become the pinnacle voices for a significant conservative population; rife with dialogues exclusively based on cultural values and ideology, rather than policy discussion and intellectual debate.

Given this, is it a surprise that many conservatives are seen as being out of touch? When such partisan popular media figures only serve to provide their audiences with talking points for the day, any viewer can brainlessly tune in and absorb them, essentially removing any sort of individualized thought process that is (one would hope) typically involved in digesting information. As I see it, the measure of one’s intellect is their capacity to contribute their individually composed thoughts and ideas to a discussion; with news media content that is consistently watered-down to talking points, there is no room for intellectual discussion and, at that point, no room for debate. No room for debate stifles intellectual growth, new ideas, and constrains one’s view of reality.

Unless conservative media can learn and change these errors in discourse, we can expect to see more ‘tea parties’.

Wait, say whatever he wants about the other party without receiving any blowback? And receive all the press attention in the meantime? Rush, you’re quite the avarice!

There’s a difference between “doers” and “everyone else.” Rush, if you were so passionate and strong-willed as you say you are, then you would leave your post at your radio show and go into politics. You are quite the conservative pedagogue. Your party is in shambles. You challenged Michael Steele’s authority and won. You want Obama to fail. You want to debate him. Why not do it in an actual political setting, where there are real and equal stakes?

I believe Rush the politician would leave his post and go help his party when it is in shambles. You do have a sense of conviction, correct? However, Rush the media personality instead will continue to spew his conservative shock-babble all the while bathing in the comfort of his own press.

Two options: Talk the talk, or walk the walk.

So, what’s it gonna be? Rush the politician? Or Rush the media personality?

Ideally, it sounds like an amazing event. But, alas, this is reality.

I used to spend a fair amount of time reading up on music and music news before I realized that most of the publications I was reading were mere ‘echo chambers.’ There’s a need in these high-flying media circles for these publications to remain the most ‘relevant’ and ‘hip,’ so that their readership will continue to tune in. But what is tagged as ‘relevant’ or ‘hip’ is contingent on two things: marketability, and press exposure.

Now, considering that there are tons and tons of blogs, magazines, music columns, etc; that all cover new and upcoming music, there is competition to compete over ‘mindshare,’ which can be expressed as an outlet’s ability to ‘influence’ its readers. After all, the more an outlet can mine this ‘mindshare,’ the better chance it has to convince that reader that what the outlet promotes is closer to what that individual holds to be true. Inevitably this has implications for an outlet’s ability to drive and retain its readership, establish itself as a predominant leader in music news, increase its revenue, and so on. So, how does a publication capture this ‘mindshare’?

‘Mindshare’ doesn’t become validated (or perceivably evident, for that matter) until it reaches the ‘echo chamber.’ This point acknowledges that there irrefutably exists a hierarchy of media outlets (i.e. on a large scale, more people will care more about what a juggernaut like Pitchfork says more so than what john darnielle’s blog says about music). The strength of ‘mindshare’ lies within a media outlets ability to reinforce its ‘message,’ having it reverberated by other media outlets (Pitchfork first covered Beirut, which was then picked up by Spin, Blender, etc.). It’s in this manner that the hierarchy is created–smaller publications give these larger publications credence by following their lead–and overtime, continually reinforce that lead.

So, how does Coachella fit into this?

Large festivals like Coachella take a substantial amount of investment. In 2004, The Pixies, Radiohead, The Cure, The Flaming Lips, Bright Eyes, and many other prominent acts fit the bill, each of which were most likely paid great sums of money. Think about it. Someone is investing that amount of money. So, who is investing this money?

AEG Worldwide is. And they appear to operate a whole lot other entertainment events. In fact, you might even say they’re in the “entertainment business.” Hmmmm…

An worldwide entertainment company, operating and executing an event like Coachella? It’s technically a business venture??? No! Say it isn’t so!

I know, I know, it may seem shocking, but it’s the truth.

Now, let’s take it a step further. Considering that there is a set of establishment media in place who already determine what is ‘relevant’ and ‘hip,’ who or what is an entertainment company like AEG going to turn to in order to create the list while at the same time ensure that they will break-even, perhaps even line their pockets with astronomical profits? That’s right! The Pitchforks, the Spins, the Blenders, and so on. Why? Because they own the ‘mindshare,’ and, in essence, propel these artists to ‘relevance’ and ‘hipness’ by lining their pages with glossy photos and (for the most part) glib interviews with them. In this aspect, ‘relevance’ and ‘hipness’ become manufactured.

Yes. It’s true. In this way, the concept of art and music themselves become commoditized, losing their cultural significance in a sea of marketing noise and business interests.

“But…but…wait, I thought Coachella was all about the music…the art…the culture…”

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t technically know the people who put such an event in place, nor do I know their specific intentions for throwing such a large festival. But I believe that I and/or anyone can make the claim that the objective with an event like Coachella is to, first and foremost, return a profit. So, to all you indie music fans, it’s not technically a total loss. Maybe there are people in AEG who actually give a shit or two about art, music, and culture. But, those very notions will always be precluded by AEG’s concern with return on investment. And, if there weren’t these top tier music publications around to push influence a la mass media, no one would dare take a risk in organizing an event based on what they considered to be great music.

So, next time you’re at Coachella, paying $10 for every small bottle of water because they allowed you not to take any food or water inside, just think about your good old friends at AEG who are making you pay exorbitant amounts of money to attend a festival that is typically scheduled during a very hot weekend in Indio (overhead?). Next time you consider making the long trek to Indio during that special weekend in April, just give a think or two about where your money is probably going to end up: towards the promotion of music, art, and culture? or simply to investors looking to make large bucks on an event that is marketed to hip youth circles as the premier music event of the year?

All I’m saying is, if you think Coachella is something that offers a place to promote art, music and culture, think again. Coachella only represents a very tiny sliver of what music, art, and culture has to offer. And there’s plenty of that stuff out there, most of which you don’t have to pay $100 per day for. So, before you consider Coachella to be the cultural epoch it is, just remember: it is a production designed for profitability through careful and precise orchestration by the overarching powers (i.e. entertainment companies investments in tandem with the media) that invariably guide it to its success.

Here’s to the continuing commoditization of the arts!

As far as in-depth conversational analysis regarding key topical issues of today, I don’t think anyone does a better job than Bill Moyers. Yesterday I watched his show that aired Friday with Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald, it was nice to see for once that, unlike cable news that is typically saturated with flacks, pundits, and inane talking points; the show instead centered around thoughtful debate and discussion on the state of media in Washington.

Essentially, the conclusion of the discussion went so far as to explain the suffocating grip establishment media has over politics in Washington, why “change agents” in Washington invariably pose a threat to establishment media, and why journalists whose attempts to expose the “brokenness” of the system are ignored, shut out, or branded as lunatics. And while there’s always suspicion regarding the behavior of the press in this regard, especially in light of the past 8 years (see: David Gregory), the most terrifying conclusion is that people like David Gregory, who act on behalf of establishment media by self-congratulating themselves for the “hard-hitting reporting” during the Bush presidency (in which he, with the utmost irony, said on the record during his last appearance on the Colbert Report) are the same people who seek to dismantle “alternative” voices in the media, clinging to this despotic view that they themselves hold the voice of reason above anyone else.

Fascinating, depressing, and insightful, all at once. Bill Moyers, respect!

At least, that would be the thinking if you believed all the sensationalist and, at times, opportunistic reporting of such an incident. Not to say that such a scandal isn’t preposterous, ugly, and ultimately damaging for he and his colleagues’ credibility. But for media to begin firing on all cylinders with accusations and speculation is simply just irresponsible.

First, is it necessarily good to champion such news? Apparently all the Roves, Michelle Malkins and Ed Morrisseys seem to think so. What about the big picture? This is a shocking, horrible, and absolutely reprehensible thing to have occurred in politics today. But, instead of thinking about the bigger picture, we have bloggers not only choosing to grab viewership by presenting details in the most salacious manner (working in PR, you’d be surprised at how much emphasis journalists put into headlines), but this also skews readers towards also grabbing part of such toxic mindshare. At this point, Michelle Malkin has already been on the air on Fox News to publicly state in reference to Democrats opinion of Patrick Fitzgerald (who we all recall investigated Scooter Libby):

“They turn on a dime on their former heroes and they will in this case.”

Michelle, congratulations on your non-sequitor. I hope you sleep at night knowing that as far as today goes, you have essentially made the American public a few notches dumber. As far as what was once preached during the election, in which conservatives unanimously praised McCain for his ability to reach across the aisle, you instead have embarked on the path towards vindication; a path reserved for the self-righteous, embittered, and unsympathetic.

Second, one needs to consider the power structures that were in place to allow such a lapse in ethics. Yes, Blagojevich is a Democrat, the governor of Illinois, a man with some extensive executive authority. As a result of his crimes, he should endure a trial which, in my humble opinion, should find him guilty. But to extrapolate an isolated incident and draw conclusions about how this is indicative of Democratic corruption overall is just pathetic. While there may be some connections or other pieces in the puzzle that may arise through research and reasonable deduction, the only result from finger-pointing and jumping the gun is blatant destruction and undermining of American politics. If you understand and respect politics, by any means, you should know that such misconstrued irreverence will not damage one party, but will instead send a ripple effect through and throughout, crippling the American political process.

Who would want to reach across the aisle after such damning rhetoric?

As news and media essentially serve as society’s window to the outside world, isn’t it dangerous to abuse it for your party’s political gain? Shouldn’t pundits be more aware and understand the weight and severity of the words they say before they go on national television? It just strikes me as odd as Washington has enough problems to deal with right now, that pundits will choose time and time again to engage in such petty and at times, verbally-maniacal warfare.

There’s always time for cheap shots, but not always time for solutions.

I will be in DC during the inauguration. May the people and the streets, for the first time in so many years, ring out with joy and adulation. Hope to see you there!

Warm regards,

XXXX

I’ve already put my request in for a ticket to the inaugural ceremony in Washington DC for January 20, 2009, but just wanted to reiterate my interest in attending.

Since the DNC in July of 2004, I have been a vocal supporter of Barack’s vision for this country. Recounting his speech from that day, the vision he proposed of America being not just a country composed of red states, blue states, or even purple states; but instead of the ‘United States’ of America was a captivating one. Being a politically engaged 24 year old from California, I found his view so resonate, my interest in Barack as a possible future candidate was born. It was this person who renewed my faith in America as a country that can provide for its citizens, especially in light of what seemed to be an increasingly difficult and strained political process bogged down by partisanship. It was with this recognition of his vision that directly after college, I began working with non-profit Music for America, which had helped register tens of thousands of young voters across America, informed youth about important issues that affect our country (as well as the world), and strove to engage youth (and many others) in politics and current events. After all, it seemed to me the worst thing one could do was remain apathetic, or feel disenfranchised.

Fast forward to February 10, 2007, his announcement for the candidacy for President of the United States served as such an important part of history for me as well as many other politically engaged peers of mine. It seemed against all odds, a black man named Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, would seek the nomination for President. Yet, the prospect of such a nominee (and, possible President) who believed so much in his vision of America that he would choose to run against a veritable group of candidates was something that sent ripples of joy, hope, and excitement to my friends and I. We finally felt we had found the candidate who not only represented, but also embodied, this “vision” for America.

In November 2007, just a year ago, I had the fortune of attending Barack Obama’s rally in San Francisco at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. In excited anticipation, I literally ran as quick as I could to get over to the event to get there as soon as I could. Hour after hour of waiting in line along with other fellow supporters, my anticipation only grew as I knew I would be seeing and hearing, first-hand, the real Barack Obama. Despite the polls at the time, I still held much faith for the candidate, as he was an intelligent, composed, and respectful man who from what I noticed had always kept America top of mind. My support for him only grew, as this event would mark the transition from my vocal support leaning towards providing financial support. Even though my job at the time did not pay so well, I had faith that it would be money well spent.

Throughout the year of 2008, I recall the various primaries and watching the endless coverage. I remember my sense of elation when Barack Obama won Iowa. It marked the transition for “what I thought could be” to “what is really happening,” a man ousting the purported “inevitable candidate,” Hillary Clinton. I watched with admiration and humility his speech from that night, with the realization that this man from Chicago is in touch, is capable, and most importantly, is determined.

After all the dust settled from the primaries with Barack Obama emerging victorious, I knew it was a momentous occasion, as the Democratic party had officially provided the signal for him to lead. Again, being an engaged young person who has worked and volunteered for Democrats before, it was phenomenal to see part of my efforts contribute to the political arena in this manner.

The DNC from this year is one that I will cherish forever, as it proved to be a spectacle for any and every American. I watched Barack Obama’s speech live, and was awe-struck, watching this man who has endured such a long and rigorous campaign, show command, leadership, and endless faith in the American people. Even more inspiring was watching those Americans in the crowd, who, just like me, were hanging on every word. This moment demonstrated the capacity that this country has to stand united, which hearkened back to Obama’s vision he implored in his speech from the DNC in 2004: not just red states, not just blue states, but rather a United States of America.

I recall about a week ago, on November 4 during the election, my excitement to see Barack Obama take the stage in Grant Park in Chicago, IL. After paying close attention for the past four years, following the developments from when he was simply known to be a Junior Senator from Chicago, to now the President elect, I couldn’t help but think of the American Dream–the belief that you can pursue and achieve your goals, no matter who you are, through hard work and dedication–something which Americans needed to hear, given the current political and economic climate.

So, here I stand, a modest, hard-working 24 year old who has been actively following Barack Obama and his vision for the past four years with great interest, a citizen who has championed civic and political engagement through volunteering and donation. It is with this letter, that I would greatly and humbly appreciate and accept a ticket to the inauguration ceremony for January 20, 2009.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm regards,

XXXXX

Prop 8. Let’s talk about this. Last night I was trawling the internet when I came across something written by someone I know inquiring about how people are voting on prop 8. Evidently, according to the twelve or so people who responded, there was a split in the middle. Living in San Francisco, I find it pretty difficult to find someone who will champion such a proposition, one that will utilize the arm of the law to impose discrimination on a set of its own people. But, for the most part it seems that the people who are for this proposition choose so because they closely deride their opinion on the matter from a number of cultural backdrops (inherent family values, religious principles, etc.), which is nothing against them personally, but just shows that there are some people who will choose to uphold traditional values to a greater extent than others. In this case, it would be the state-wide political scene (which, since it is California, some are making grand implications that the rest of the country will follow suit–i.e. ‘California as a cultural beacon’ syndrome).

First, let me just assess that i’m not trying to persuade that there are those that are right, or there are those that are wrong. But, combatting a proposition by labeling it simply as ‘wrong’ is a shallow and unsubstantiated take on the issue. The real issue is whether government, on behalf of its people, has a valid cultural edifice insomuch as to ‘enforce’ a prohibitive measure that has such a massive, sweeping effect on American society. As it appears there is incredible polarization on the proposition, is government really enough to effectively mandate an issue like this? Is it smart for government to wield such cultural authority?

There are those that want to exert their traditional values upon government, but to achieve what means? In this case, it’s not about whether it will destroy society; but seems to be instead something more about this “I’m right, you’re wrong” bullshit that doesn’t get anything accomplished. People want to be right. They want to vote for the right cause. But you can’t rely on hearing from others about what is right or wrong, but instead relying on observation, critically examining both sides of the argument. Being able to ‘toss aside’ your preconceived notions to make an informed, intelligent, and full-rounded view. Isn’t this what free speech was intended for, so that there was accessibility to hear opposing sides of an issue?

I’m not asking voters to arrive at a decision first and foremost, but instead to spend time thinking about the issue. In this case, one must choose whether it is ‘right’ to extrapolate their ‘traditional values’ indirectly onto another set of people, or whether there shouldn’t be a mandate of suppression on a group of people. Democratically, we are allowed to choose either side and granted the capacity to form our own ideals. So, go out and exercise that right, observe, examine, and come back with your own conclusion. Because, at the end of the day, your fellow Americans depend on you to make an informed decision.

As we all know from growing up, consistently ‘challenging’ oneself is the key to individual growth. It’s this ‘challenge’ that people must accept in a society like ours, it’s our responsibility. Because, in a democracy, civic engagement is the key to progress.

People will always read the paper. It’s a given. There’s always a need to know what’s going on around you. In essence, the public relies on the media and journalists to report the news. However, it seems that journalists have gotten a bit too carried away, as it becomes increasingly harder to find non-biased forms of news media.

In this way, ‘truth’ itself becomes subjective, creating a bigger issue: If journalists don’t report the truth, who will? And is it possible for journalists to report news objectively?

Orson Scott Card, the Sci-Fi writer, in a much more eloquent and more sophisticated manner explains here.

Update: Apparently Orson Scott Card tends to align himself very closely as a conservative, however he discloses on this post that he’s a Democrat. Whether he is or isn’t, that’s not all of the point I want to get across. However, it’s unfortunate, as these sentiments expressed in his piece come across much differently now with this context. I still agree that there should be an emphasis for ‘honest’ and ‘true’ reporting before ‘partisan’ or ‘told you so’ reporting. I’m not going to say whether his post was meant to be biased in some form or other, but if this isn’t the case, I agree with his original assessment, although I don’t agree with all his arguments.