Tarot - Divine or just Divining your own truth

   

Yeah, I misspelled Dynamic....dammit....Oh well, Not much else to say.  The video is self-contained.

Enjoy!

James Corden, America's Sweetheart

I no longer have any faith in America...

Well, at least as far as what America thinks is funny.

Four months ago I chronicled the first week of CBS Late night's newest host, James Corden.

Back then I described his style as a "Giddy Schoolgirl" and someone who was just "playing host."  

The burning question on my mind is how someone can do something fifty times and not get any better at it.

It seems America doesn't agree...

The trades love him, blogs love him (not this one) and apparently so too does a wide swatch of the American viewing public. 

What the hell man!

What about this guy is so compelling?

Is it the accent?

That he looks like a Red Haired Pillsbury Dough Boy? 

The parade of indy musical acts nobody outside of a college dorm have ever heard of?

The on-set bar?  

Hmmm, perhaps its presence insinuates that one should be drunk before watching.

Whatever...

Since most of Corden's fans appear to come from the "college" demographic allow me to put this in the form of an SAT analogy.

James Corden is to late night as brick is to windshield.

If James Corden were to be compared to other late night hosts over the past decade the formula would go something like this:

Craig Ferguson on CBS = Conan O'Brien on NBC.

So in that vein, James Corden on CBS = Seth Meyers on NBC

Although that may be somewhat unfair to Seth Meyers as he is an actual comedian, just not very funny.

The smartest thing the producers have done in the intervening months is inject more of bandleader Reggie Watts into the show.  Watts is what I call a "subtle comic" meaning he doesn't have to go over the top to get a laugh which is in diametric opposition to the often contrived performance of Corden.

In short, you could have seen none of the episodes between the first and the fiftieth and missed nothing of consequence.  I'll give him this much, he's consistent.  Consistently bad.

His guests are largely forgettable generally coming from the second tier of the talk show circuit with the only exception being uninspired last stops on promotional tours.

Perhaps this is what CBS wanted.  A non-threatening shill devoid of any qualification for the position that will happily tow the corporate line without question.

If that's what America wants, you can have it.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking your being edgy or counterculture by watching Corden's show.

Pop Culture is no longer popular or culture

There's no accounting for taste...

Well at least not on the Internet.  Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but all these new creative outlets have left popular culture in chaos.  What else can explain over 2 million YouTube views of a flatulent dog let alone that Miley Cyrus gets even one ITunes download. 

Even commercials are senseless.  I mean c'mon, 80's hair metal to sell a Honda Minivan?  I may be old enough to remember what MTV was like before Rap music but even I'm not that lame.  The rise of Reality TV in the last century certainly didn't help either.  Maybe it's the cause of all of this. 

It's got to be tough to be a TV writer these days.  The opportunities are few and far between when the big networks are crowded with such "gems" as Survivor and Big Brother.  

I guess we didn't know how good we had it when we were wondering who shot JR or whether Fonzie was going to make it over that shark. 

Maybe that's when popular culture jumped the shark.  Oh yeah, in case you don't know, the Happy Days episode where Fonzie jumps a shark on water skis is commonly regarded as the point where the series finally lost popularity with viewers.

It seems that was also the point where popular culture developed a severe case of ADD.  Take a look at your local TV schedule these days and you'll soon find that if you want something other than reality TV or infomercials there's going to be a monthly charge attached.

Ok, ok I know.  Ol' Grandpa hates that evil rock and roll and Elvis is corrupting our youth and you can get pregnant from sitting on a public toilet. 

Though before you judge me too harshly, let's look at a few examples of popular music  from the past few decades.  I happen to believe an era's music says more about its popular culture than any other medium.

1960's - Let's spend the night together, The Rolling Stones.   Risqué for its time but harmless.

1970's - Go Your OwnWay,  Fleetwood Mac.  At least we were thinking above the belt on this one.

1980's - I Still Haven't  found what I'm looking for, U2.   Maybe a bit cerebral ,not that it's a bad thing.

1990's - Smells likeTeen Spirit, Nirvana  A Ha!, there it is, I mean with a chorus of ...

Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us

Hey, it's a great song and all but it might as well be the ADHD anthem.  Soon to be followed by a pop  culture confused by its own identity or a lack thereof.  Gender bending pop-stars pushing limits nobody cares about anymore and talentless hacks that even their peers can't stand.  I'm lookin' at you Bieber...

I'm not even going to bother with the 2000's, they're part of the problem with so-called popular tracks like "Poker Face" and "Give it 2 u" which never get above the bikini line let alone the belt...

Oh but the great equalizer that is the Internet, where anyone with a YouTube channel can be "discovered."  It's led to gushing pundits proclaiming the end of the "gatekeepers" and "curated" entertainment.  Evidenced by 2.7 million views of a bad fart joke.

Funny thing is that you're never going to see anyone get a Grammy or an Oscar based on YouTube views or ITunes downloads.

Maybe we need the gatekeepers.  For all their rumblings over piracy and copyright their real problem is that they  don't know how to read the public anymore.  It's true that business  concerns should never trump talent but we've gone too far in the other direction.  The entertainment industry has become  more flaky than a Wall Street broker with oil futures.

However, it's still a fact that nobody becomes successful without the blessings of the gatekeepers no matter how fickle  they are.  Some of them have even moved into the "New Media" space but in the end the new media is really just an extension of the same old construct.

That's a problem, because the gatekeepers have lost their focus by trying to entice a popular culture that doesn't know what it wants.  The result is a product only marginally better than YouTube fare.  It caters to the lowest common denominator and that part of the equation has gotten lower.

We're literally awash in cat videos, Jackass wannabes and bad movie trailers.  Hollywood is clueless, stuck in an endless cycle of formula sequels and kid friendly animation that would be better suited going straight to video.  They've become so bereft of creativity that any recent list of the top ten movies will undoubtedly include films based on either comic books or games.  

The rest usually involve vampires, werewolves or somebody's organs violently being removed from their body.  Let's not forget the new trend of "reboots" that Started with J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" and has moved on to 80's slasher flicks.    

Maybe I am too old but it seems I've managed to find a lot of things to like about every generation of popular culture.  Even those I wasn't around for. 

Something's different now.

Even with the overwhelming quantity of content it seems the quality has become insignificant.  Make no mistake, every era has had crap.  Face it, there was good reason why most of the hair metal bands didn't  manage to get past their first album.

Now imagine if all those bands were still around clogging up Pandora or Spotify.  You'd waste a lot of time wading through crap just to hear what you like. 

Art needs curation and entertainment deals with artists.  Pop culture is inextricably intertwined with art.   That means there needs to be some level of quality control.  Even if it runs against the whole "free and open" argument . 

Imagine the alternative. 

Would any museum be worth visiting if any hack with a paintbrush could throw up their paint by numbers portrait of Elvis?

The value of the written word or are you smarter than an 8th grader?

Lately I've become aware of two schools of thought on blogging.  One says it's just an overblown diary of regurgitated diatribe while the other holds it up as the purest form of writing.  Funny thing is, there's merit in both opinions determined entirely by whose stuff you happen to be reading.

The question I have to ask myself is:  Does the value of the work depend on popular opinion or the actual quality of the content? 

Take the example of a textbook.  It can be invaluable in teaching you a new skill but you can be certain it will never make it to anyone's bestseller's list.  On the other hand, the most popular book in the world still happens to be the Bible.  The value of which is debatable depending on whether you think it should be shelved in Fiction or Non-Fiction.  I'm not touching that one...

The point is, nobody ever raved about their favorite textbook.  It's full of cold, boring facts arranged in the most uninteresting and tedious manner possible.  No fun. 

If you're a Boomer whose outgrown Harlequin Romance novels, however, "50 shades of grey" is on par with Hemingway. 

It's said that a good writer writes to their audience, nothing more, nothing less.  To do otherwise dooms you to perpetual anonymity.  So it's not enough to "know thyself", we have to know everybody else too. 

Considering the literary company "50 Shades of Grey" keeps, it's unlikely to end up on anyone's list of great classical literature.  E.L. James, however, knew her audience and has found great success because of it.

But does 65 million copies sold worldwide make her work any more relevant than the heartfelt musings found in a blog about the daily struggles of single mom?   What about the cancer researcher whose passion to find a cure finds an outlet in her blog?  Is this work any less deserving of attention because it doesn't cater to our lowest selves?

I found an article recently about a formula used to determine the grade equivalency level of your writing.  It's said anything above the 8th grade reading level is difficult for most people to understand.  Think about what you were reading in 8th grade and the landscape looks pretty bleak.  It's suggested to "write down" to your readers. 

So far, according to the formula, this article's written at a 9th grade level by the way. 

I think that's the wrong direction.  It's offensive to me that instead of striving to improve our comprehension we're encouraged to "dumb down" our content.   If it's true that knowledge is power then we should be actively pursuing it not waiting for someone to package it for us.

And you know, sometimes, that's not fun...

Reality check, NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS FUN!

It's the pursuit of our better selves that provides the greatest reward.  I'm not looking to talk down to anyone, I just want to be able have an intelligent conversation.  That anyone would suggest that you're not entitled to be any smarter than the average 8th grader should be revolting to you.  Yet that's exactly the message we're assaulted with every day.

We're a society that's become dependent on devices without any concept of how they work.  If they break we just buy another.  Even popular entertainment is less about a good story than the spectacle.  Consider that if a television series like Star Trek, Bonanza or Perry Mason were produced today as they were decades ago, they wouldn't have lasted a season.

We now embrace a popular culture based almost entirely on image instead of talent.  Let's get real here, Elvis could sing, Justin Bieber can't (and Lady Gaga is suspect too.)

A generation ago economic status had a direct relationship to the pursuit of knowledge.  Our boomer parents were encouraged to better themselves because a civilized society depended on it.  Whether or not your education was formal its value was unquestioned.  Now we step over PHD's who've taken up residence in alleyways. 

                                        

Which is why I find intensely offensive any formula that calls itself a "readability index calculator" that purports that good writing requires no participation from the reader.

Something's changed since I was in grade school because that's 180 degrees from what I was taught.  It's not that I believe every reader should have a Master's degree but if you don't understand something, look it up.  That's what Google is for!  It's called learning and painful as it may be you have no excuse not to know something.  Unfortunately for most, the information is not always neatly packaged like some  Android app so they just forget about it and try to level up in Angry Birds.

It's amazing that the very thing that offers the best chance for human advancement is the same thing that devalues all of us.  Don't allow anyone to package your point of view for you, the world has enough fundamentalist morons running around.

The Inauguration that may never have happened

January 21st 2013 was not only the observance of Martin Luther King day but also the second inauguration of President Barack Obama.   Mainstream conservatives must now at least acknowledge the legitimacy of his agenda but some on the right still question whether he should have won a second term. 

Consider the endorsement of RNC chairman Reince Preiebus for a plan in a number of Republican controlled state legislatures to change how their votes for the electoral college are counted.  The plan already adopted by a few states would change the electoral college voting from a winner take all approach to a one that would divide electoral votes based on popular vote percentages. 

There's a belief by some in the GOP that if such an accounting change were in place today we may well have seen the inauguration of a President Romney instead of a second term for Obama.  Barack Obama captured 51.1 percent of the popular vote but under such a change could have lost the electoral vote thus  echoing the election of 2000.  An outcome the popular electorate would rather not repeat but the President's opposition would welcome.  

On its surface the plan seems reasonable and in theory would be a more accurate representation of the popular vote on the electoral college.  All things being equal, that would be true until you factor in the work by largely conservative legislators to gerrymander entire districts to their advantage.  The results of which have diminished the voting power of traditionally Democratic leaning populations by reapportioning them into smaller or more conservative leaning districts.

Remember that electoral college electors are selected by political parties and not popular vote.  Population is the only commonality with the figure determined in the same manner as the number of  representatives to the House from each state.  Using election voting percentages per district to assign electoral votes could effectively negate the popular vote of a state while still appearing to be reflective of it.

Perhaps it is indeed time to rid ourselves of the electoral college as its weaknesses appear to be the latest target for abuse by those who seek to invalidate the popular vote.  

                             

Why you don't get more YouTube Views...

As they say, Know your audience...Click the picture for larger view.