(no subject)

Have you seen those commercials for "Directyourdestiny.org"?

You can see the spots on YouTube. It turns out they're sponsored by the Graduate Management Admission Council, so their financial interest is in getting as many people as possible to take the GMAT. And apparently, that involves convincing everyone that an MBA is a good idea.

...Because if you don't get your MBA, you're going to get a menial job shoveling goat poop or waiting tables at a generican restaurant.

The classism is blinding.

Unemployment is high. Job prospects are scary. But it's ridiculous to assert that you can't be successful without paying huge sums for six years of postsecondary education! And to assert that you don't have anything important to give the world unless you get a degree in business -- it seems like the worst excesses of capitalism to deny the value of every other kind of knowledge.

It's worth doing that just to get people to take the GMAT? Really?

Just like drinking chunky gin

Ian Chillag, on the NPR blog, drinks a "gin greasy" (gin and mayonnaise).

( Transcript: )

(no subject)

Dilbert creator Scott Adams posted an article on why there wouldn't be any authors in the future because everything's going to be free.

I posted on Twitter:

We're going to see new models in the future, but a world where people care about art is a world where artists get paid.

And if our future is a world where people don't care about art -- I can't begin to contemplate it.

And I wanted to take a minute -- and more than 140 characters -- to square that with what I believe about gift economies.

Because I believe that gift economies are fantastic. And I believe that gift economies are fantastic for art more than they are necessarily fantastic for things like shoes and iPods.

It is excellent when people create things for free. The question is, do you have enough time for it? If I'm working full-time, and also trying to write at a reasonable pace, then I'm cutting out nearly all TV, cutting my social life down to the bone, and probably not doing my laundry as often as I should -- and I don't have a spouse or kids, and nobody cares if my supper is Cheerios out of the box.

So, to me, saying that artists will create for free is kind of like saying teachers should teach for the pure joy of teaching so you don't have to pay them much. Even if you have an intense passion for it, even if you would do it for free, you can't choose to do it for free if you want to keep yourself fed and housed. Or, you can choose to do it for free, but then you still have to find something to spend 8 hours a day on to pay the bills. And I don't know how you get Anna Karenina or Crime and Punishment if you've got a world where all the writers have day jobs and no hope of being paid for their writing.

I am gambling that, collectively, that's not the future we're going to accept.