Is Paris Burning?

Gagaians,

I've been touched recently by some correspondences I've had with friends on an assortment of things, but the thrust so far is this: we are dumbing down far too much. For all the hype, still only a select few have access to the good stuff. For all the talk about democracy and freedom, it certainly is hard to see the benefits of such rabble.


1
If you want to get a grip of who is pulling the strings in the US, we might like to take the acid test: who paid for Bush's inauguration:

Oil and drug firms pay for Bush's inauguration
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday January 18, 2001

The glamour and glitz of Saturday's presidential inauguration is largely being funded by the industries which paid nearly $200m (?135m) to help get George W Bush elected - finance, pharmaceuticals and oil.

The Bush inaugural committee has so far raised more than $17m for the confetti, champagne and hors d'oeuvres that will be lavished on the party faithful at a constellation of grand balls in Washington.

The committee originally hoped to raise $30m, and there is still time for donations from aspiring movers-and-shakers in the new court, but so far the total has not matched President Clinton's haul of $33m for his first inauguration in 1993.

The profile of the donors, however, is not quite the same. Whereas both presidents received a great deal of money from investment houses and banks, who habitually back both horses in presidential races, the Bush inauguration has received disproportionate backing from drug and oil companies.

According to the Bush inauguration website, pharmaceutical and other healthcare corporations have put up a total of $1.7m - an impressive amount given that the maximum single payment is supposed to be $100,000, although that rule is frequently broken.

The drugs industry has a lot to celebrate. It backed Mr Bush to the tune of about $4m in direct contributions during the campaign, and the return on its investment is likely to be a halt to moves to regulate the costs of patented prescription drugs, and a more vigorous campaign against the production of generic substitutes abroad.

Oil companies gave a further $1m, a reflection of the Bush family's close personal ties to the industry and of the oil companies' excitement at the prospect of opening up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to exploration and drilling, as President-elect Bush has promised.

Sport has also proved a big giver. The New Orleans Saints and the Washington Redskins football teams each gave $100,000, as did the Murdoch-owned Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team and the Major League baseball association.


2
What is American freedom anyway? The right to defend a way of life? What IS the American way of life?

Here's a comment by a recent returnee to America:

I am afraid to go the supermarket here. I really can't believe all of the fucking slobs that are pushing carts, loading up on soft drinks and potato chips. Some fat bitch ahead of me just the other night had a cart full of Pepsi and 7-Up, but then didn't have enough of money in her bank account (she used a debit card) to pay for it. So, they had to take almost everything back, which meant I had to stand behind this bitch for 10 minutes. And she was ugly, too. Someday, I have to get back to Japan and I will give the US the finger as I leave.

3
Who decides on our entertainment? Do you really want to be entertained by the shlock they throw at you?

Here's a comment:

I've wanted to drop you line since your excellent exchange on writing - I
really enjoyed your friend's slagging of the vastly overrated Michael
Crichton, Tom Clancy, and John Grisham.

His theory about the formula for the current market - and i believe that he meant the adult market as it didn't address low-brow youth films like Dodgeball, was extremely funny and accurate!

**"thriller or suspense masquerading as intellectually or scientifically
high brow 'literature, with some 'MacMillan and Wife' mystery behind it.
Use a lot of 'real' places and things, just like in tv, to mess with
people's sense of the Real. And talk real knowingly; people love that
shit."

What he didn't do was look behind the curtain. Who's picking these projects? I can tell you that it's broken into about two categories. Either wealthy connected Beverly Hills types or connected ivy league folks.. and they think that this is what the 'people' want to see. I'm forced to ask the million dollar question -- WHO ARE THESE FILMS FOR? I can tell you with certainty that my working class Mexican neighbor isn't going to shell out $10 dollars to watch any of those pictures... he wants to forget life for an hour and a half - and make no
mistake - he's not stupid - but race and a lack of connections dictated his
future. And I've come to the conclusion that these connected exec's are the
worst qualified to be the judging mass culture's tastes. Nope, these film wonks spend their days time driving from their Malibu beach houses, back to their mansions in Beverly Hills, and then off to the Cote d'Azure.. the movie going public are really the 'invisible people' to these execs and they go out of their way to avoid them.


4
For some reason I've been thinking about Paris again. Recall I lived there for two years in the early 80s. I have a yearning to go there...I don't know why, but recently I've been prompted to talk about it. When I explain what it was to me to those who ask, I find myself saying this:

The one thing about the French...and Europeans in general...is that they know how to enjoy life. Sure their day starts earlier than ours and ends a bit later, but they spend the best time of the day, from noon until 3 pm, sitting around in cafes eating, drinking, people watching, and talking. It is an outdoor culture...people meet in public spaces. They appreciate their surroundings. They blab on and on about aesthetics, beauty, literature, and art...which is really nothing. Us North Americans blab on and on about the lousy job, our debts, our savings, our future, our stupid movies and TV...which is really nothing too. Of the two nothings, I'd rather talk about the former.

But then I read this and have reservations about what is going on in France:



Louvre to allow Da Vinci filming

Amelia Gentleman in Paris
Saturday January 22, 2005
The Guardian

The Louvre authorities have abandoned their objections to scenes for the film version of the thriller The Da Vinci Code being shot in the museum.
Hitherto they have displayed haughty disdain towards both the book and the surge in visitors it has prompted.

Having sold more than 10m copies internationally, including 500,000 in the French translation, Dan Brown's mystical novel has created a tourist industry in its own right.

Hundreds of Da Vinci Code pilgrims visit the museum every week, primarily to gaze at the spot of parquet where the naked body of the Louvre's elderly curator is discovered in the book's opening pages.

Although many private tour companies have established a lucrative line in taking visitors around the museum on Da Vinci Code tours, the Louvre has told its official guides not to digress on to the subject during authorised tours.

"None of our curators will talk about the book. It's a work of fiction and we don't see it as our job to discuss it," an official said last year.

"The museum staff are not authorised to talk about the book."

Yesterday, however, the French culture ministry confirmed that permission had been granted for the scenes to be shot, after the museum officials had reconsidered their objections.

Filming is due to take place there in May.

A production team has already visited the museum to select locations in the Grand Gallery, where the book begins.

Tom Hanks has been cast as Professor Robert Langdon, who tries to solve the murder, which is linked to an ancient society and the contentious claim that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and founded a blood line.


5
I need more Dwight Macdonald.