From stay.free at verizon.net Wed Jan 5 19:11:44 2005 From: stay.free at verizon.net (Carrie McLaren) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:11:44 -0500 Subject: Upcoming Stay F---! events in NYC Message-ID: Hello, I'm still recovering from the holidays so I'll keep this short and snappy. Here are two upcoming events that those of you in New York will not want to miss: 1) Now through Tuesday, January 11, 9 pm KNOCK OFF: REVENGE OF THE LOGO, a documentary about advertising that features yours truly (looking quite gaunt, frankly), along with the Reverend Billy and Stuart Ewen. Two Boots' Pioneer Theater 155 East 3rd Street (at Avenue A) New York, NY Stuart Ewen and I will probably be at the show this Friday night to do a Q&A after the screening. Say "hi" if you come by. ::::::::::: 2) Stay Free! magazine presents "Jumpin' Jive!: Music shorts before the MTV-era" Screening at Southpaw in Brooklyn, NY Tuesday, January 25, 8 pm http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/jumpin_jive.pdf Long before MTV was a gleam in Viacom's eye, jazz, blues, and pop artists were filming some of their favorite numbers. New York-based archivist Russell Scholl has selected some of the finest moments of these early music shorts and compiled them. From 1920s hot jazz to 1940s honky-tonk and television-era gospel, these music films promise to turn even the most jaded audience members into giddy, gushing fools -- or we'll give you your money back.* With deejay Dave the Spazz of WFMU spinning jump blues, r & b, and hot hot soul before and after the screenings. Films include: Sister Rosetta Tharpe Charlie Parker & Buddy Rich The Mills Brothers Django Reinhardt's Hot Club of France Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys The Delta Rhythm Boys Fats Waller Dorothy Dandridge Louis Armstrong Louis Jordan Doc Watson Hank Williams George Jones Nicholas Brothers International Sweethearts of Rhythm ...lots more! Cover: $6 Proceeds benefit Stay F---! Doors: 7:30 pm (Screening: 8 pm) Southpaw is at 125 5th Avenue (bet. Sterling and St. John's Place) in Park Slope, Brooklyn. Info: (718) 230-0236 * not really From stay.free at verizon.net Tue Jan 11 20:24:21 2005 From: stay.free at verizon.net (Carrie McLaren) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:21 -0500 Subject: Stay F---! | January 12 Message-ID: NEW ON OUR WEBSITE From issue #22: "The Great White Way: An Interview with Daniel Kevles" Long before Adolf Hitler hit his stride, American scholars and politicians worked to breed a better, whiter race. Historian Daniel Kevles discusses the United States eugenics movement, Fitter Families, and efforts to segregate, sterilize, and castrate the "unfit." http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html Intro: Imagine yourself in the heart of Kansas, at the annual state fair, in 1928. Past the dunking booth and Ferris wheel, the stands selling corn dogs and cotton candy, farmers from around the state have gathered to show off the year's yields. Amid the horses, cattle, and hogs, a blue-eyed blonde family of four is displayed on an elevated platform. Over their heads is a large banner: fitter families contest. Not unlike dog shows today, Fitter Family contests pitted American citizens against one another in a battle to determine whose facial characteristics, posture, health, and habits judges deemed the most fit. The winners were usually Aryans who, if not Christian themselves, could pass as models of godly living--which isn't to suggest that the contests were strictly a rural phenomenon. Fitter Family and similar contests were popular throughout the U.S., a visible face of a long-burgeoning movement that was quickly coming to a head: eugenics. Continued at: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html :::::: OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST "Young Prospective Artist Finds Herself in a 'No Sketch' Zone" Unbelievable. A museum guard apprehended a six-year-old from sketching the museum's paintings, telling her they were copyright-protected: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/010705_NW_sketcher.html (via BoingBoing.net) ::::: "Clear Channel stations gave breast enlargement surgeries to women with best essays" http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/nation/2976208 You can't make this stuff up.... :::::: In the early 1980s, you may or may not recall the music industry campaign to prevent people from making mixtapes. Whether you remember or not, the campaign slogan should sound familiar: "Home Taping Is Killing Music - and it's illegal." Yes, the same crap the music industry is peddling today about file sharing, it peddled in the early 1980s, a period that saw the flowering of punk, alternative rock, and hiphop -- not to mention the enormous growth of the music industry. Now the guys at Downhill Battle, who have down some great work fighting the copyright cartel, are selling a t-shirt poking fun at industry fear-mongering: "Home taping is killing the music industry.... and it's fun." http://www.downhillbattle.org/postal/index.php :::::: New Yorkers: Don't forget! Stay F---! presents: JUMPIN' JIVE: MUSIC FILM SHORTS BEFORE MTV at Southpaw in Park Slope, Brooklyn Tuesday, January 25, 8 pm, $6 http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/jumpin-jive.pdf Films feature: Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Charlie Parker & Buddy Rich, Django Reinhardt, The Delta Rhythm Boys, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Louis Jordan, George Jones, and many more. With DJ Dave the Spazz from WFMU. Proceeds benefit Stay F---! From stay.free at verizon.net Wed Jan 19 12:44:37 2005 From: stay.free at verizon.net (Carrie McLaren) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:44:37 -0500 Subject: Stay F---! | January 19 Message-ID: Posted at http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/ REGARDING MALCOLM GLADWELL'S NEW BOOK I hope you'll pardon me while I rant for a minute. New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point) has a new book out, BLINK, that has become the talk of the town, even prompting one reviewer -- Farhad Manjoo of Salon -- to state that, "You won't find a reader who doesn't at least like Gladwell" and "There's just no arguing with Gladwell." http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/01/13/gladwell/index.html I'd like to know what planet Mr. Manjoo is living on; Gladwell's work ALWAYS makes people want to argue. As I've written here before, his writing follows a simple formula: put forth a counterintuitive argument, then cleverly select points that advance this claim while ignoring and obscuring those that don't. I haven't read the book in question, so you can take this all with a grain of salt, but the premise alone is preposterous: Gladwell claims that "rapid cognition"--"the kind of thinking that happens in the blink of an eye"--is under-appreciated. As Gladwell writes, "I think the Rapid Cognition Model needs to be taken far more seriously--that it's smarter and more sophisticated and certainly more influential than we generally give it credit for." http://slate.msn.com/id/2111894/ Oh, really? What about the advertising industry, which does nothing if not appreciate humanity's ability to make unconscious, split-second decisions (and profit from them). Every year, marketers pour billions of dollars into researching and exploiting "blink." What about the recent election of a president who acted on "gut instinct" over a man noted for careful deliberation? What about the widespread assumption that it's important to make a good first impression... or, for that matter, the belief in love at first sight? Gladwell devotes a chunk of his book to the work of the John Gottman, who videotapes couples and says that within 15 minutes he can tell with 90 percent accuracy whether the couple will be married 15 years later. According to Gladwell, Gottman's abilities illustrate the power of blink. But Gottman's work could just as well illustrate the power of careful, deliberative analysis. I first heard about the Gottman Institute on NPR's This American Life; in that story, Gottman discussed how he acquired his ability to read couples through extensive trial and error. It took him over a decade of watching and analyzing to get to a point where he figured things out quickly. It seems to me that this gets to the heart of the problem with touting blink: at least a solid part of its strength is dependent on the kind of analysis that Gladwell suggests is overrated. The very reason that Gottman's work interests us in the first place is because it's so unusual, the exception to the rule. The truth is that most of us aren't very good at knowing whether our own relationships will last, let alone those of our peers. Yet Gladwell maintains that the power of blink is democratic, as useful for lay persons as experts. If that's the case, why is the divorce rate for people who fall in love at first sight no better than those who trod a slow-moving path? It's also really hard to swallow Gladwell's love of blink in light of its role in the social stereotypes that play against the female, dark-skinned, disabled, or physically unattractive among us. Gladwell and his New Yorker colleague James Surowiecki debate this point in an enlightening Slate article. ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2111894/ ) To make his case, Gladwell discusses the hiring practices of top orchestras. For years, such orchestras, which conducted open auditions, overwhelmingly selected male performers. But in the 1980s, as Gladwell writes, orchestras "started putting up screens in audition rooms, so that the committee could no longer see the person auditioning. And immediately -- immediately! -- orchestras started hiring women." Might this indicate that relying on quick impressions isn't such a good thing? After all, it suggests that committee members who had relied on first impressions were likely to assume a female player wasn't very good. Gladwell's retort: people rely on their biases regardless of how quickly they make a decision. The problem, he suggests, is bias, not the style (or speed) of decision-making. To bolster his point, he sites the overwhelming presence of tall men heading up corporations. Even very deliberate decisions, he points out, reflect bias. But this reasoning is ridiculous. The fact that reasoned decisions often reflect bias doesn't mean that reasoning can't help minimize it. When you eliminate reasoning and deliberation, you eliminate even the chance of countering biased first impressions. Gladwell's solution is no solution at all: "We can put up the equivalent of screens. We can find ways of editing out nonessential information." When you consider that we form prejudices based on a person's name, skin color, voice, height, gender, medical history, and appearance, the equivalent of screens would be a soundproof, windowless blackbox. I'm not saying Gladwell is a bad writer, or that none of his points have merit. I think his skills lie precisely where Farhad Manjoo denies them: in getting readers to argue and discuss. He's also good at weaving engaging narratives. But, for me, his penchant for overselling arguments--and for concealing significant counterpoints--overshadows his obvious talents. Gladwell's thesis would be more accurate in stating that split-second decision-making isn't worthless -- that it can at times be channeled effectively, and that knowing when to do so is key. But that argument sounds a lot less sexy. At any rate, it wouldn't make for a Malcolm Gladwell book. :::: The first article of Gladwell's that gave me fits was his profile of Paco Underhill, which you can read on his website: "The Science of Shopping" http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_11_04_a_shopping.htm This article pissed me off so much that I did my own interview with Underhill for the Village Voice (later reprinted in Stay F---!): "Shopping Spies: Why is that man staring at me?" http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/15/shopping.html From stay.free at verizon.net Wed Jan 26 17:39:13 2005 From: stay.free at verizon.net (Carrie McLaren) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:39:13 -0500 Subject: Stay F---! | 27 January Message-ID: In light of the news that Wal-Mart is planning to open a new store in Queens, and possibly Brooklyn as well, I've added these to the website (from Stay F---! #23): "The Trouble with Wal-Mart: Whatever you've heard about the retail giant, it's a lot worse than you think. " An interview with journalist Liza Featherstone, by Carrie McLaren http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/23/wal-mart-liza-featherstone.html If there is one chain that stands above all others in deserving your wrath it is Wal-Mart. The most successful retailer in the world is, not coincidentally, a pioneer of some of the shadiest business practices imaginable. I'm not just talking about reckless sprawl, Kathy Lee's sweatshop line, or the censorship of popular music, but about Wal-Mart's uncanny knack for uncovering some of the most innovative ways to screw people over, all the while maintaining its wholesome, all-American image. For instance, the company locks late-shift employees in at night, forbidding them to leave the store. Managers have required workers to clock out yet stay on the job, in order to avoid paying them overtime. The company has hired illegal immigrants and forced them to work seven-day weeks without breaks. It spies on employees, fires anyone remotely suspected of union activity, violates child-labor laws, and discriminates against female employees. It is this last misdeed that Liza Featherstone focuses on in her new book, Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart. Featherstone, a New York--based journalist, chronicles the emergence of Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a class-action suit by Wal-Mart's women workers that is currently winding its way through the courts. In telling the employees' stories, Featherstone discusses the broader societal impact of the retail giant, and the terrifying prospect of its continued growth. Wal-Mart thrives in part by offering poor and working-class people (its primary consumer base) the lowest prices around. But this boon to consumers is also a disaster for workers and local community members. That is, it hurts the very people it helps. Reading Featherstone's book made me realize that shopping at Wal-Mart is a little like smoking crack: the low-prices undoubtedly fill a need (particularly for the poor) but they only come back to bite you in the end. -- CM STAY FREE!: In your book you discuss patterns of sex discrimination in Wal-Marts across the country. Women earn less; they can't get promoted; if they complain, they're punished; and so on. The plaintiffs in the current class-action suit have an airtight case. Did any of these women seriously consider pursuing private lawsuits? How did this end up as a class action? LIZA FEATHERSTONE: Some of the women had filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but a lot of them wouldn't have pursued individual lawsuits, because most lawyers will say, "you don't want to do this." Small lawyers don't have the resources to take on a company of Wal-Mart's size. Some women have won lawsuits, and evidence from those cases informs this case, but women in general haven't had very good luck in getting lawyers to pursue Wal-Mart. So that's a reason why class action is a good strategy. Continued at: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/23/wal-mart-liza-featherstone.html :::::::: Related article: "Wal-Mart Pranked!" A former employee gets his revenge http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/23/wal-mart-prank.html by Joe the Peacock :::::::: UPCOMING STAY F--- EVENTS * * * Fri. February 4 - New York City - 6:30 PM Interactive Telecommunications Program of NYU (721 Broadway, 4th Floor) I'm speaking on a panel -- End/Begin: New Directions in Activism -- with Clay Shirky (http://www.shirky.com) and Trebor Scholz (http://www.molodiez.org/). Come one, come all... * * * March 24-26 - U of Iowa "Collage as Cultural Practice" http://www.uiowa.edu/~poroi/SIP/SIPcollage.htm I'll be speaking at this nifty conference, which "seeks to examine interventionist collage practices in all media, with an emphasis on the social, political, and legal implications of this method of appropriation." Several folks involved with the Illegal Art Exhibit will be participating, including prankster/scholar Kembrew McLeod (who actually helped organize the festivities), Negativland's Mark Hosler, and filmmaker Craig Baldwin. :::::::: OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST "Eyes on the Prize" Copyfight! Thanks to copyright restrictions, Eyes on the Prize -- a classic documentary series about the Civil Rights Movement--has been unavailable for years. Now, in an effort to promote copyright reform, our friends at Downhill Battle have posted digital files of the film online and are encouraging people to host home screenings on February 8: http://www.downhillbattle.org/eyes/ :::::::: Let a Thousand Googles Bloom by Lawrence Lessig http://tinyurl.com/4acxf A sharp LA Times editorial from Lawrence Lessig, pointing out the potential legal problems in Google's plan to digitize library books. Because current copyright law doesn't require owners to register their copyrights, figuring out which historial works are in the public domain and which aren't is often difficult and painstaking (if not impossible) research. Lessig's solution is a no-brainer: require registration.