I hate this generation

But that's everybody on ILX! Both extremes! Therefore we are the alpha and omega.

World: UH OH!

NY Times: It features expletive-laden articles with the tone of your most cynical friend, like this rant against wine: "O.K., you've had your taste — is it spoiled? No? Then nod at the waiter and let's get this date over with." (Add a few four-letter words to get the full effect).

RANTS AGAINST WINE! FOUR-LETTER WORDS! IN OLDEN DAYS A HINT OF STOCKING WAS LOOKED ON AS SOMETHING SHOCKING, NOW HEAVEN KNOWS...

With photography by Terry Richardson and Ryan McGinley that sometimes falls just short of pornography, Vice's articles can be raunchy in the extreme.

SEX ENTERS THE MAGAZINE INDUSTRY! OH NO! PANDORA'S BOX OPENED!

The magazine's contributors seem unconcerned about AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, with one article arguing that safe-sex messages are ignorable propaganda for people who are not partners of gay men or injectable-drug users.

UNCONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT AIDS TO WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT AIDS!

Mr. McInnes said he was a women's studies major in college. But his magazine would offend many women. An article offering a "Guide to Guilty Pleasures" calls Gwen Stefani lovable for "that pouty face that you kinda want to kiss and slap at the same time."

THE POSTFEMINIST BOUNDER! THINKS HE CAN KISS HIS CAKE AND SLAP IT?

" `No means no' is puritanism," Mr. McInnes said, expanding on his view of romance. "I think Steinem-era feminism did women a lot of injustices, but one of the worst ones was convincing all these indie norts that women don't want to be dominated."

UNDER HIS THUMB! AS SHOCKING AS 'SIR MICK', HERO OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE!

Many Vice readers defend the magazine's brand of political incorrectness, including some women. "If you think Vice is misogynistic, then you are a self-centered white woman," said Sarah Silverman, a comedian (and Jimmy Kimmel's girlfriend). "Because Vice is so much more. It harshly makes fun of men, women, all races, nerds, hipsters, the elderly, the short, the tall, the fashionable, the hopeless. It's without boundaries, which is what makes the playing field even."

IS NOTHING SACRED?

Few of Vice's fans or customers seem to realize just how deeply hostile Mr. McInnes is to the liberal live-and-let-live ethos of traditional bohemian culture. It is a fair bet that a majority of the downtown population opposed the Iraq war and dislikes the policies of George W. Bush. But in an interview Mr. McInnes advocated changing New York license plates to read "Liberalism Gone Amok." Last month, he wrote an article for Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative boasting of having converted Vice readers to conservatism.

12% OF THEM, IN FACT! JUST ANOTHER 40% OR SO AND THEY'LL SWING TO THE RIGHT OF THE NY TIMES!

He actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of," he said. "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."

HE LEFT OUT 'MALE' AND 'PROTESTANT'!

Vice apologized for Mr. McInnes's comments.

DON'T THEY ALL THINK THE SAME WAY? CAN'T THEY STIFLE PEOPLE WHO DON'T?

the author posted a sendup of all things Williamsburg: "I don't have any of those little T-shirts that say things about Little League football teams from little nowhere American towns. . . . I don't hang giant pictures of paint-by-number art on the fresh Sheetrock walls of the Williamsburg loft (that I don't have) that my parents (don't) rent for me. I don't go to art school. . . . I don't think Andy Warhol was brilliant, I don't think the Velvet Underground were `totally underrated.' . . . I don't carry a digital camera everywhere I go shooting pictures of my other dumb hipster friends and putting them up on my dumb hipster photolog site."

SO THE RICHLY-DESERVED BACKLASH BEGINS! AND HOW PROMISINGLY! WITH A LIST OF THINGS HIPSTERS DO AND 'I DON'T'!

gavin mcinnes - "I will use this publication to espouse and promote conservative values"

guess which side momus is on? (the 'provocative' side)('provocative'= returns my calls)

Oh. Hmm.

I had been wondering why I was wearing a bra today.

"Oh, we got both kinds. We got Country *and* Western."

http://www.butera.org/gwyneth/images/misc-96-10.jpg

now it is.

NOW it's pointy.

http://www.mute.com/mute/can/images/egebamyasi.jpg

I said it once and I'll say it again, can the world please stop being so '80s?

Vice wayyyy predates the Fader. While they are quite similar in that they function as catalogs of taste, Vice - which is text heavier - strikes a much more self-conscious pose and is more engaged in self-mythologizing. It's decadent posturing and cultural elitism (which is a house style extending from their sartorial "Do's & Don'ts" through their imagined post-PC immunity) are focused on building up the larger "vision" of "Vice Corp" - its record label, film deals, clothing line, urban boutiques and, of course, it's hype. Vice gets coverage from both hip (Dazed and Confused, the Voice) and mainstream media (NYTimes) on account of its bombastic brand-building tactics. The Fader, on the otherhand, receives more academic attention (PBS, Clamor magazine, rumors of MBA case studies) on account of their business model. While it has been argued time and again that magazines are nothing but instruments of capital, supported as they are by ads and with editoral content frequently beholden to sponsors' interests, the axis of media and commerce gets collapsed by the Fader, which is itself little more than the public organ of Cornerstone Media...a digital PR firm many of whose clients are, not suprisingly, often the subject of much acclaim in the Fader's pages. While Vice does a great deal to support it's "friends," the Fader's friends are predominantly the paying kind.

Both magazines are annoying (despite which fact I will read them still), but they achieve my ire (at least) for different reasons.

So Milo, in response to your question - Vice and the Fader, similar, but different.

I read the Fader for the one or two articles every issue that interest me - like the photographers-photographing-photographers thing last time.

(Could someone inform the NYC fashion people interviewed by the Fader that answering two interview questions the same is still lame-as-fuck. "What's the nicest thing anyone ever said about your work?" "It sucks." "What's the worst thing...")

Vice - "talk this way/party this way/pose this way - oh yeah, and buy this stuff (if you can find it, loser) to be cool"

Funny thing about Pabst. Apparently for a long time they were simply failing - sales dropping, etc etc. Then in the mid-90s they saw this huge surge in sales, having not changed any marketing schemes (or lack thereof). As it turns out, that parenthetical was the crux of going back into the black. Because PBR had a reputation as a white-trash "underdog" beer, backed by 0 ad-money and already enshrined by David Lynch (recall Hopper's Frank Booth "Fuck that shit - PABST BLUE RIBBON!" it was being suddenly being swilled by the "edgy" urban vanguard. So what did PBR do to keep this going on? As far as I've heard, instead of running ads, which would've damaged their street cred, they started sponsoring events - many of which themselves fall under the "redneck sports" banner (rodeo, NASCAR) - so that, instead of diluting their underdog cachet with traditional marketing, they reinforced it by attaching their name directly to prexisting emblems of redneck culture.

Personally, I love Pabst. It's always cheapest at the bar, goes down smooth, and so far as I'm concerned beats the shit not only out of other "cheap" beers (Milwaukee's Best, Natural Light/Ice, Schlitz) but out of the mass market beers (Bud, Coors, etc) as well. So, while you can thrill at drinking a blue-collar beer, you can just as well cast aside all such posturing and be honest in the fact that you are, quite simply, getting sloshed on cheap, decent tasting suds.

Nota Bene: If you're lucky enough to find Pabst on tap, it is recommended that you order an entire pitcher for yourself, drink from it as if from a stein, and get it all down before it gets too warm. Just be sure to give your trucker hat a jaunty pull to the side, you twat.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/the-shallowest-generation/

the bloggiest generation

the butthurtiest generation

I'm reading JK Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" right now and rants like this just seem like poorly-argued reactions to the symptoms of the things Galbraith describes

This also reads like the violent, vindictive flailing of someone who realizes the conventional wisdom is shifting beneath his feet

snoball otm

Congressman Ron Paul gives the blunt truth that a true leader is willing to give

That explains it all, then...

This guy's another "let em all burn" guy isn't he? "Flush the rottenness out of the system." It's the law of the jungle! Millions must live on the edge of privation and despair for the system to function properly! The wolf's jaws must be nipping at our people's heels for us to function with maximum intensity!

As I drive to work every day in my fully paid for 2002 CRV with 110,000 miles, I have plenty of time to observe my surroundings. Sitting in traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway, I have noticed that the number of luxury Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac and Lexus vehicles seems out of proportion to the number of wealthy people in the Philadelphia population. When I see an older gentleman, wearing a suit, driving one of these automobiles, I assume that he is a wealthy executive who has put in his time and rewarded himself with a luxury vehicle. But, most of these vehicles are being driven by Joe the Plumber types.

what a BLOWHARD

When I see an older gentleman, wearing a suit, driving one of these automobiles

...I see little starbursts.

They rebelled against their parents, protested the Vietnam War, and settled down in 2,300 square foot cookie cutter McMansions with perfectly manicured lawns, in mall infested suburbia. They have raised overscheduled spoiled children, moved up the corporate ladder by pushing paper rather than making things, lived above their means in order to keep up with their neighbors, bought whatever they wanted using debt, and never worried about the future. Over optimism, unrealistic assumptions, selfishness and conspicuous consumption have been their defining characteristics.

BURN

The “poor” people who made a bad decision in buying homes and cars they couldn’t afford have lost those homes and cars.

WHICH THE BANKS TOLD THEM THEY COULD FINALLY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES, AFFORD.

Oh no, wait, poor people should know better, only The Other Half is allowed to dream of having a home.

uh did you miss the part where

If a poor person has no home, no vehicle, and no prospects; then a bank tells them that they can buy a $300,000 home, drive a $55,000 Mercedes SUV, and live like people on TV; why wouldn’t they say yes? What is their downside? If you have nothing and “The Man” offers you the American dream, you’d actually be foolish to say no. Now that they have lost the home in foreclosure and the repo man has taken the Mercedes, they are exactly where they were a few years ago with no home, no vehicle and no prospects.

If a poor person has no home, no vehicle, and no prospects; then a bank tells them that they can buy a $300,000 home, drive a $55,000 Mercedes SUV, and live like people on TV;

WTF? unless by "like people on TV" he means Steptoe & Son.

Yeah but I feel like he thinks it was their "fault" for thinking they might be able to have those things for "nothing".

But banks don't give huge loans to people with no equity or steady source of income!

So are you saying Ritzholtz is basically lying?

xxpost: I dunno, Laurel, I think it seems to me that his hierarchy of blame is roughly:

Bad: poor people who took out loans they couldn't afford in order to temporarily enjoy a higher standard of living (dumb but understandable, and it's not illegal and doesn't really hurt anyone else)

Worse: banks who gave out these terrible loans (dumb, borderline legal, but hey, if you guys wanna shoot yourselves in the foot by lending to people who will never be able to pay you back, then go for it)

Worst: the government, for bailing out the banks (I'M A HARD-WORKING AMERICAN WHO PLAYS BY THE RULES AND HOW DARE YOU TAKE MY MONEY AND MY CHILDREN'S MONEY AND MY CHILDREN'S CHILDREN's etc etc etc)

guys it's not ritholtz's post

Yeah Laurel definitely.

Ritholtz himself seems fairly pragmatic and sensible about the nuts and bolts of financial markets but he's got some weird blind spot about, er, everything else (cf his endless nonsensical insistence that TARP is "socialism"). This is a Big Essay with Charts and Graphs and I guess Ritholtz thinks it was really worth something, and worth running, but beyond the vitriol it's just reheated CW, yelping around in the skillet.

The fact is that most Western economies have made the same transition from an industrial base to a professionalized service base, but it's only the United States, with its weird vestiges of social Darwinism, that has left its citizens so cruelly exposed to panics.

having a hard time deciding which strawman i hate worse, vice-reading pbr-drinking williamsburg hipster racists or suv-driving child-overscheduling suburban boomer whiners

And it's this cruel exposure that the author says we aren't enforcing stringently enough!

xpost

I mean I'm dumb about this kind of thing so I'm reading it as a lay person who doens't rly understand, like, markets and the real estate bubble or any kind of stock-related investment thingies, so I'm not being snide when I ask obvious questions.

Why doesn't anyone ever point out that, after WWII (in which it's not like every single American male faced life-threatening combat), many people went to college free and then got to live the bulk of their lives through a period of massive economic expansion in which you could actually earn a decent living doing almost anything remotely skilled.

Personally when my child walks to school I'll be making him wear a helmet. With Vice stickers on it. And flatscreen TVs mounted on the sides that act as rearview mirrors and which also relay to my iPhone. All of which I'll pay for by taking out payday loans.

I am presuming that BPcafe is going to be a little bit livejournal for a while until he can recruit a more regular lineup. my guess is this piece was requested and this is all mr wharton school of business strategery came up with on short notice.

it seems to me that Quinn would be happy if everything had gone down exactly the same way, except that the banks who made the bad loans had to own the full cost of their mistakes. which is kinda-sorta reasonable in the abstract, but ignores the fact that everyone is significantly worse off under that situation and the only thing it has going for it is that it fits some vindictive retributionist notion of 'justice'.

treacer:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/11/17/081117crbo_books_acocella?currentPage=all

Epstein says that, when he was teaching, he was often tempted to write on his students’ papers: “D-. Too much love in the home.” As his essay suggests, critics of overparenting have political concerns as well as moral ones. The politics go both ways, however. The conservatives are afraid that we’re turning our children into pampered ninnies (that is, Democrats); the liberals that we’re producing selfish, authoritarian robots (Republicans).

im going to raise my kids on a diet of PBR and vegan food

.........but wait, if the stockholders of the banks suffer for the bank's mistake instead of the taxpayers bearing the cost, how are we-the-taxpayers WORSE off? Because then the stockholders withdraw and/or sell and banks are unfunded? That seems...extreme, rather than them waiting it out until the business are healthy again.

I thought the baby boomers were all the greatest generation's fault for using the dr. spock parenting approach anyway.

I am quite a vindictive person so maybe I'm not seeing the florist for the flowers, here.

you come pretty close to triangulating one of the major institutional issues underlying all this, though: giant i-banks as publicly traded corporations instead of being effectively employee-owned.

e.g. the brokers on up to the CEO assume none of the risk for their decisions, the risk is owned by the shareholders, who have limited (if any) visibility into what's being done in their name with their money.

We're not good at living in comfort, yet.

Aren't most of the small banks that own their decisions still doing ok?

If the author expects "the poor" to not desire consumer goods that may be a bit beyond their means perhaps he would prefer a society in which advertising and P.R. didn't exist and debt was not the actual instrument of monetary creation, I mean jesus christ

the only thing it has going for it is that it fits some vindictive retributionist notion of 'justice'.

This is not an insignificant thing - this notion is the entire grand theme of modern capitalist economic theory, from Adam Smith on down - winners win! Losers lose! Any attempt to mitigate the privation that ensues threatens the integrity and functioning of the system itself! It's extremely funny to see this long-ingrained ideology run up against events: those with vested interests in the status quo are usually the very first ones to spout this shit, yet their self-interest isn't in this instance served by a "let the chips fall where they may" approach

Huh! Whoda thunk it was that simple?

So is this why companies that have already received bail-out money are on record as using it to pay shareholder dividends? (The executive bonuses that I have also heard about are presumably indefensible for any stock-related reasons.)

are you talkin to me? All I have is Galbraith quotes to regurgitate, not always appropriately.

"Ideas are never dislodged by other ideas, they are only dislodged by the march of events"

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=13953

lol carter just wanted the boomers to man the fuck up and quit being a bunch of bitches

fight this generation