Author: Aaron Weber

More Fatuous Lifestyle and Money Coverage in the Times

Money Doesn’t Talk— about women spending money in cash to avoid having to discuss it with their husbands. Yes, some people do that. No, it’s not OK. It’s lying. The only way this is OK is if you have more than enough money for everything, AND you both agree that certain expenditures are not discussed. But only one couple who does it that way is mentioned– “she buys a lot of shoes, I go to Atlantic City, but that’s OK, we can afford it.”

There’s a worthwhile bit of psychology in there– the idea that women are more likely to hide purchases from men than men are from women, the idea that this stems from inequalities in gender relationships and prejudiced ideas about the difference between “women’s frivolous indulgences” and “men’s cool toys.” But the article has no way to back any of that up. They have some stats in there, but they don’t support anything: “[although] about 56.2 percent of women 16 and older work and though marriage has become much more of a partnership of equals, a surprising number of women still find it necessary to hide how much they spend on personal items, especially stereotypical female indulgences like clothing.” What’s the “surprising number?” How surprising is it? How did it differ from estimates? Has the number changed over the past ten or twenty years?

It boils down to a baseless trend story combined with a giddy voyeurism toward people willing to buy a $2000 purse with a wad of twenties.

I’m beginning to echo Brad Delong in his assertions that newspapers won’t be around in a generation.

To Have and to Have Not

It’s an old joke that the New York Times “Living” section is really the “Having” Section, and that’s fine, in its own way. Of course, Times readers have also become accustomed to the Sunday Styles section as an absurdity. Especially at Wall Street bonus time, it’s like National Geographic went on an expedition to Neiman Marcus. But I did not know until today that the bias toward wealth and mad consumerism had infiltrated the Science section. Witness an article about consumer behavior by John Tierney:

What is the difference between a tightwad’s brain and a spendthrift’s brain? What neurological circuits stop you from buying a George Foreman grill but not a Discovery Channel color-changing mood clock? Why is there a $2,178.23 balance on my January Visa bill?

What struck me most about the article was that it was published on the same day as this article about a shantytown in Miami. Yes, a shantytown. Just like they have in the other parts of the world that suffer from huge wealth disparities and kleptocratic governments.

Has the Times jumped the shark? Has the American dream?

Meanwhile, in the Real World

The fighting in Cochabamba has stopped, at least for now. The what, you ask?

Evo Morales was elected president following several years of instability caused primarily by… well, Evo Morales and the MAS party. Now that he’s in charge, he’s got to walk the fine line of balancing the needs of his rowdy constituents, the needs of the rest of the country, and the desires of the international community (i.e. the US and the World Bank, which want to see less coca and a more stable economy). Mostly he seemed to be doing a pretty good job of it: there was leftist rhetoric, an increase in allowable coca harvest, increased spending on social programs, some threats to renegotiate oil and gas contracts, but no major nationalization of industries.

However, regional prefects (governors), especially in the province of Cochabamba, have been frustratingly independent-minded. In the past few weeks, that’s heated up to include “independent” and “spontaneous” protests (organized and paid for by MAS). After a few hundred injuries, a couple deaths, and some buildings torched, we’ve gotten a truce.

Evo has created a monster. Will it eat him, or Bolivia, or both? I don’t know.

Some Days I Am More Proud Than Others

Page of the day intro for American Idol: With just seven days before the premiere, the idolatry is in full swing. Some of you might be looking forward to hearing some great new singing voices, but there’s a special place in our hearts for the worst performers. Not the ones who can’t sing but want to be on TV anyway– they’re just greedy for attention. We’re talking about the kids who think they can sing and only discover the awful truth when Simon says it. Their televised humiliation makes our mediocrity feel like success, reassures us that striving for greatness is a sucker’s game, and delivers the guilty rush of watching someone else get hurt while we’re safe at home.

Autism/Vaccination link was a scam

The story fits too easily into the trope of unscrupulous trial lawyers, but it looks like the researcher who made the autism/vaccination claims was paid big bucks by lawyers who hoped to cash out on lawsuits.

Now, the whole conspiracy theory about vaccines causing autism is surrounded by melodramatic wailing and junk science, but on the other hand it’s awfully hard to give complete faith to the paternalism of the medical establishment.

That won’t be the last we hear of this story, or of others like it.

Dangerous Junkies at the Helm

It’s a good thing that we swiftly and effectively punish all drug addicts in this country. By succumbing to temptation and addiction they have proved themselves immoral and unfit for…

Oh, hello Justice Rehnquist.

Yet another reminder that the rules applied to the great and powerful differ from those applied to the rest of us. I suspect that there are many, many sets of rules, bent differently and applied differently in every situation, and that this is sometimes a good thing, but usually not.