<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sardonic Sideshow</title>
	<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com</link>
	<description>Taking Eternal Vigilance Too Far...</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Eric Massa is Taking Back the Spotlight from the Starlets</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/15/eric-massa-is-taking-back-the-spotlight-from-the-starlets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/15/eric-massa-is-taking-back-the-spotlight-from-the-starlets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/15/eric-massa-is-taking-back-the-spotlight-from-the-starlets/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congressman Eric Massa’s abrupt retirement and his ensuing talk show blitz consumed the media with tawdry details of his career’s implosion. The first and only term now former US Representative from New York went on Glenn Beck’s Fox News program with the promise of naming names and exposing the corruption of those who Beck suspects [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congressman Eric Massa’s abrupt retirement and his ensuing talk show blitz consumed the media with tawdry details of his career’s implosion. The first and only term now former US Representative from New York went on Glenn Beck’s Fox News program with the promise of naming names and exposing the corruption of those who Beck suspects of nefarious deeds (i.e. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201003120055">social justice</a>). He said that all Americans needed <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201003090045">to hear Massa</a>. “This is the moment that will decide the course of this nation possibly.” Beck told his audience as a teaser to the epic hour-long interview with the Democratic Congressman with an axe to grind. He continued, “This is the guy we’ve been looking for!”</p>
<p>The Massa interview on Beck’s show was a mess-a. He admitted to groping a male staffer, happily. He talked about his aggressive birthday-induced tickling and something about how that’s just a thing guys do in the Navy. The sentence “It looks like an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/eric-massa-glenn-beck-vid_n_492499.html"><em>orgy</em><em> </em>in <em>Caligula</em></a>,” was uttered. Then just to make it weird, he meandered around general Democratic talking points about getting involved and reforming campaign finance. It was yet another sensible claim Beck promised his audience that has yet to come true. Nazi communism, anyone?</p>
<p>But then Massa went on CNN’s <a href="http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1457920.shtml?cat=566">Larry King Live </a>revealing even more of his escapades. Stories have surfaced about the Catholic former Republican former Naval Officer and the term “snorkeling” was forced into the public discourse. It all seems pretty salacious. Very tabloid-esque. Very Hollywood drunken diva-like. Something you’d see right before a publicist announces their client has been checked into secluded non-specific rehab for “exhaustion. “</p>
<p>Has Hollywood corrupted the way we see our politicians?</p>
<p>Worshiping actors as idols is a relatively new practice. During the Dark Ages, before anyone figured out it was rats spreading the plague it was blamed on traveling actors, which were held in similar esteem. People who made their living acting onstage during the Victorian era were akin to how we view strippers today. Yes, people went to go see them…but ya know. Acting was a subculture of a lowly form for nearly all of its history. It wasn’t until Hollywood made stars out of celluloid and media made them alluring did we care about actors in a broad sense. Now we’re mindful about their opinions on everything from energy policy to which lip gloss is the glossiest. When they say stupid things it’s a scandal. When they do stupid things it’s a story. When they are stupid things it’s an obsession.</p>
<p>When actors were seen as vermin, the object of our affections and repugnance were people with actual power: politicians. They were the Lindsay Lohans of the early part of this country. Think of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel">Burr-Hamilton Duel</a> between then former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr as the E! True Hollywood Story of the 19<sup>th</sup> century. There were no sports figures at the time. No recording artists. No mothers of multiples. The only icons were politicians, tycoons and criminals. Or Wyatt Earp who was really a bit of <a href="http://www.usefultrivia.com/miscellaneous_trivia/old_west_trivia_008a.html">all three</a>. And of those it was politicians were the most subjected to outrage for immoral behavior.  They were the tabloid stars of the 19<sup>th</sup> century. Between the published rumors of President Thomas Jefferson fathering children with his slave Sally Hemmings to bachelor President Grover Cleveland paying child support, if you could read in the first-half part of this country’s history, politicians were going wild.</p>
<p>Then by the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, starlets came along and usurped political figures from the lone wrath of public spectacle. Now because of reality shows and 24-hour news they have to share the limelight with a zillion other kids of notables. But Congressman Massa, impugning the conduct of the military and the House of Representatives in one non-denial denial brush stroke is a throwback to a better time. The good old days. The pre-cotton gin days.</p>
<p>Politicians in garish sex scandals like Eric Massa, former Senator and presidential candidate <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/29/earlyshow/main6153925.shtml">John Edwards</a>, South Carolina Governor <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1907036,00.html">Mark Sanford</a> and Nevada Senator <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/09/nation/na-ensign9">John Ensign</a> are just taking back their country from Hollywood.</p>
<div class="zemanta-pixie"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=383e3f36-af7e-42e1-8599-7039e9aa2872" /><span class="zem-script pretty-attribution more-related"><script type="text/javascript" /></span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/15/eric-massa-is-taking-back-the-spotlight-from-the-starlets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop Trying to ‘Save the Planet’</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/08/stop-trying-to-save-the-planet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/08/stop-trying-to-save-the-planet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/08/stop-trying-to-%e2%80%98save-the-planet%e2%80%99/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to the sign at the grocery store, it’s pretty safe to say you will not be able to save the Earth by purchasing a reusable bag.  Do an experiment: buy a canvas bag and see if the issue is then resolved. If it’s not, it means the slogan for the environmental movement and the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Contrary to the sign at the grocery store, it’s pretty safe to say you will not be able to save the Earth by purchasing a reusable bag.  Do an experiment: buy a canvas bag and see if the issue is then resolved. If it’s not, it means the slogan for the environmental movement and the way it’s framed can stand to be re-visited.</p>
<p>Saving a planet is lofty; a bit over-reaching. After all, the planet is indifferent to us and sometimes cruel. See: earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and snowmageddon. According to televangelist <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6096806-503544.html">Pat Robertson</a>, the Earth is God’s own hit man waiting to take out entire nations or cities rumored to have snubbed Him. Who needs or wants to save such a bully? This planet is a mass murderer. A giant ball of malice to our race.</p>
<p>“You want to save me?! Here’s a tectonic jolt. Save yourselves.”</p>
<p>The Earth doesn’t need saving. If we divorce ourselves from the hyperbole and look at it rationally, even with nuclear annihilation the Earth will survive humans. The Earth is billions of years old. Our species is a relatively new infestation of the past million or so years. The biggest impact we’ve had so far is to make ourselves and the species around us sick. Between the two, humans are the more vulnerable, even though there are arguably more of us; it’s humans that need some saving to survive the Earth.</p>
<p>An environmental movement, based on science and provable evidence, would have more credibility by using that sense when discussing their issues. It’s become one side screaming business will assassinate us all and we’ll choke and die on the debris of our own hubris and the other side justifying pollution for personal gain and touting the Apocalypse as an out-clause for the tediousness of separating plastics. In their extremes the two sides are both doomsayers, clinging to their own version of the end, cursing at each other for willful ignorance.</p>
<p>The extremes agree that it’s ending soon and the other side is to blame. So there’s no need for discussion.</p>
<p>What we, the rest of us, need is – wait for it - a hybrid, a way to bridge the divide.</p>
<p>“Save the Planet” is so unobtainable it’s a non-goal. Save us. Save humans. Save human kind. We clearly like saving people. The newsreel footage of the well-to-do nations of the world mobilizing in rapid response to the Haitian earthquake plus the millions of dollars in small donations to the victims shows we occasionally step up.</p>
<p>There’s some stepping up to be done. Just a random sampling of environmental stories this week, comes up with The Great Pacific <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch">Garbage Patch</a> and its Atlantic cousin. They’ve been described as floating landfills in the middle of the oceans. They’re giant wades, by some estimates millions of tons of toxic plastic swirling around in these bodies of water, some of it at a microscopic level. Will the Earth die from it? No, the Earth will wait it out and survive. Can the fish that eat it be harmed? Yes. Can we who eat those fish be harmed? Yes. Should that be seen as a reason to look into a solution for the problem? Yes.</p>
<p>The Earth is fine. Resilient. Strong. Massive. Self-sufficient really, save the sun and the moon. But us? Our species? Our race? The little people hanging out here, we need some help. And we should help ourselves.</p>
<p>So the sign on the cloth grocery bags, there to encourage cutting down on waste, how about, “Help Save Us.” I’ll buy that. I’ll even remember to take them out of my car when I go shopping.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/08/stop-trying-to-save-the-planet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom and Faux Populism</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/01/freedomandfauxpopulism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/01/freedomandfauxpopulism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/01/%e2%80%98freedom%e2%80%99-and-faux-populism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The trick to great rhetoric is to pick a word or phrase everyone likes and no one can possibly be against. Then take that expression and be completely for it daring anyone to challenge you.
President Barack Obama campaigned for “change.” Change was such a good platform after eight years of George W. Bush that Senator [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trick to great rhetoric is to pick a word or phrase everyone likes and no one can possibly be against. Then take that expression and be completely for it daring anyone to challenge you.</p>
<p>President Barack Obama campaigned for “change.” Change was such a good platform after eight years of George W. Bush that Senator John McCain decided it was his slogan too. Abandoning McCain’s initial “Country First” creed he went with “<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/mccain.transcript/">Change is Coming</a>” as he was marching toward the end of his campaign back to his senate seat. And who would have guessed, both placards were right: change did happen.</p>
<p>The vague word currently co-opted by Republicans as oratory ammo is “freedom.” Republicans love freedom and its generous overuse. “It’s clear Democrats have irreconcilable differences with Americans on health care. Dems want more government, Americans want more freedom,” <a href="http://twitter.com/JimDeMint/status/9634494891">tweeted</a> Junior Senator Jim DeMint about the Health Care Summit he was not invited to. Dems hate freedom, dude.</p>
<p>Minority leader, Rep. John Boehner last November <a href="http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/11/gop-leader-healthcare-bill-dim-light-freedom/">declared</a>, “I came here to fight big-government monstrosities like this bill that dim the light of freedom.” Insert Orange Glo joke here. The GOP has gone so far as to try and push their <a href="http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&#038;PressRelease_id=0db98529-0230-3564-0e4b-fe84bdb1971b&#038;Month=6&#038;Year=2009&#038;Type=PressRelease">Health Care Freedom Plan</a>, calling the 1993 <a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/February/020710Cohn.aspx">Republican idea</a> of mandatory coverage, now being discussed by the Democrats, unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Because if the Democrats agree with it, then it’s not freedom.</p>
<p>More proof “freedom” and its concept is becoming just an empty buzzword. Sarah Palin is for it. She told Sean Hannity on Fox News <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587480,00.html">after</a> the Health Care Summit, “I’m such a believer in freedom and that’s what the tea parties are all about.”</p>
<p>What are they about? Everything American: freedom. You disagree with them, you disagree with freedom. They’re against things and those things naturally are against freedom, the thing they’re for.</p>
<p>You know who’s against freedom? Anyone they put on a First Amendment protected picket sign.</p>
<p>What does “freedom” mean when Republicans say it? During the marathon C-SPAN filmed Health Care Summit at the Blair House <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/health-care-summit-transc_n_477986.html">last week</a>, Rep. Paul Ryan (endorsed by Dick Armey’s business boon <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-supports-congressman-paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-r-wi"><em>Freedom</em>Works</a>) summed up the bait and switch behind the watchword best, &#8220;We don&#8217;t think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control.” Of course, the Grand Old Party’s founding father, Abraham Lincoln, in his <a href="http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm">Gettysburg address</a> described our Union as, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” But now according to Ryan it shouldn’t be in control, but the people should?</p>
<p>The equivalent would be, “I don’t want to live in Iowa, I only want to live in Des Moines, that’s why we don’t agree.”</p>
<p>Really when freedom is invoked by the GOP it means liberty for corporations. Its big government getting out of the way so big business can step up. The GOP wants Chevron, Haliburton and United Health Care to have more independence - not the Joe Everyman, Six-Pack or Plumber they try to appeal to.</p>
<p>The opposite of freedom is not government. The opposite of freedom is not regulations for business. The opposite of freedom is not health care reform. Just like the opposite of freedom is not having laws and a police force.</p>
<p>The real opposite of freedom, freedom for voters, consumers and the actual “we the people,” is being fleeced. The opposite of freedom is being gouged by your credit card, denied by your health insurance and pick pocketed by your bank. The opposite of freedom is being a Wal-Mart sharecropper and a Payday Loan serf. The opposite of freedom is being blackmailed by companies that are “too big to fail.”</p>
<p>Yes, America is the land of the free…and since the GOP had their way for eight years, it now comes with interest.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/03/01/freedomandfauxpopulism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drug Stores are Totally Unethical</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/22/drug-stores-are-totally-unethical/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/22/drug-stores-are-totally-unethical/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/22/drug-stores-are-totally-unethical/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The other day I bought allergy medication at a massive national chain drug store. I found the display of everything to ease my hay fever right next to some freshly cut flowers, which just so happens to be what I’m most allergic to. I was in a retail establishment and the treatment was right next [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The other day I bought allergy medication at a massive national chain drug store. I found the display of everything to ease my hay fever right next to some freshly cut flowers, which just so happens to be what I’m most allergic to. I was in a retail establishment and the treatment was right next to the irritant. Like a strip club that’s also a divorce law firm.</p>
<p>My experience is pretty low level when you consider most pharmacies these days are nestled in the middle of a fully-stocked convenience store. So if you’re say, diabetic you have to pass the candy aisle (twice) to get your insulin. In fact everyone with health issues related to poor diet goes to the pharmacy only to stare at the corn crunches and processed meats offered in close proximity to the appetite suppressants. Not to mention the stop smoking aids adjacent to the cigars. And yes, our commercial mega-drug stores sell cigarettes. So when you’re getting refills on your heap of emphysema treatments, you won’t have to make a second stop to get some smokes.</p>
<p>It’s convenience. It’s what the consumer wants. It’s offering “choices.”</p>
<p>The premise of today’s giant drug stores is one giant conflict of interest. Where would junk food sell better than as an impulse item while you’re standing in line to get your gout medication? Anywhere else this would be called double-dipping. It’s insider trading via Twinkie vice. It’s much like a creditor also investing in credit default swaps: the drugs stores benefit from poor health and the habits that get people there.</p>
<p>Would you feel comfortable at a hospital that also had a booming casket business? Convenience.</p>
<p>We are so used to this business model for pharmaceutical retail, we don’t even notice anymore. It doesn’t even occur to us that this is unscrupulous. Because when something is rampant and wide-spread it becomes normal. We get used to the neon sign flashing, we stop seeing it.</p>
<p>It’s also a metaphor for the health care in this country. The discussion over reform was <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/">hijacked</a> by slogans about killing your elderly relatives instead of, well, health, and the caring of health. Our basic pharmacies have been buried by corporate interests spurned on by our own debilitating laziness and demand for kettle chips everywhere we go. So it becomes a chicken or the egg debate. Which came first? Did our health care get this way because we stopped caring about our health or did we stop caring about our health because health care got this way?</p>
<p>Either way we’ve been distracted by shiny objects whispering a promise of momentary happiness right near the shelves of birth control neighboring baby bottles (and in California, booze).We look at our health care insurance like our doctors, our drug store like our pharmacist. They’re not the same thing. One is a health care provider, bound by ethical obligations. The other is a corporation who regardless of what the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html">Supreme Court</a> rules doesn’t have a conscience and its only obligation is to make money for its shareholders. But we trust a component (our doctor) and therefore give the entire system a pass.</p>
<p>This mistake is not making <em>us</em> healthier, just the “health-related” businesses.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/22/drug-stores-are-totally-unethical/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin: The Symbol of Cynicism</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/15/sarah-palin-the-symbol-of-cynicism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/15/sarah-palin-the-symbol-of-cynicism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/15/sarah-palin-the-symbol-of-cynicism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sarah Palin will always be a Hail Mary Pass. She is a last-ditch, slapdash shot for a win. Regardless of facts, faux pas or folly, conservatives will continue to tout her as an asset as long as she continues to act like a battering ram to their opposition. If she still throws jabs, utterly doe-eyed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarah Palin will always be a Hail Mary Pass. She is a last-ditch, slapdash shot for a win. Regardless of facts, faux pas or folly, conservatives will continue to tout her as an asset as long as she continues to act like a battering ram to their opposition. If she still throws jabs, utterly doe-eyed to the implications (i.e. ripping on teleprompters in a prepared speech), the dreaded “elites” of her party will still use her for what she’s worth.</p>
<p>She’ll stay a paid <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRhptO6FqI">contributor</a> on Fox News and the others on the same payroll will try and gush over how great she is, her best quality being liberals “hate” her. Because everything liberals hate must be good. The enemy of Fox News’ enemy is always good for the country. The bar will continue to be set lower and Palin will sink deeper into self-parody as she becomes even less blinking, more emboldened and more resigned to her belief some divine force (bigger than her PAC even) wants her to be the President of the United States.</p>
<p>Serious conservatives don’t want their voice to be a folksy <a href="http://www.theweek.com/article/index/103046/Is_Sarah_Palin_a_pathological_liar">fibbing</a> bridge to nowhere. They don’t want a tabloid queen who writes snarky half-baked Facebook entries to the White House Chief of Staff to be their nominee in 2012. But their deal with the devil is they enjoy Palin’s swift merciless offense from the sidelines and because of that “talent” she will be given the lectern. And therefore some legitimacy as a “thinker.”</p>
<p>Her enthusiasts mark her media storm as the reason why she’s a leader in the party (some party, whether it be the Tea Party she’s now synonymous with or the RNC which she fits right into). But equating someone’s ability to lead with the ability to get coverage is like saying Britney Spears’ singing voice is the reason she was the object of an extended media frenzy. It’s simply not true.</p>
<p>Being just super and awesome is not what makes the media obsessed with you. It’s actually the opposite. Being horribly flawed and recklessly stupid gives people something to use all those “barrelsful of ink” on. If Palin were competent we’d be bored with her by now. There would be no story. It’s her incompetence coupled with this brazen lust for power and the lack of any self-irony or doubt that sparks the press. It’s certainly not her ideas, because they are not <em>hers</em> or <em>ideas</em>. They’re overly-digested Republican platitudes. And candidly, fact-checking Palin is like critiquing a squirrel on his algebra.</p>
<p>Senator John McCain’s choosing the then Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate was a myopic gamble to get a bump in the polls. He got it for a couple of days, until Palin was vetted in press. Because of this staggering snafu, there were moments in the campaign where Palin appeared more like a wife than a running mate. After the McCain campaign got to know her “challenges” (ethical and otherwise), the team covered for her as she galvanized voters to elect Barack Obama in a landslide.</p>
<p>But as Donald Rumsfeld once said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. The right-wing picking up the pieces found Palin. She’s clearly lacking, but she’s the best they have at the moment. There’s a degree of pessimism in conservative groups like <a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911040036">News Max</a> and others buying her book in bulk to inflate the sale numbers. It shows they didn’t think it could do well on its merits. Moreover letting Palin in on what softball questions you are going lob at her in front of an adoring crowd (as indicated by her writing the answers on her <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/sarah-palins-palm-cheat-sheet.html?wprss=44">palm</a>) shows Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation didn’t think Palin could do well on merits either.</p>
<p>The more she’s excused, rationalized and hyped by the right-wing, the more she’ll become a symbol of cynicism for conservatives. If they’re peddling Palin, it shows they’ve given up. Or to quote the source, “How&#8217;s that hopey, changey thing working out for ya?”</p>
<p><em>This piece appeared originally at <a href="http://trueslant.com/tinadupuy/2010/02/15/sarah-palin-the-symbol-of-cynicism/">True/Slant </a></em>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/15/sarah-palin-the-symbol-of-cynicism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privatized Bureaucracy is Still Bureaucracy</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/08/privatized-bureaucracy-is-still-bureaucracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/08/privatized-bureaucracy-is-still-bureaucracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/08/privatized-bureaucracy-is-still-bureaucracy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The knee-jerk “government is bad” argument against health care reform, the jobs bill or banking regulations is always “it creates more bureaucracy.” This is mainly from Republicans who want to be called lawmakers. Yes, there are people working in the government – gladly cashing their government paychecks – whose default is always that the government [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The knee-jerk “government is bad” argument against health care reform, the jobs bill or banking regulations is always “it creates more bureaucracy.” This is mainly from Republicans who want to be called lawmakers. Yes, there are people working in the government – gladly cashing their government paychecks – whose default is always that the government is incompetent. And admitting government can’t do anything right actually, <em>sometimes</em>, gets them elected.Which is like hiring a mechanic who prefers not do anything that requires wearing overalls, using power tools or knowing what a car looks like – but he knows a guy…</p>
<p>Bureaucracy is always bad, you see. It’s slow, deliberate and full of well – bureaucrats. People who thrive on rules and checks and balances. A bunch of hall monitors. Form filling bed-wetters.</p>
<p>The alternative to bureaucracy? Privatization. Yes, the private sector is the cure-all for all the cumbersome, slow-witted, pencil pushers in the government. The sexy private sector is full of innovators we’re told – entrepreneurs. People who are moving and shaking and forward thinking. The private sector is shaping our future.</p>
<p>So the next time you have to call AT&#038;T about a mistake on your bill, or your Internet going out or why your cell phone works perfectly on the Inca Trail but not in your living room, think of how much better the private sector works. Yes, after you’ve been transferred to the fifth person who also isn’t accountable, knowledgeable or responsible for how poorly the mega-corporation is performing think of how horrible it would be to have more bureaucracy. And when they tell you the call is being recorded for quality assurance because after an hour of being transferred to three continents you still need assurance, smile inside that this is a preferred alternative to your tax dollars being wasted.</p>
<p>And to anyone who’s ever been harassed for years by a billing department mix-up only to have the charge show up as unpaid on your credit report take heed, at least it’s not the anal-retentive IRS with all that red tape. And when Capitol One just arbitrarily decides your APR should be north of 33%, feel pride that at least there’s not a government bureaucrat between you and your banker. And the next time Bank of America charges you unlimited overdraft fees and you’re left with absolutely no recourse look up at that shiny red, white and blue sign and feel the glow of patriotism because it’s not the dreaded <em>government</em> interfering in your life.</p>
<p>From a consumer vantage point – privatized bureaucracy seems an awful lot like regular bureaucracy.</p>
<p>Waiting in line at the court house to clear up a parking ticket is the same hour spent in line at your cable company to switch out your defective DVR. All tedious, de-humanizing, time-sucking authoritative bodies are the same to their victims. The only difference is politics. No wonder people are afraid of the government taking over Medicare (psst it’s a government program). It’s one giant soulless entity being confused with another giant soulless entity. The right would have us believe it’s the government that’s the problem and the left would have us believe it’s the unregulated corporations. A privatized world is no utopia – not anymore than a government run one is. It would be nice to have a healthy pool of both, however.</p>
<p>The difference between the government and the private sector is you don’t have people pulling a paycheck in the private sector championing for more money and power to go into the government.</p>
<p>The only reason the government is preferable is because it doesn’t turn a profit. Its motives are not to make money and it is at least successful at that. Plus in the government you and I are the shareholders. We have ownership of our government, ideally. We have a say. It’s for the people, by the people. If bureaucracy is an inevitable evil, a symptom of civilization, between the private sector and government, between the DMV or Etna, I’ll choose indifference over monetization.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/08/privatized-bureaucracy-is-still-bureaucracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: The Flame War President</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/01/obama-the-flame-war-president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/01/obama-the-flame-war-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:19:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/01/obama-the-flame-war-president/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every horrendous thing one could possibly say about President Barack Obama has been said. It&#8217;s been said, repeated, blogged, taped, printed, e-mailed, syndicated, broadcasted and most likely spray painted somewhere. Some of the verbal grenades are slightly off-base. For example: you know who&#8217;s really offended by Obama being called a Nazi? Nazis. Whoa are they [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every horrendous thing one could possibly say about President Barack Obama has been said. It&#8217;s been said, repeated, blogged, taped, printed, e-mailed, syndicated, broadcasted and most likely spray painted somewhere. Some of the verbal grenades are slightly off-base. For example: you know who&#8217;s really offended by Obama being <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=obama%20nazi%20poster&#038;oe=utf-8&#038;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#038;client=firefox-a&#038;um=1&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;sa=N&#038;hl=en&#038;tab=wi">called a Nazi</a>? Nazis. Whoa are they irked by the comparison.</p>
<p>You want to cheese off Hitler, call him an Obama.</p>
<p>So the half-Caucasian half-African leader of the free world - he&#8217;s racist. That&#8217;s why you lost your job when the plant closed in 2007. He&#8217;s a socialist, because that sounds really bad. Tyrant. Everything pejorative, dangerous and un-American - he&#8217;s that. He&#8217;ll kill us all.</p>
<p>George W. Bush couldn&#8217;t be challenged in the press for nearly five years. Was it deference for the office? No. He didn&#8217;t get this grace period because he was a great man. The press was scared of him. He was surrounded by a crew of thugs happy to take the low road and never above being petty. He bullied the press, cut off access, shut down communication and outed a dissenter&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame">wife</a>. &#8220;Liberal&#8221; was a swear word synonymous with &#8220;retard.&#8221; It was scorched earth. Nothing was left. He bought off <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml">columnists</a>, produced phony news stories, planted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon">faux</a> journalists and fabricated <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/29/iraq-war-inquiry-tonyblair">evidence</a>. Anyone who questioned anything was unpatriotic. A terrorist sympathizer. Treasonous. French. Or worse, <em>liberal</em>. &#8220;Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,&#8221; explained Bush.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s &#8220;changed&#8221; is now former Vice President Dick Cheney goes on television to warn the nation the current president, of a different party than Cheney, is going to harm America, simply because he&#8217;s of a different party than Cheney. A new low for Cheney. A new low for partisan rancor.</p>
<p>The current storm was birthed during the Clinton years, enhanced ten-fold by the Internet and sired enthusiastically by the Bush Administration. And then comes, by a landslide victory over a year ago, a politician who promised to bring Americans together. So in part America voted for an armistice in the war at home. We&#8217;ve yet to get it.</p>
<p>At his first official State of the Union Address, Obama spoke to the mood in the country. &#8220;Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away. No wonder there&#8217;s so much cynicism out there. No wonder there&#8217;s so much disappointment.&#8221;</p>
<p>Then immediately after, right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin described the speech as &#8220;<a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001280011">snitty</a>.&#8221; Clearly she&#8217;s the expert. Other side-obsessives followed suit. Rudy Giuliani, The Mayor of 9/11 who recently mind-bogglingly claimed there was never a terrorist attack under Bush (err, 9/11?), said on Fox and Friends Obama never once <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201001280034">mentioned</a> the word &#8220;war&#8221; in the SOTU. Obama said it seven times according to the transcript, the millions of witnesses and the video.</p>
<p>Criticism used to be a fine art. Now it&#8217;s a carefully framed generic broad-stroked mass-reproduction that matches your chosen color scheme: Talking points. Reactions.</p>
<p>Two days after the SOTU a question and answer session was televised from a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html">GOP retreat</a> in Baltimore. There was the president, no teleprompter, answering questions, addressing issues and stating some obvious. &#8220;If there&#8217;s uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn&#8217;t get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it&#8217;s going to be difficult to get a deal done, because that&#8217;s not how democracy works,&#8221; said the president in a candid tone. With a smile he called out the GOP for characterizing his health care agenda as a Bolshevik plot.</p>
<p>It was a riveting hour of television, stunning in its openness. It was civil civic discourse - on television, for an hour. What was most shocking was when Obama stated, &#8220;And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it&#8217;s represented.&#8221; That&#8217;s like eating disorders in Hollywood, it&#8217;s an open secret no one wants to talk about but everyone knows. The major political parties aren&#8217;t as different as we&#8217;re told, it&#8217;s true. Sad common ground isn&#8217;t more common.</p>
<p>The arena has been scorched and salted over the previous decades. Can this reluctant flame war president lead us out of it? Does your answer depend on if you believe in &#8220;climate change?&#8221; Perhaps.</p>
<p>This story originated at <a href="http://trueslant.com/tinadupuy/2010/02/01/obama-the-flame-war-president/">True/Slant</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/02/01/obama-the-flame-war-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The MSM Doesn&#8217;t Exist&#8230;Not Anymore</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-msm-doesnt-existnot-anymore/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-msm-doesnt-existnot-anymore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-msm-doesnt-existnot-anymore/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The mainstream media gets denounced on cable news programs, corporate talk radio, best-selling books and behemoth blogs every day. This strangely doesn&#8217;t seem to bother the mainstream media as it heroically absorbs all the jabs thrown at it from, well, itself. It&#8217;s stoically unfazed. Admirable in its immunity.
Yes, this code word for &#8220;liberal media,&#8221; or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mainstream media gets denounced on cable news programs, corporate talk radio, best-selling books and behemoth blogs every day. This strangely doesn&#8217;t seem to bother the mainstream media as it heroically absorbs all the jabs thrown at it from, well, itself. It&#8217;s stoically unfazed. Admirable in its immunity.</p>
<p>Yes, this code word for &#8220;liberal media,&#8221; or &#8220;not liberal enough media&#8221; or &#8220;not-the-person-on-the-television-at-that-moment media,&#8221; is like rice deploring white. The ocean against wet. Trees condemning shade. It&#8217;s an epic struggle of hyperbolic proportions.</p>
<p>It seems some media conglomerates like the one owned and influenced by Rupert Murdoch, News Corp just don&#8217;t trust other media conglomerates. No honor among major media shares. And MSNBC feels like they&#8217;re not with the other two of the three 24-hour news networks and their multiple sub-networks because they often claim they counter the &#8220;mainstream media.&#8221; So it appears the entire mainstream media is against the mainstream media.</p>
<p>Almost poetic, isn&#8217;t it? But the mainstream media won&#8217;t tell you this. No you&#8217;ll have to check out ham radio, smoke signals or the cork board at the YMCA to find this out.</p>
<p>Right after the nation was aghast that Christian Broadcasting Network&#8217;s televangelist Pat Robertson stated the people of Haiti made a pact with the devil to get rid of the French as his explanation for the catastrophic earthquake, (described by one Haitian tweeter as a &#8220;natural holocaust&#8221;) Joe Scarborough was quick to criticize the &#8220;mainstream media.&#8221; Joe whose Twitter handle is @JoeNBC, literally meaning &#8220;the only Joe at the National Broadcast Network&#8221; pounced into his &#8220;I&#8217;m an outsider&#8221; schtick, &#8220;MSM will now obsess over Pat Robertson&#8217;s &#8216;devil&#8217; comment but will pay no attention to his organization&#8217;s remarkable relief work worldwide.&#8221; And then Joe, host of Morning Joe watched by nearly half a million people every day, long time member of what&#8217;s called the mainstream media went on to list Robertson&#8217;s good deeds excusing Robertson&#8217;s pro-colonial/pro-slavery stance. Of course this made Joe&#8217;s first statement therefore, incorrect. There was someone in the MSM paying attention to Pat&#8217;s good deeds: it was Joe.</p>
<p>If you can complain about the mainstream media from a national platform, it&#8217;s akin to being a ventriloquist act without the dummy: you&#8217;re bantering with your own voice.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, also-ran veep candidate Sarah Palin loves bashing the mainstream media. She does so from an enormous national platform, a far bigger platform than most people who consider themselves members the mainstream media. So when she&#8217;s pleads with the &#8220;press&#8221; (people who make their living from the media) to &#8220;quit making things up&#8221; she&#8217;s technically addressing herself. She&#8217;s one of the mythmakers she battles against on her new gig as a paid Fox News Channel contributor. But she won&#8217;t just &#8220;quit making things up,&#8221; that would be letting the mainstream media tell her what to do.</p>
<p>The media, mainstream or not, is not a monolith. American Idol is a monolith. It has one singular goal, millions of devotees and a small group in charge of its content. The press in its entirety may have been a giant uniform mass years ago. But today, it&#8217;s especially fractured with general interest newspapers failing and more and more newscasts being broadcast to compete with other broadcasts. It&#8217;s getting to the point where one can absorb oneself in &#8220;media&#8221; all day long without ever stumbling upon one single idea with which one can disagree.</p>
<p>The alleged mainstream media is the Sasquatch of media criticism: a myth perpetuated by the fact it&#8217;s still being talked about. It&#8217;s a rhetorical tick, a throwback to when there weren&#8217;t millions of blogs, hundreds of newspapers, dozens of news channels all live-streaming on Twitter.</p>
<p>Not that the press shouldn&#8217;t be criticized. It should. Just not in sweeping generalities where no one can possibly be held accountable.</p>
<p>My plea is to everyone in the media: unless you put the &#8220;mainstream media&#8221; in the same category with unicorns, leprechauns and ethical bankers - stop talking about the mainstream media.</p>
<p><em>This piece originated at <a target="_hplink" href="http://trueslant.com/tinadupuy/">True/Slant</a></em>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-msm-doesnt-existnot-anymore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Please Don&#8217;t Boycott Rush Limbaugh</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/18/please-dont-boycott-rush-limbaugh/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/18/please-dont-boycott-rush-limbaugh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/18/please-dont-boycott-rush-limbaugh/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you ask Ditto Heads, Republicans or just casual fans why they like Rush Limbaugh their answer is always the same: because liberals hate him.
No, “I admire his humanity.”  Not, “I like his high moral standing in the community.” Nor, “He inspired me to get off drugs/lose weight/have a family/find true love.”
No if you ask [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you ask Ditto Heads, Republicans or just casual fans why they like Rush Limbaugh their answer is always the same: because liberals hate him.</p>
<p>No, “I admire his humanity.”  Not, “I like his high moral standing in the community.” Nor, “He inspired me to get off drugs/lose weight/have a family/find true love.”</p>
<p>No if you ask someone who likes Rush Limbaugh why they like him it’s solely because he makes liberals nuts. Some will say it’s because they think Rush is funny; he’s funny to those who love to see liberals go nuts.</p>
<p>It’s a political theater show: The warm-up act is Rush blowing hard into his syndicated microphone. There’s the cameo by people who agree with everything he says, just because he says it. But the main event is people reacting to Rush. Together it’s a hyper-partisan spectacle and Rush is being the producer solely by setting the tone.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=limbaugh+wants+obama+to+fail&#038;ie=utf-8&#038;oe=utf-8&#038;aq=t&#038;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#038;client=firefox-a">Limbaugh wants Obama to fail</a>!” was a headline for two weeks last winter. It was talked about, denounced, analyzed, discussed, pondered, considered and dismissed in and around the media. In doing so this sound bite, a flippant comment made by a jock paid to shock was repeated a million times. So instead of maybe one million* disinterested people or so having their familiar day-time drone of Rush’s in-studio spit-cast on in the background, now every man, woman and child knows what he said about the freshly sworn-in Barack Obama. Rush’s proclamations suddenly got an exponentially larger audience than they would have otherwise.</p>
<p>All because what he said was offensive: It resonated with our lower nature and some of us are ashamed of that. When we lose, we secretly want the winner to suffer.</p>
<p>Rush is an agitator. That’s what his role has been for more than 20 years. He’s not a reporter, he’s not a politician nor is he a strategist. He just says horrible stuff and regular people, liberals and the media get whipped up and therefore more people hear him.</p>
<p>He’s also, like most of this current crop of conservatives, a contrarian. So whatever the current Democratic president is for, he has to be against. Obama is for improving the country’s health care system, Rush is for the opposite. Obama is for repairing our financial system, Rush is for the opposite. Obama is for American’s donating to Haiti, Rush is for the opposite. Remember when Rush was for everything President Bush was for? Neither does anyone else.</p>
<p>So since Rush, in the wake of the Haitian earthquake, before the bodies were cold, before the death toll was counted, before the aid could land, decided to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201001140056">bloviate</a> “Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.” This seems to be a tipping point and there have been calls by <a href="http://twitter.com/#search?q=boycott%20rush">liberals</a> to <a href="http://stoprush.org/">boycott</a> Rush Limbaugh.</p>
<p>Now I believe in Free Speech, protected speech. Therefore I believe in protecting hate speech. Even stupid speech. Even outrageous and poorly timed speech. It doesn’t mean I’m for corporate sponsored hate speech, which Rush Limbaugh is. He has the right for the government not to silence him, but not the right to have companies financially support his views.</p>
<p>So you’d think I’d be all for a boycott of Rush Limbaugh. No. No I am not. Here’s why: you can’t boycott something you’re not patronizing. So if you’re not listening to Rush’s show, then you have no leverage in a boycott. There was a <a href="http://stopbeck.com/">boycott</a> of Glenn Back after he called Obama a racist last year. Yes, Beck lost from some estimates <a href="http://stopbeck.com/dropped-sponsors/">98 sponsors</a>. But now his ratings are higher than ever and lack of sponsors or not, he’s still on the air. Did the boycott backfire? Yes.</p>
<p>Consider this: if a group of neocons wanted to boycott Rachel Maddow, everyone in the country would watch her show. If she managed to irritate a group enough to have them call her sponsors, her platform would swell.</p>
<p>The answer is to ignore Rush Limbaugh. Ignore him. Just stop being outraged by the stuff he says. You’re not going to change his dwindling fan base. He doesn’t command a voter bloc (remember when he asked his listeners to get Hillary <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html">the nomination</a>?). If you disagree with Rush, you’re the audience that must walk away. We can leave ignorant and racist comments unchecked if it means a smaller broadcast of said comments. If the only reason his fans love him is because he makes liberals nuts, liberals have their job clearly laid out for them.</p>
<p>He has the right to say things and I have the right to not repeat them. Besides, Rush hates tolerance. What a more perfect revenge.</p>
<p><em>*His current ratings are reported at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show">13.5 million</a> a week. At 15 hours a week of yammering, that’s less than one million an hour, average listening. But actual data of radio ratings are kept vague on <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/09/entertainment/et-limbaugh9">purpose</a>.</em></p>
<p>This piece originally appeared at <a href="http://trueslant.com/tinadupuy/">True/Slant </a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/18/please-dont-boycott-rush-limbaugh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Latest Fast Company Article</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/06/latest-fast-company-article/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/06/latest-fast-company-article/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/06/latest-fast-company-article/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cenk Uygur Sets Out to Take Down Traditional Television 
By: Tina DupuyTue Dec 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Cenk Uygur and his rebel band are out to take down traditional television, with a hand from YouTube, satellite radio, and 500,000 fans.



Photographs by Dave Lauridsen


        Television studios are airport-hangar-size buildings [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Cenk Uygur Sets Out to Take Down Traditional Television </strong><cite /></p>
<p><cite>By: <a title="View user profile." href="http://www.fastcompany.com/user/8">Tina Dupuy</a></cite><span class="timestamp">Tue Dec 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM</span></p>
<div id="article-top-wrapper">
<div id="article-deck">Cenk Uygur and his rebel band are out to take down traditional television, with a hand from YouTube, satellite radio, and 500,000 fans.</div>
</div>
<div id="article-bucket">
<div class="article-1-image"><a target="_new" href="http://www.fastcompany.com/files/next-56-youngTurks-2.jpg"><span class="article-view-enlarged" /></a><a target="_new" href="http://www.fastcompany.com/files/next-56-youngTurks-2.jpg"><img alt="Young Turks, Cenk Ugyr" src="http://www.fastcompany.com/files/imagecache/bucket_image/files/next-56-youngTurks-2.jpg" /></a></p>
<p class="image-credit">Photographs by Dave Lauridsen</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><!-- END: article-bucket -->        <!--paging_filter--><strong>Television studios</strong> are airport-hangar-size buildings with green rooms, overflow trailers, and people with massive salaries bustling around. I&#8217;m sitting instead in a cramped office on Wilshire Boulevard, a mile from Beverly Hills, which has been converted into a makeshift studio for the Internet-based TV talk show <em>The Young Turks</em>. In the control room, three staffers in T-shirts and a perky producer, Ana Kasparian, 23, man eight computer screens and clutch boxes of various Willy Wonka candies. A wall-size window separates them from a modest newscast-esque set.</p>
<p>Just before 4 p.m., host Cenk Uygur, 39, arrives &#8212; &#8220;early,&#8221; he says, so we could talk &#8212; not at all fazed that his three-hour show is streaming live in 10 minutes. I&#8217;ve seen the show; his musings are thoughtful, insightful gems in a sea of digitized diatribes. I look around for a teleprompter. There isn&#8217;t one. No writers either. Uygur watches the day&#8217;s video clips for the first time during commercial breaks, seconds before he discusses them on-air.</p>
<p>Uygur doesn&#8217;t look like a rebel, but there is something revolutionary going on here. Roughly 450,000 people watch <em>The Young Turks</em> on YouTube alone; thousands more in the precious 18-to-35 demo listen on Sirius Satellite Radio and through the <em>TYT</em> Web site, making it competitive with, say, MSNBC&#8217;s <em>Morning Joe</em> (382,000 viewers a day in September), or CNN&#8217;s <em>Lou Dobbs Tonight</em> (616,000). And that, says Uygur, is only the beginning of a campaign &#8220;to take down television.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;When I watch TV, I see robots,&#8221; he says. &#8220;We&#8217;re not robots; we&#8217;re people.&#8221; On a show touching on health-care reform and Senator Max Baucus, Uygur proclaimed, &#8220;The mainstream media and the politicians who do these tricks and the media who cover for them &#8212; guess what? You&#8217;re fucked. We&#8217;re coming for you. We&#8217;re coming to your house.&#8221;</p>
<p>Uygur is no Jim Cramer or Keith Olbermann. There are no props. He doesn&#8217;t pace or throw papers. On air, he sits at a desk in a news-anchor manner, without the necktie. His style is conversational. Even from the voyeuristic distance of YouTube, he seems to be having an intimate chat with his viewers. For two hours, he comments on what interests him about each sound bite and piece of video, and talks with guests who span the spectrum from Mel Brooks to Mary Matalin. A self-described moderate progressive, he sometimes disagrees with the likes of Michael Moore. For the third hour, cohost and producer Kasparian does softer news.</p>
<p>The Turks&#8217; goal has always been to make a television show for the Web and build on that success. &#8220;In &#8216;97, I knew television and the Internet would merge,&#8221; Uygur says. &#8220;Didn&#8217;t realize radio would too.&#8221; <em>TYT</em> was Sirius&#8217;s first original programming, an arrangement that, by 2006, provided this ragtag crew with an operating budget of $250,000 a year. According to Uygur, the network wouldn&#8217;t allow them to produce a YouTube video program, so they raised their own funds (mostly friends and family) and worked out a syndication deal with Sirius. The gamble paid off; within a year, revenue reached the $250,000 mark. Today, <em>TYT</em> takes in more than $20,000 a month from YouTube&#8217;s ad sharing, plus a similar sum from 2,100 subscriptions and ads from its own Web site. Revenue has doubled in the past 18 months.</p>
<p>With operating costs of $35,000 a month, covering five full-time employees and rent, <em>TYT</em> is a lean &#8212; and modestly profitable &#8212; talking machine. There&#8217;s no makeup person. No wardrobe budget. No craft services. No catered lunches. No grips. No unions. And no 401(k)s. &#8220;Yeah, I&#8217;m on my wife&#8217;s health care,&#8221; admits Uygur.</p>
<p>To create a single hour of cable news, &#8220;you&#8217;re probably looking at a ballpark of $200,000 to $300,000,&#8221; says Pixel Pictures executive producer Karen Daniel. Compare that to <em>TYT</em>&#8217;s tidy budget and television looks like a dinosaur blissfully dismissing mammals, or newspapers scoffing at blogs circa 2002.</p>
<p><em>TYT</em> does absolutely no advertising. Rabid fans, known as the Young Turks&#8217; Nation, are the show&#8217;s most devoted publicists. &#8220;Our marketing is purely word of mouth and people linking to our videos and blogs on the Web,&#8221; says Uygur. Meaning <em>TYT</em> has found a way to crowdsource everything, from fact checking to $10-a-month Web subscriptions to keep the lights on. &#8220;If I screw up and say something wrong, I instantly get 100 messages,&#8221; says Uygur.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s next for <em>TYT</em>? &#8220;Launch a network,&#8221; says Uygur. &#8220;We&#8217;re crazy cheap.&#8221; He notes they already have the studio and the equipment to produce another show. It would just take a couple more crew members and a new producer. The model is proven. YouTube is equipped. The <em>TYT</em> brand is ready to expand. Uygur hopes to launch at least one new show in the next three months.</p>
<p>But what if MSNBC, where Uygur had talks last spring about its 10 p.m. slot, comes calling? What if a real television network wants to scoop up <em>TYT</em>? &#8220;It would have to coexist with what we have,&#8221; Uygur says. Cable news is welcome to syndicate its content, but <em>TYT</em> won&#8217;t shut down the YouTube channel for the old Goliath of cable news. Instead, Uygur says, &#8220;we&#8217;re going to pick their pockets.&#8221;</p>
<p>Via <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/141/young-turks-indeed.html">Fast Company </a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2010/01/06/latest-fast-company-article/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>War on Christmas is Over (If You Want It)</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/14/war-on-christmas-is-over-if-you-want-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/14/war-on-christmas-is-over-if-you-want-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/14/war-on-christmas-is-over-if-you-want-it/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s time to pull out of the War on Christmas. It’s a quagmire. There are no winners, the victories are fleeting and the effort could be spent in better places.
Christmas hasn’t always been a battleground. President Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas an official holiday in 1870. So for a holiday whose literal meaning is the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s time to pull out of the War on Christmas. It’s a quagmire. There are no winners, the victories are fleeting and the effort could be spent in better places.</p>
<p>Christmas hasn’t always been a battleground. President Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas an official holiday in 1870. So for a holiday whose literal meaning is the mass of Christ, a 2000-year-old religion, Christmas is a relatively new “most sacred day of the year now under attack by secularists and the ACLU.” The “traditional” holiday, was a celebration of the winter solstice. The customs were combined into a Christmas pudding with a very American brand on it. These days the holiday has evolved into an across the board economic mainstay. Two-thirds of our economy is consumer spending and Christmas in a tax calendar type of way, is all about waiting until the last minute to shop.</p>
<p>But in the last decade there’s been a war on Christmas. Those who have been fighting it the hardest, Christian leaders, are also the ones who claim the other side, the omnipotent “fundamentalist secularists” declared it by use of euphemism: “Season’s Greetings.”</p>
<p>Religious leaders decided the only way to mark the Christian significance of Christmas was to urge retail establishments to use the phrase “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.” So when Christians seeking the true spirit of Christmas, crowded on a shelf at the mega-mall, they wouldn’t have their religion of personifying a poor Jewish prophet mocked by hearing the phrase “Happy Holidays.”</p>
<p>It’s like insisting all pizzas be referred to as “air pockets” so you’ll be safe from ever blowing your diet.</p>
<p>There was a movement (hippies mostly) at one time who didn’t appreciate business co-opting their religion to turn a profit. The denounced the commercialization of Christmas. But that kind of sentiment clearly doesn’t sell well and it was dropped by the bullying buying power of the &#8220;Merry Christmas&#8221; insistent.</p>
<p>The War on Christmas is a weird hybrid of requesting only the proper kind of exploitation of a sacred holy day. The threat of not adhering to the request isn’t one of spiritual punishment, it’s of economic condemnation. And while the latter could be more effective in winning battles, its use as a strategy is clearly cynical. And in a major recession it’s ten-fold.</p>
<p>But let’s not look at who’s right and whose First Amendment rights are being trampled on. Scorekeeping is for games – this is war. It’s an exploration of what being offended actually <em>entitles</em> you to. I would call the conflict a “debate” but that seems a little too generous even for the Season of Giving. What has it gotten us? The only thing the War on Christmas has managed to accomplish is terrorizing a couple of seasonal workers out of muttering “Happy Holidays” as they stuff yuletide savings into America’s shopping carts.</p>
<p>Our winter celebration it’s not a fully Christian tradition. It’s not a purely secular one either. It’s surely an economic one. And it’s always been a way to boost morale during the thin months. Bronze-age man marked the shortest day of the year with a festival, a way of noting if they collaborate they could survive the darkness. And they did. Their offspring survived long enough to have a holy war about a corporate-sanctioned greeting at Wal-Mart.</p>
<p>Totally worth it.</p>
<p>The worst thing about the War on Christmas has become its own holiday pageant of misdirection. <a href="http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147490026">The American Family Association</a> currently has up on their website a <a href="http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147486887">Naughty and Nice list</a> consisting of companies for &#8220;Christmas,&#8221; companies marginalizing &#8220;Christmas&#8221; and companies against &#8220;Christmas.&#8221; There are no companies against Christmas. That’s like claiming an auto company is against tires because they don’t say otherwise. The effort spent on badgering the Gap for saying “Happy Holidays” in their first ads of the season couldn’t be spent elsewhere? Are resources being funneled to the War on Christmas distracting from more important Christian ventures like – feeding the hungry or helping the poor? Being you know, Christ-like on Christ-mass?</p>
<p>It’s time to withdraw the troops. Declare it a draw. Cut and run. Peace on Earth. Peace on wishing someone “happy holidays” because you include New Years in there too. Peace on Christmas. Peace to those who have less this year. We as a nation have to start ending wars that are pointless.</p>
<div class="zemanta-pixie"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=56f8c450-6dbe-4f0d-bd4b-56db9266c495" /></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/14/war-on-christmas-is-over-if-you-want-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Plan for Afghanistan: Make All Americans Unhappy</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/03/obama-plan-for-afghanistan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/03/obama-plan-for-afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/03/obama%e2%80%99s-plan-for-afghanistan-make-all-americans-unhappy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My grandfather used to say there’s no such thing as confusion, it’s just not liking your options. The United States’ war in Afghanistan is very confusing. There are no good options. Just a bunch of pretty crappy choices: Stay forever. Leave now. Leave later. Same troops. More troops. Less troops. Help the corrupt government. Build [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My grandfather used to say there’s no such thing as confusion, it’s just not liking your options. The United States’ war in Afghanistan is very confusing. There are no good options. Just a bunch of pretty crappy choices: Stay forever. Leave now. Leave later. Same troops. More troops. Less troops. Help the corrupt government. Build things. Burn poppy fields. Occupy hearts and minds. It’s been eight years. No victories. Just a vast, mountainous, money pit.</p>
<p>There’s not any new strategy that will redeem the past eight years of mismanagement and neglect.</p>
<p>Wars used to be waged in order to gain things; land, gold, slaves, converts – freedom. Able bodied youths were sacrificed in order to receive tangible things useful for prosperity. The war in Afghanistan is akin to shadow boxing. It’s like a waitress tipping a customer so they won’t walk out on the check. It’s tragically stupid, tiresome and ultimately pointless, so no wonder we’ve collectively ignored it.</p>
<p>Afghanistan is the foster care system of foreign policy. It is the issue we all know exists, but it’s really sad and depressing and there’s no good solution so we push it out of our minds. We focus on other things like Tiger Woods, the Salahi party crashers, the Palin Vortex or Balloon Boy.</p>
<p>So now a new president who campaigned on change has given the war in Afghanistan – god forbid – some thought. And what Barack Obama has come up with is diplomacy, more troops and an eventual withdrawal date. So out of a slew of crappy choices – he picked – wait for it – some crappy choices. Choices destined not to make anyone happy.</p>
<p>So maybe the problem is that we want a war strategy that will make us happy. Because suddenly we were reminded we’re a nation at war and now we want the problem solved by a bumper sticker before the 11 o’clock news so we won’t lose any sleep.</p>
<p>There’s not any new slogan that will redeem the past eight years of mismanagement and neglect.</p>
<p>“As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one,” said a strikingly non-swaggering Commander-in-Chief on Tuesday at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html">West Point</a>.</p>
<p>In analysis after the speech,  the self-appointed pinhead-pronouncer Bill O’Reilly declared to his partisan pork rind pal, Karl Rove, “The problem with Obama is that he’s an academic.”</p>
<p>Yes, it was said. The problem with the most powerful man on earth is that he’s not a moron. That’s like criticizing a pilot for having too good of vision. “I prefer my man in the cockpit to be cripplingly nearsighted – who’s with me?”</p>
<p>The problem with the right-wing is they’ve been protesting against Obama, claiming he is a tyrant. They don’t know what a tyrant is, they just know that <a href="http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2074">Thomas Jefferson</a> said that the tree of liberty should be watered with their blood and they like the idea of dark men with weird names being fertilizer. So therefore the shoe fits. They’ve been protesting against tyranny when what they really want is a tyrant. Albeit a white one who agrees with them. One who tortures evil-doers, locks up homos, kills abortionists, funds abstinence, deports foreigners, bombs terrorists, hangs dictators, digs guns and never apologizes because everything they do is American because they say so.</p>
<p>That’s patriotic, dude. Love it or leave it, bitches.</p>
<p>As we’ve seen with the health care debate when Republicans want “bipartisanship” they really mean “only their way.”</p>
<p>The right-wing is like a rescue pit bull, yes they’re not bad per se as a breed but they’ve been beaten so they’ll attack and if you don’t take a firm upper hand, they’ll maul you. Meaning, the right has issues. Creepy, dark issues. They will never like Obama or anything he does. The horrible part is watching him try to reason with mouth-frothers. Especially when they want Alexander the Great, save the getting it on with dudes part. Of course, if <em>he</em> made it cool…said it was American…then…</p>
<p>The left is pissed because they want to witness the right’s comeuppance. They want to feel smug and vindicated that they were correct in their dismissal of George W. Bush and their clear precognition of his total and utter failure as a president. They want the spoils because they see themselves as the victors. And here’s this awesome guy with this cool exotic name they got elected and he’s – gasp – not bashing the right’s brains in and outing their wives who disagree with him. He’s not mean enough. He must be more forceful to unite the country.</p>
<p>So the right sees too much change and is unhappy and the left doesn’t see enough change and is unhappy. Confusing, no?</p>
<p>This brings me back to the war in Afghanistan. There was no way Obama – the man the right hates regardless and the president who the left wants to avenge them but isn’t – could have put a pretty glow on the quasi-quagmire we’ve ignored for eight years. It’s an impossibility. Much like a rosy outcome in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>And we as Americans are unhappy because there’s nothing that will redeem the past eight years of mismanagement and neglect.</p>
<p><em>This piece originated at True/Slant </em><br />
<img class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=d0906d8a-a86d-48be-8567-859976db8c08" />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/12/03/obama-plan-for-afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Has The American Dream Drifted North?</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/25/has-the-american-dream-drifted-north/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/25/has-the-american-dream-drifted-north/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Political Dribble</category>

		<category>Hey Look, I'm a Writer</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/25/has-the-american-dream-drifted-north/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine a handsome young family complete with kids living in a stylish two-story home in a quiet neighborhood. The parents work normal middle-class jobs. The dad is a city bus driver, mom is a secretary. Their house is brimming with consumer goods: a couple of mammoth-sized televisions, a drum set for the kids and high-end [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imagine a handsome young family complete with kids living in a stylish two-story home in a quiet neighborhood. The parents work normal middle-class jobs. The dad is a city bus driver, mom is a secretary. Their house is brimming with consumer goods: a couple of mammoth-sized televisions, a drum set for the kids and high-end furniture. The mother’s closet is bursting with her ample wardrobe. Dad has a motorcycle. Combined they make just under $90,000 a year.</p>
<p>They are being featured on a show running on CNBC, now in its eighth season called <a href="http://www.slice.ca/Shows/ShowsPage.aspx?title_id=93097"><em>Til Debt Do We Part</em></a>. And like most people on television shows, they have a problem and they need to go on television to fix it. Apparently Mom and Dad have been heavy-handed with their credit cards. They owe $60,000. The matronly host Gail Vaz-Oxlade gently lays down the law: They have to live within their means. Pay down credit cards. Pay into a savings account. Save for their children’s education. The message this self-proclaimed Dollar Diva has for the couple is they are drifting apart and debt is the culprit.</p>
<p>Gail puts up on the screen the family’s budget. What they spend on whatnot a month. Their housing expenses for their posh suburban home are a reasonable sum. Their transportation costs are relatively low. Dad has to sell the motorcycle. Mom has to spend less on clothes. The parents need to spend more time with each other. All problems are then solved.</p>
<p>While watching this program I was amazed at the lack of grit for a reality show. This is no <em>Hoarders</em> airing dirty laundry and years’ worth of neglect and filth. This is a couple with a standard of living far better than any I’ve ever seen for what they do for a living. It’s like they’re Alice and I’m the one Through the Looking Glass. Then Gail handed the couple a wad of bills to illustrate they were going to be paying for things in cash from now on. The money? Canadian. These are Canadians. Their budget is manageable for one because they’ve <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option"><em>chosen</em></a> to not buy supplemental insurance and rely on the government to provide all of their health care.</p>
<p>This couple and most of the couples on the show don’t pay for health care out of their family budgets. The average family in America spends around $15,000 a year or around 22% of their <a href="http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html">income on health care</a>. That amount will apparently pay most of a mortgage on an enviable home in the greater Toronto area.</p>
<p>Most notable, the show doesn’t delve into any sob stories about getting diseases and therefore having debt. There are no staples of the only-in-America saga of losing your health, then your health care then your house. The debt is all from spending money on things they want. Simply because they want them. Which makes these spendthrift Canadians seem more American than Americans.</p>
<p>It’s the way Americans want to see ourselves; careless, reckless, Wild West, rogue spenders buying everything because we can. Yeah we pull ourselves by our bootstraps and it’s that kind of personal responsibility that cratered the economy. Of course we’re more along the lines of Wal-Mart sharecroppers, completely at the mercy of colossal businesses with fewer choices and even less power muttering to ourselves that at least we aren’t slaves. It’s the land of the free. Someone told us so.</p>
<p>Are Canadians living the American Dream?</p>
<p>When did Canadians out Norman Rockwell us? From the perspective of my couch they seem to be living very well with the evils of socialism. Canada consistently outranks us in quality of care and that impacts our quality of life. Plus, call me paranoid, but I think they’re looking down on us.</p>
<p>UPDATE: Today Sarah Palin, a thinker so compelling we must all bask in her sound bites, was asked about <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/25/palin-canada/">Canada’s health care system</a>. “In fact Canada needs to reform its health care system and let the private sector take over some of what the government has absorbed.” Thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere.</p>
<p><em>Originally posted on True/Slant </em></p>
<div class="zemanta-pixie"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=238c9869-fb35-4cd7-bcc8-8accf84d04b7" /></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/25/has-the-american-dream-drifted-north/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doom Sells, But Who&#8217;s Buying?</title>
		<link>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/16/doom-sells-but-whos-buying/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/16/doom-sells-but-whos-buying/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tina D.</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Column</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/16/doom-sells-but-whos-buying/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the wake of the epic doomsday disaster film 2012 reaping in a cataclysmic $225 million globally opening weekend, it&#8217;s pretty clear doom is a boom.
Doomsday prophesy is an art, that&#8217;s why the purveyors make the big bucks.
But don&#8217;t worry, doomsday prophets are notorious for dying of old age. It’s a little known fact people [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the wake of the epic doomsday disaster film <em>2012</em> reaping in a cataclysmic <a href="http://gawker.com/5405231/2012-and-precious-box+office-takes-prove-worlds-sadomasochism-fetish-profitable">$225 million</a> globally opening weekend, it&#8217;s pretty clear doom is a boom.</p>
<p>Doomsday prophesy is an art, that&#8217;s why the purveyors make the big bucks.</p>
<p>But don&#8217;t worry, doomsday prophets are notorious for dying of old age. It’s a little known fact people who focus only on the end of days have an incredibly long life expectancy. It’s a solid career choice for the right individual. For one, you can be wrong about the world coming to an end. So far no one’s ever gotten it right.</p>
<p>You know, since we’re still here…and stuff.</p>
<p>I was born in a doomsday cult, The Children of God and I have studied the issue at length. So now I can help you, help yourself:</p>
<p>There is a long and distinguished history of dooming. There has been preaching about the end of time since the beginning of time. The Apocalypse. The Rapture. End Times. Armageddon.  Y2K. 2012. The possibilities are endless!</p>
<p>In order to be a doomsday prophet, you can’t afford to be discouraged by anything. Especially not evidence.</p>
<p>Just treat every day like a close-out going out of business sale. Yes, this is your business as usual. It’s a deadline! It’s now or never! Everything marked down! Everything must go! Combat short attention spans with shorter timelines.</p>
<p>Oh sure, there have been some like Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate who have killed themselves and their flock, but you’re not about discouragement. True doomsday prophets are tax-free and facts-free zones of stay-tuned-or-you’ll-miss-something-ness. Doomsday prophecy is a riveting and exciting career where you learn to dodge and duck accountability with your charisma.  You’re like a charming, tax-exempt whack-a-mole.</p>
<p>When it comes to belief – hope floats but doom sells. Pastor John Hagee, a supporter of Senator John McCain for President, once told his megachurch, ”You could get raptured out of this building before I get finished preaching.” On the tape, you can hear the crowd cheer.  “Yay!” This is the kind of message that separates the megachurches from the meager churches.</p>
<p>The other character trait necessary– is not caring that you’re wrong. If being accurate is important to you, program calculators for a living. If being proved to be a fraud fills you with anxiety and make you want cower into a fetal position and hide from public life forever, then doomsday prophesy is not your bag.  Either yarn rhetorically or go home.</p>
<p>The cult leader my parents followed, Moses David predicted the world/America would end in the early 1970’s. After it didn’t happen, he used the general prophesy of “it can’t be long now!” to cover any doubt about what was around the corner.</p>
<p>The Christian Coalition’s Pat Robertson annually makes predictions about the coming year. In 2007 he said, “The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.” Wow, was that wrong. Did he retire? Hell, no. Why would he need to? Now he has the disclaimer, ”If there’s a mistake it’s not His fault, it’s mine.” As for 2009? He predicted America would embrace socialism under Obama. Subtle. Learn from the master, folks.</p>
<p>But people will want to believe you if you seem to believe it enough yourself and they like you. What’s a couple of outright failed prophesies among friends, huh? People of faith tend to have faith in people. So  if you don’t have any hesitation exploiting that. You’re so there.</p>
<p>Interesting side note: My mother, who has spent the past 35 years convinced the world could end at any minute, has maintained a perfect credit score. Lesson here for doomers: Don’t ever sell short the short sell.</p>
<p>And lastly, you should not just assume as a doomsday prophet that you are going to be stuck at church or on CBN for eternity. You guys are not just screaming incoherencies on the street corner anymore. There are many career opportunities for you on basic cable. If there’s any place where inaccurate hyperbole is not only celebrated but encouraged - it’s at Fox News. Glenn Beck knows how to doom. But note Jim Cramer is not on Fox so don’t feel limited. Remember Geraldo Rivera started out at ABC sniffing out the Satanic cult conspiracies before he graduated to Fox where he could give away troop positions.</p>
<p>To sum up: fear and impending doom can equal bread and butter. But you have to hurry. It could all end soon.</p>
<p><em> This piece originally appeared on <a href="http://trueslant.com/tinadupuy/2009/11/16/doom-sells-but-whos-buying/">True/Slant</a>.</em>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tinadupuy.com/index.php/2009/11/16/doom-sells-but-whos-buying/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
