Why Can’t Kobe Get Any Love?

Business, Firearms, Libertarian Theory, Pop Culture, Racism, Victimless Crimes
By / / 8 minutes of reading
Share

“A debate on ESPN about Kobe being in that “Call of Duty: Black Ops” commercial, holding a rifle, convinced me of two things…” ~ First Tweet

“…One, ESPN has a lot of retarded debates about issues that are less than important.” ~ Second Tweet

“…Two, I watch too much ESPN.” ~ Third Tweet

My previous blog rant about a sports figure—regarding the LeBron Decision and the wrath it wrought—opened with this line, “I have an admission to make…” Here we go again.

I have another admission to make, this time about the Tweets I posted, as shown above.  I was wrong about ESPN.  They don’t debate about issues that are less than important, well, not in the way I originally opined.  (That those debates remain somewhat retarded is not similarly incorrect.)  This issue is not only important, but also emblematic of and intertwined with many other issues.  In fact, it dawned on me as I watched a panel discussion on “Outside the Lines: First Report,” that the Kobe-holding-a-rifle-in-a-commercial issue is both important and confusing.  By the way, the coverage, particularly on Yahoo, is worth checking out.

This issue is—these issues are—important because the discussion of black men—particularly prominent black men—and weapons, is tied up in the same psychological murkiness that I attempted to clarify via the lens of racist gun control.  The issue is confusing because any discussion seems to meander through any number of sub-issues, some germane and some peripheral, at best.  (As an aside, my third admission via Tweet, that I watch too much ESPN, is hardly worth debating.  It is what it is.)

That professional sports are fraught with racist collectivism is far from a discovery.  Furthermore, these issues are not new, which is probably why they tend to recur.  Given the exorbitant coverage of celebrity in the MSM, any time a prominent black man makes news, it presents an excellent opportunity to drive viewership.  Paraphrasing the old quote from It’s a Wonderful Life about angels and ringing bells, every time a high-profile black man does anything even remotely newsworthy, a budding TV producer gets his wings.

My own view is that the enchantment with these issues—and their presentation via sports television—is indicative of more than a sports-centric misinterpretation of value.  Plaxico Burris is in jail in some measure because he is a high-profile black athlete.  I might argue that Mike Vick went to jail for much the same reasons.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but “uppity Negros” have been getting whipped in America for about as long as there has been an America.  (I know.  I know.  Again, that’s unfair.)  Ergo, figuratively whipping them via the court of ostensible public opinion via sports entertainment is a tried-and-true strategy.

…

Why Can’t Kobe Get Any Love?Read More »

Why Can’t Kobe Get Any Love? Read Post »

Good Guys and Bad Guys in the Media Biz

Business, IP Law, Pop Culture
By / / 3 Comments / 1 minute of reading
Share

I and some friends are trying to compile a list of various notable musicians, artists, and the like who are more or less good on copyright, and those who are particularly bad. For “good” we mean they explicitly oppose copyright or at least fight for their fans and against some of the excesses of draconian copyright. For the bad, we mean those who use the power of the state to attack their fans and/or hypocrites who pretend to be for peace and love and condemn capitalism and commercialism while greedily condoning the use of state copyright law to persecute innocent people. I’ll list a few on both sides below; other suggestions or comments are welcome as are any links documenting the good/bad IP status of individuals listed below; I’ll update this list from time to time.

Good

Bad

Good Guys and Bad Guys in the Media Biz Read Post »

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property

(Austrian) Economics, Business, IP Law
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

The Social NetworkThere are some good commentaries up on the superb Facebook movie, The Social Network: The Daily Caller’s ‘The Social Network’ and the case against intellectual property rights and Jeff Tucker’s A Movie That Gets It Right, as  well as Robert Wenzel’s The Social Network: The Movie that Could Save Us All.

In my view, the movie fails in its apparent attempt to show the Zuckerberg character as an asshole (I don’t know how true to life the character is), other than the way he treated his girlfriend in the beginning. It’s also hard to tell if the movie intended to show how ridiculous some intellectual property claims are, but as argued very well in the Daily Caller post, the movie does show this. One part of the plot concerns twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, whose plans for an exclusive Harvard student network were upstaged by Zuckerberg, leading them to complain that he “stole” their idea. As the Daily Caller post notes:

“If you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook,” Zuckerberg sneers, dismissing the Winklevoss twins’ contribution to the existence of Facebook. Yet it’s indisputable that the networking site the twins envisioned at least partly inspired Zuckerberg, who gave them the run around for weeks while quietly launching a rival site.

Dubious as Zuckerberg’s tactics may have been, “The Social Network” does not consider him a criminal. Audiences shouldn’t, either.

… In an age where websites like Facebook have made it easier than ever for people around the world to interact and share their ideas, laws shouldn’t stand in the way of the free flow of information and innovation.

During a legal hearing, Zuckerberg makes the ultimate statement against intellectual property rights, asking, “Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?” If people value Facebook and the system that made its development possible, the answer should be a resounding no.

[Cross-posted at C4SIF]

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property Read Post »

Language Corrupted

Business, Democracy, Vulgar Politics
By / / 1 Comment / 3 minutes of reading
Share

In my first blog post here I pointed out how statism and monopolies had affected language. There is more to be said about this.

It’s not just candidates who invade our homes with political propaganda and petitions for votes. It’s also the almost exclusively pro-state media and academics. 2010 being an election year, rhetoric is rampant. Indeed, discussions about taxes and spending are all too common (and all too sad). And tax talk, of course, is not free of the very same examples of language corruption that allows the existence of certain ways that we speak about taxes and the desire for them.

Take the statement, “taxes give us roads and police.” Putting aside the monopoly aspects, what seldom gets asked is whether roads and police are needed, how much and of what quality. When someone complains about taxes or government spending, soon enough the reply will have to do about us being able to have bridges and other services. Sure, tax money goes to those and thousands of other projects.

Imagine a similar situation in everyday life. We go to the grocery store with a shopping list. The first item is “apples.” Fine–we need apples. But the list only says that. We do not know how many apples, what size, kind, or how fresh they should be. What about price? Whenever statists speak of roads, schools, bridges, police, education, health care, or anything else “offered” by the state, there is no specific mention of the multitude of aspects that a market entrepreneur would have to figure out (such as quality, quantity, etc.). Society needs such and such. That is all. Maybe there are too many schools. Maybe there aren’t enough. Where should they be located? How many students? What about curricula

One can go on and on about such minutia yet the point remains–the populous is not sold (or offered really, as these are taxes after all) a specific amount or number of goods or services but rather abstract, homogeneous, indistinct, monolithic blobs. While the entrepreneur risks scarce goods (time, labor, capital) trying to determine future market conditions to provide his fellow man with a good or service, the political process promises vacuous public works which are, due to the way they are financed and allocated, necessarily inefficient, for they bear no resemblance to what you and I and everyone else wants. (Not to mention that for every government project there is an army of bureaucrats making decisions “on our behalf,” somehow a) reading the minds of all of society; and b) trying to average out our desires. The result, far from being what “the people want” is rather what the lobbyists and politicians want.)

These days the hot topic is employment, with candidates/potential busybodies-tyrants promising an endless supply of jobs. The next time someone promises “jobs,” be aware of how corrupted (and corrupting) that sounds.

Language Corrupted Read Post »

Scroll to Top