• http://andreslucero.com/ andreslucero

    You’re absolutely right about the changing nature of celebrity; the long tail of the Internet makes mini-celebs out of bloggers, podcasters, etc., who are “famous for fifteen people”. While there will always be mainstream celebrities that reach a mass audience, I don’t expect to see a worldwide phenomenon like Michael Jackson again in my lifetime. (Britney Spears is a household name, but she never reached the heights of the Jackson craze in the 80′s.)

    More disturbing is the emerging trend of pseudo-celebrities — people like Paris Hilton, Tila Tequila, or the hordes of “reality” TV stars — who are famous for being famous. These people have no talent, produce nothing of value, and provide no insight on even a single subject. Instead, they feed off of attention… and, unfortunately, the public is willing to give it to them.

  • Techpriest

    You guys hit the nail on the head with regards to the future of celebrity culture, i think the head of suns open source development summed it up best when he said “we’re moving from a world of hubs & spokes to a world of meshes”. Like andreslucero i do find it disturbing, and even a tad infuriating, that the cult of “pseduocelebrity’s” continue to thrive, people famous for….being famous. Other celebritys actually contribute something, Jackson actually touched peoples lives through music, TV stars reach people as characters, but as andreslucero admits to, this new class of celebrity just feeds off of the gossip machine originally created to cover “true” celebrity’s.

    Being a transport-enthusiast, i’m afraid i’m going to switch tacks to transport. Theres been an ever growing talk of the benefits of High Speed Rail in the US, and in response there has been a sort of back-lash against the spending of what could amount to hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars on what some have termed “white elephants”. I won’t discuss this point in detail because its not the main issue with my post, but i would like to point out that the cost of doing initial construction grows over time, whereas maintenance costs can be controlled. A prime example is the fact that constructing a new metro line in the USA costs 99% (per KM) more than in China- purely due to higher wage, safety and other costs that rise over time and are particularly large iarge in developed countrys. In other words, while spending say, the percieved $48 Billion over the next 3 decades to complete the entire California High Speed Rail system might seem excessive, if we do decide to do it later, it will be far more expensive.

    The real point of my post is to do with the existing rail network. Many High Speed Rail proposals in the US propose carving out entirely new networks, and while this may make sense in many areas for grade-separation and shorter-route reasons, it avoids a simple question- what exactly is wrong with the existing system? Most of the critics and enthusiasts who are well versed in US rail history state that the reason higher speeds are not attainable on the current US rail network is due to:

    A: Signalling- there is no in-cab signalling in the USA (excluding the North East Corridor), and in-cab signalling is a requirement to go fast (as at high speeds, the likelehood of drivers missing signals increases dramatically)

    B: Track- The Track is old, poorly maintained, and is too curvy to allow for High Speeds

    C: Shared Lines- Many Lines are shared with slower freight lines, which slows trains down and makes attaining high speeds difficult.

    While A, B and C are all problems which plague all rail systems around the world and prevent the attainment of TGV and Shinkansen-esque speeds, this doesnt detract from the fact that higher speeds could still be attained on the existing network. I’ll use the case study of Britain to prove it, because the situations are similar, and i’m well versed in British transportation history.
    In the early 60′s and 70′s, Britains Rail network was in a state of decline (not the current renaissance that even Amtrak is experiencing), the growth of motorways and slow speeds on the rail network mean’t that rail passenger numbers were falling and there was even a risk of the railway becoming a sort of Moral obligation “obsolete, but we keep it around anyway” (i note many republicans in modern day america view amtrak with the same contempt). A solution had to be found that dramatically increased speed at low cost, did not require costly electrification, new tracks, or in-cab signalling. In other words, the situation was similar to the current state of America’s rail network. However, British Engineers found a solution.

    This solution was termed the “InterCity 125″. A new diesel (no electrification needed) express train that combined existing technologies to create a train that could use the existing network at a maximum speed of 125MPH. It was soon rolled out in tests, and proved feasible and was rolled out nationwide, where it proved wildly succesful, it managed to reverse years of decline on inter-city routes, drew in high earning and high paying first class customers back to the rail network, and paved the way for intercity to be its own division within British Rail. Intercity went on to be one of just 2 profitable divisions within British Rail (the other being the freight network), and even invented the tilting technology that was later sold to Fiat, bought by Alstom, and incorporated into the Acela train system. The InterCity 125 did actually give Britain the largest “125MPH running” network in the world for a time, and most importantly, did it on the existing network with no improvements and while sharing the rails with slower freight trains.

    The Technology and the trains are almost 40 years old, and despite this manage to best Amtraks jewel of the Acela (Intercity 125′s and their newer electric counterparts, the 225′s, routinely achieve start-stop averages of 100MPH, in contrast with the Acela which achieves just 83MPH as its start-stop average).

    What is there here the USA can’t replicate? The Technology and the train system is almost 40 years old, tried, tested and perfected, no costly Electrification is required, and they tick all the “inexpensive” requirements of NOT upgrading the track, NOT installing in-cab signalling AND sharing the track with freight trains. In some ways, it might be cheaper for Amtrak to start investing in high speed rail by replacing their aging heavy-locomitves and ageing carriages with British Intercity Trains when the Intercity’s are phased out over the next decade (being replaced by new diesel electric Hybrids). The Distance between SF and LA is roughly equivalent to the Distance between London-Edinburgh, but whereas the average trip time between London-Edinburgh is between 4.5 and 5 hours, the trip time between SF and LA on Amtrak is between 16 and 20 hours. I know it might seem a bit demeaning, or even insulting, to proud US rail enthusiasts to start using what they might see as British cast-offs as a first step to High Speed rail, but i note that the Obama Administration defines high speed rail as a minimum of 110MPH (15MPH slower than the Intercity Trains), and the Intercity trains are there (or if the USA wishes to build similar trains themselves) as are the engineering designs- which are tried & tested, perfected, and most of all- CHEAP!. Plus, it would work as a nice interim solution between now and the time the new true high speed rail systems are built.

    Just a thought

    Techpriest

  • http://www.twitter.com/brian1625 brian1625

    Trent essentially answered the question Roger asked; could NIN be as popular without media power? I think he would say “no” because he understands conditions of the current market relative to his. To paraphrase he said something along the lines that he could tour forever and never get the exposure that MTV gave NIN. And vessels like that don’t quite exist in the same way anymore. Though the old model for popularizing works today, but mainly the pop genre. An obvious example, American Idol.

    Here’s the link directs to that point.
    http://revision3.com/diggdialogg/trentreznor/#seek=954

    My take is that someone can get the celebrity status of Michael Jackson in today’s world, it’s just no one has figured out how to do it. Most pop “artist” today piggyback on what’s been done before. The essential thing that made Michael and Elvis King was their ability to innovate and have the talent to back it up.

    If you want an example of how Pop Jackson status has almost been met, look no further than Barack Obama. It can be done, even in this media climate.

  • Matthew

    I just wanted to mention that if you don’t have parties as Tom mentions I think what will happen will be the government will be heavily influenced by special interest groups. That is to get consensus as there is not a party to form government the main group will need to band with special interest groups to get a majority.

    The issues can be seen in nations that have representational elections to their parliaments. Israel is a case in point where to form government the main party needs to ally with extreme groups and so the peace process is held hostage to extreme groups.

  • Vance

    Crossing the East Meets West and Sword and Laser streams just a bit, I wanted to point out to Tom that the Game of Thrones (this month’s book selection for that book club which all EMW listeners should join!) is based loosely on the Wars of the Roses in England during the 1400′s. Lannister = Lancaster and Stark = York. As someone with a degree in history, I would tend to get annoyed at anything “loosely” based on history, but this is SO loose (it is just the general concepts, the look and feel, etc), that it doesn’t bother me.

    A GREAT book which you (and even more so, Veronica) will like a lot.

  • sdf

    It’s easy to be glib about celebrity. If I saw Roger Chang or Patrick Norton walking down the street, I might even pause and I acknowledge that. I’m no screeaming tween fangirl, but meeting someone like Paul McCartney would definitely make me somewhat anxious. All those years and decades of entertainment, and yes, emotional connection to their work. Celebrity operates at a non-intellectual level, folks.

  • http://www.coolb.com/ CoolB

    I agree about the micro-celebrity issue. When I went to California for San Diego Comic Con a few years back there were a couple “mainstream” celebrities I was excited to see, but honestly I was just as excited, if not more so, to meet people I knew from podcasts and twitter. One of which was Roger.

    However I wasn’t as nervous meeting them as I might be meeting a “regular” celebrity. Partly I think due to the more personal and back and forth nature of podcasts and twitter. Instead of just a one way street it can be more like a conversation and so for me at least I feel like I know them a bit more than I would someone from movies or tv and it’s kind of like I know them already.

    I also find it interesting and cool that in Tom’s example of meeting BOL listeners he felt the same way many of the people meeting him might have felt as well.

  • Vance

    There is something about the nature of a daily connection to a “personality” which makes them seem more like an acquaintance than a “star”. That goes for someone like Tom (who I have in my headphones for hours each week, between BOL, Real Deal, EMW, Sword and Laser) or someone as big as David Letterman or, in the old days, Johnny Carson. You are “around” them enough to feel as if you know them, even if they don’t know you from Adam. So, if I met someone I got to “know” that way, I would be much more comfortable with them I think.

    I believe if I met Tom, I would feel as if we had already met.

  • Techpriest

    I think Tom should discuss this post (of his) about a hypothetical use of the declaration of independence today, in the next episode of EMW, would be interesting and spark off some debate.

    http://www.subbrilliant.com/blog/?p=232

    Tom is correct about the effect of “tyrranny creep”, that can occur to an unchecked system over the years, decades, and centurites. Also glad to see someone take a look at the somewhat less nice side of the FDR regime (i’m not against FDR in anyway, quite the opposite, his policy of investment to get out of recession does appear to be a sound one, even if in some cases, implementation went wrong), which is not often discussed in the modern day.

  • Justin

    What has really surprised me regarding all the media blitz, hashing and rehashing, over Michael Jackson’s death is that when they talk about MJ’s traumatic childhood and his father’s abuse, very little is mentioned about him being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness (JW).
    For many people that lack of the JW angle is not really a big deal, and I won’t say it is that much for myself now. But I do know that his JW background may have had a lot to do with some of the “self-loathing” Deepok Chandra (sp?) talked about on CNN.

    As I was growing up, my parents were JWs and they tried unsuccessfully to make me into one too This was during the 70s and 80s, when MJ was also a Witness. But for any kid growing up as a JW, he was probably the thing you could point to in all things JW and not feel a twinge of guilt when non-JW kids teased you. He was cool, he moonwalked, and just about everyone at school had his LP or CD. Most JW parents considered him safe and I didn’t know a single JW kid who didn’t listen to his music. Granted there have been other famous musicians who were/are JWs, (Bennie Goldson, one of the members from the Jazz Crusaders, Larry Graham and, even now, Prince (horrors!) are prime examples.) But for JWs in the 1980s, they looked upon MJ with something akin to pride.

    But this isn’t to say the JW’s “Governing Body” didn’t flagellate MJ when he “strayed” from the church doctrine. In fact, when he released his video for “Thriller”, he was disfellowshipped (ex-communicated) for promoting “the occult”. Suddenly, most JW parents did not let their kids listen to his music anymore and did not do so until he was let back into the fold after he apologized for the video and disowned it within the pages of the Awake magazine’s “Young People Ask” column. I remember hearing a lot of sermons at the Kingdom Hall on how bad Michael Jackson was for doing the video when should have known better and also sermons directed at JW youth to remind the of the pitfalls of idolatry. When MJ officially disassociated himself from the church around the time of the “Bad” album, the Governing Body took subtle digs at him in their publications and the Kingdom Hall (“Michael the Archangel — Who is he?”) and many JW family threw out his music for one last time.

    I guess this isn’t much of a talking point for the EMW listening audience, but I really do think Mj’s JW background has some bearing on his later eccentric behavior. Going back to Michael Jackson getting disfellowshipped for the Thriller video was a big thing. for any JWs who gets disfellowshipped, it’s a real shell-shocker — many families take the hard line stance that official church orthodoxy church expects them to take: cut off all ties and means of communication until that “wayward” JW falls back into line. For most younger JWs it’s really tough if the church is all they have known. They don’t have a lot of the social skills that non-JWs have because they are often not allowed to associate with others outside of the congregation.

    I really believe the JWs did have a lasting impression on MJ that maybe he wasn’t aware of. If you’ve ever watched his “Earth Song” video from the early-mid-90s and compared it to the Watchtower and Awake! magazines the JWs put out during the 1980s that focused on Armeggedon and the “New Kingdom” tenets, you’ll find a lot of similar imagery. I was shocked the first time I saw the video.

    Ok, that’s just my two cents regarding celebrities.

    Oh, sidebar: I’m sure the Iranian mullahs are thanking their stars for MJ’s death only if it was to push the election news off the first page. :(

  • richardaroberts776

    I would normally add a “witty” comment here, but given how frequently we include a typo or misspelling on NewsLite I think it is best not to start mocking misspellers.
    Vera Chan of Yahoo! said: “In the Search box, amtrak promotion code misspellers have savaged the first and last name of our own U.S. president 'barack oboma,' 'barak obama'”.