Are You Not Entertained?

The President apparently worked the phones and told the sports executives that they need to plan on getting football going in September.

It makes sense only if you look at the issue from his perspective.  His base is also a sports-addicted population.  In the red states, NFL practically beats church-going during the season!

So, if there is no sports on the horizon, especially if there will be no NFL, then it will begin to dawn on even the most loyal tRump cultist that this COVID-19 is not any hoax, and that their dear leader has been lying to them.  As a result, in the elections in November, there won't be anything to stop the Democrats from running up the score against a weak and demoralized candidate and party.

I hope against hope that Americans will use this global catastrophe straighten out our individual and collective priorities.

I have, forever, blogged here about the awfully screwed up priorities of this American society (and others too) in which we paid gazillions to ball players, while systematically gutting long-term capacity building--from education to infrastructure to health care to ...

Here's a re-post of one of those from the past--this is from April 2017
*************************************************

Recall the sound bite "we need more welders and less philosophers" from back when it was the season of the Republican primaries? I wish we had engaged in a whole lot of discussion regarding that statement from Senator Marco Rubio. Instead, we collectively shrugged and moved on.

We could, and should, have used that opportunity to engage in discussions on what education ought to accomplish. If we had, then we would have agreed that we need both welders and philosophers, and that higher education is failing to deliver them.

Public higher educational institutions have suffered from extensive mission creep over the years. It is best (worst?) seen in how sports-oriented the taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities have become. Welders and philosophers are apparently way less important than athletics in the mission of higher education!

Countries where people are far more sports-crazy than we are do not waste their taxpayer monies like we do here in the US. Europeans, for instance, are maniacal about soccer, but they know well that sports is sports, and education is education. Or, consider my old country, India, where cricket is practically a religion. Colleges do not waste enormous resources on cricket and its gods.

If only we had continued to engage with the welders/philosophers soundbite, then we would have ended up talking about the wasteful practices in higher education, with athletics as perhaps the foremost waste of taxpayer money. But, of course, public institutions do not want us to talk about this, and the sports-addicted taxpayers are even less interested it seems.

A year ago, journalists in Michigan attempted to understand how much taxpayer money is spent on athletics by public institutions in their state. It was not an easy project. They “obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the financial disclosure statements provided to the NCAA from Michigan's 13 public universities that offer NCAA-level athletics.” Yes, through the Freedom of Information Act!

What they found did not surprise any of us who have been critical of this unholy mix of sports and academics in public higher education. Not only did the public institutions spend gazillions on athletics, “students are often "kept in the dark" when it comes to how universities fund college athletics and the degree to which colleges are subsidizing sports.”

Yet, whenever they cry funding shortage, universities are ready to cut philosophy before they even think of reducing the sports subsidies. I wish that legislatures, including here in Oregon with our huge budget deficit, would question the wisdom of public colleges as entertainment arenas.

The university where I have been teaching for fifteen years is no exception. A decade ago, a 25-million dollar facility was built primarily to meet the NCAA Division II requirements. Such an outrageous expense would not have been incurred if sports were played at the lower tier National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA,) in which the university participated until the year 2000.

America is exceptional indeed—when it comes to diverting taxpayer money on entertainment, when that could be spent instead on welders and philosophers.

This taxpayer-supported entertainment is what the Declaration of Independence meant by "the pursuit of happiness"?

Cooking things up

The kitchen has always been a magical place for me.  Maybe because I started hanging around the kitchen right from when I can remember.  Why wouldn't I with all the awesome aromas and the chance to taste dishes and sweets and snacks right off the flame?  Oh that taste of butter that was churned right in front of my very eyes!

The excitement of the magic hasn't worn away even one bit.  I try, in my own ways, to create that magic and share it.  But, I know well that I am a part of a tiny minority.  We are practically an endangered species.  Barely ten percent of Americans love cooking.  Barely ten! "Only 10% of consumers now love to cook, while 45% hate it and 45% are lukewarm about it."  We can expect a lot more of the percentage to shift from the lukewarm category to hate.

It might seem bizarre that fewer amongst us like to cook even as the number of cooking shows has significantly grown, along with a tremendous growth in the number of people watching those shows.  "our fondness for Food TV has inspired us to watch more Food TV, and to want to eat more, but hasn’t increased our desire to cook."  Most people are mere spectators watching those shows, similar to how they are spectators when it comes to many other forms of entertainment--from wrestling to football to reality shows!

The trend is one in which people opt to buy prepared meals--the prepared ones in the grocery stores or made-to-order in restaurants.  People don't even brew their morning coffee at home, it seems like.  Why else would there be long lines at coffee kiosks?  At this rate, homes and apartments of the future might not even have to "waste" space for kitchens!

I wonder what people do with the time that they have from not spending it on shopping for groceries, preparing meals, and cleaning up the kitchens.  Is Facebooking and Instagramming that much a valuable use of time?  The government's "time use survey" from 2016 gives us an idea:

Notice how small that bar is across "household activities"?  Let's look at the breakdown of that category:

Food preparation and cleanup registers at barely half-an-hour a day, on an average.  At that low average number of hours, the best one could do is warm up frozen burritos in the microwave!

Oh well, I suppose this is yet another aspect of life in which I am out of step with the majority.  Time for me to have some home-made food ;)

That's Entertainment!

Back when I was a kid, my parents dragged us to religious discourses where pundits interpreted the holy texts for us nincompoop believers.  Pulavar Keeran and Kirubanandha Variyar were the kind of people who helped me understand the role of religion and about India's rich literary history as well.  The good student that I was, I loved their interpretations of the fine points.  As one who has always enjoyed humor, I particularly relished the jokes the speakers employed.

My late great-uncle, who could easily lecture about many of the texts, often sarcastically remarked that most people who went to those lectures went there only for entertainment--for the stories and the jokes.  If the attendees were asked about what those lecturers said, they would merely respond with "they spoke well," the great-uncle joked with intensity.

Over the decades, it seems like every aspect of life has become more and more about entertainment.  Even a memorial service to remember the departed has to be entertaining.  Churches use PowerPoint slides with cartoon images and emojis.  With a reality show entertainer as the presidential candidate, we have rendered politics the ultimate theatre of tragicomedy.

When such is the external environment, is it any surprise that students expect teachers to be entertainers in the classroom?  Of course, I take my awful sense of humor to my classes, and pun away, triggering groans, even while making sure that I help students understand the world.

But, the final day of the class last term, I decided that I needed to speak the truth.  After the initial few minutes of making sure everything about the final exam was discussed, I calmly and steadily launched into the message.

"After the first day of introductions, many of you commented that you felt like I was doing a stand-up comedy routine" I said.  Students, not knowing what was coming, smiled and nodded perhaps thinking that I had prepared an entertaining spiel for them.

"My humor is a facade.  In reality, I am an insanely serious guy.  If not for the sense of humor, I would have died at least twenty years ago."

I had the students' attention.  In a steady voice, I continued.

"It is with that humor that I often joked about students who skip class meetings.  I made snide remarks about how students do not care."

There was no more joking around.

"All those funny remarks were because it really, really bothers me that students skip meetings.  It really, really bothers me students attend class but then are texting, Facebooking, Instagramming, or even sleeping."

The students were listening.

"I share with friends and neighbors what goes on in a university like this, about students and faculty.  Most of my neighbors hate paying taxes.  And they hate even more that their tax money is being wasted like this."

"More than anything else, your behavior affects the learning environment in the classroom.  I might come prepared with an activity in mind, but that goes kaput because there aren't enough students, or because students have not come prepared."

I laid out my case.  And then wrapped it up with, "based on the last few weeks, I have no confidence that the rest of the class time will be productive.  So, we are done.  Thank you all."

Slowly most students filed out through the door that was away from me.  A couple of students walked up to me. One said, "I wish you had said this like in week five."  I shrugged my shoulders.  "I know what you mean.  But, like I have always told students, I treat them as adults, and adults have responsibilities.  Thanks for your comment."

I have started working on the syllabi for the upcoming year, even though there are a few weeks of the summer break left.  I am sure that I will take with me the sense of humor that has kept me alive for the last twenty years, and which will keep me here for a few more.  But, I am acutely aware that in a world in which people are so eager to hand over their money to entertainers, even a Variyar will have to fight hard in order to get people to listen.

Nobody cares a shit!

Live your life. Do not make your life "live"

Consider this:

Some might think that people already spend too much time on the social network. According to one estimate, most Americans spend the equivalent of two full workdays each month on Facebook. In the future, might they pass even more time? Mark Zuckerberg is hoping so.

Or this:

Facebook has attracted and engaged so many users by engineering features that are highly addictive and relevant to their lives, so people keep coming back for more hits

Yes, the Economist makes sure that the word choices were no accident; the title of that report says it all: Facebook, the world’s most addictive drug

With all the time spent on Facebook and on various entertainment options, is it any wonder we can't get people, especially students, to focus on ... hey, hey, listen to what I have to say and do not open your Facebook messenger window! ;)

We are now living in a world that was imagined in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and EM Forster's The Machine Stops.  Our daily lives are dedicated to watching electronic screens for entertainment of different kinds and we seem to be less and less keen on interactions with the real world as we rush towards virtual reality.

To some extent, Bradbury was wrong when he imagined that the future would include a government department whose responsibility would be to burn books and make sure people did not accidentally read any--it turns out that there is no real need to impose anything like that because ... hey, hey, listen to what I have to say and do not open your Facebook messenger window! ;)

Facebook is expected to announce more plans for turning Messenger, one of its messaging services, into a portal through which people can fulfill tasks, like ordering taxis and communicating with businesses. Mr Zuckerberg is hoping that Facebook will be an even bigger part of the mobile ecosystem in the future. Being both useful and addictive could win Facebook even more friends

As I noted in this post from a mere days ago, Zuckerberg knows well that to keep the addicts on a high will mean increasing the hits, which is where the new "live video" also kicks in.

On Facebook.com, you can now view a live map of broadcasts taking place around the world. And you can now broadcast live to specific audiences, such as those in a Facebook group or those invited to an event, rather than to the public at large. Those watching a live video can send reaction emojis in real time, rather than just liking the video as a whole. When you watch a replay, you’ll see the reaction emojis pop up on the screen at the same point in the video when people sent them. You can also invite friends to join you in watching a live video and they’ll get a push notification linking to the feed. Live, live, live!

It is unfortunate that Facebook has made "live" as it relates to "life" into an obscene four-letter word of "live."  Guess what?  It is delivering hits to the addicts:

the approach seems to be resonating: On average, Facebook says people are commenting 10 times more on live videos than they do on regular videos.

The ruler of this drug empire is thrilled:

“We’re entering this new golden age of video,” Zuckerberg told BuzzFeed. “I wouldn’t be surprised if you fast-forward five years and most of the content that people see on Facebook and are sharing on a day-to-day basis is video.”

Hey, selling this addiction has made the young drug-lord worth more than 35 billion dollars!  Are you not entertained?

The crazy orgies in Hollywood!

The Scientific American has an interesting short opinion piece on why there will never be another Einstein.

Before I give away the author's response, or before you go read it, what response do you have to that question?  

Do you think there will be another Einstein-like genius?  

There can never be one again?  

We have plenty even now?

I liked quite a bit of what what the author had to say there.  But, I had a nagging thought as I read that piece.  I was, therefore, happy that the author took care of my concern via an addendum, where he quotes the string theory guy Brian Greene:

 “If one means another über genius who will powerfully push science forward, then the answer is surely yes. In the past half a century since Einstein’s death, there have indeed been such scientists. But if one means an über genius to whom the world will look not because of accomplishments in sports or entertainment but as a thrilling example of what the human mind can accomplish, well, that question speaks to us—to what we as a civilization will deem precious.”

Brian Greene being a sharp guy himself, well, he has carefully constructed those sentences with a bunch of clauses.  If you are like me, then re-reading Greene's response helps to figure out what Greene is saying there.  If that too fails, the author interprets it with simple words:

Note Greene's implication: If science doesn't produce another Einstein, it's nonscientists' fault.

I agree with Greene.  Unlike in Einstein's time, we people are now obsessed with "accomplishments in sports or entertainment" and those accomplishments have become measures of what humans can achieve.  We have golfing geniuses and cricket geniuses who seem to have satisfied our appetite for the next Einstein!

Chances are pretty high that kids and adults here can rattle of names of ball players or singers or actors and be stumped when it comes to naming scientists.  As a society, we do not seem to care about science and scientific accomplishments anymore.  On the other hand, we keenly follow with utmost fascination the work and personal lives of the superstars in golf, cricket, soccer, Hollywood, Bollywood, Nashville, ... the list is endless, it seems.   In India, cricket players and movie actors are even worshiped as gods!

Brian Greene is the one with the dark sweater and with his hands folded
I took this photo ... in 2004, I think

A few years ago, Brian Greene visited our campus.  Hardly a handful of students showed up to listen to him and to ask him questions.  I am sure it would have been a standing-room-only situation if the university had instead brought to campus even a third-tier entertainment personality.  "we as a civilization" have apparently decided that entertainers are immensely precious to us.

I doubt whether even an Einstein can be an Einstein in this contemporary world!

So, why the strange title for this post? Sex and Hollywood sell, baby, not science!

A world of entertained fools

Do we really put our money where our mouth is?

The writer of a letter to the Statesman Journal notes that we are "a nation of fools":

We, the American people voluntarily pay professional athletes more than we pay the president. We pay entertainers more than we pay doctors and nurses and school teachers. We are a nation of fools. We are getting exactly what we deserve.

He is terribly wrong.  We are not a nation of fools.  We are a world full of fools.  People all over the world seem to want to be entertained 24x7, and are willing to pay gazillions to entertainers of all kinds.  What the hell is wrong with us?

This global pattern is one that Forbes wisely recognized in its latest listing of the world's highest paid entertainers:

Who the hell is Channing Tatum and why is he/she earning that much?  Now, that question by itself says a lot about how much I am willing to pay to be entertained!

A quick detour on this Channing Tatum.  Turns out it is a he!

The need to be entertained is so pervasive that ... hey, hey, don't go away.  Come back and read the rest of this post! ;)

Like I was saying, the need to be entertained is so pervasive that educators have for a long time complained that education has been degraded to edutainment.  Even church pastors have found the need to make their sermons entertaining so that the few who do come continue to do so.

It is almost as if serious inquiries, whether it is secular or religious approaches to understanding the human condition, have to compete against entertainment of various kinds: from traditional ball games, to video games, to movies and television, to ... Heck, apparently people will rather be so entertained by the freaky weirdness of a couple having nineteen kids that they would willingly support the "characters" now that the multi-million dollar contract has been canceled!

Perhaps entertainment is all about escapism.  To try to run and hide from that one thing that awaits us all: death.  The fear of mortality.  Instead of dealing with it, maybe people prefer to be entertained.  If only they knew how rewarding it is to read and think about death itself that there is no time for "entertainment"!

Quote of the day: on politics

In opposition Mr Cameron vowed that, were he to become prime minister, politics and government would not be "some demented branch of the entertainment industry". So far, he has been as good as his word. This seems to be a government that speaks up when it has something to say, but when it hasn't, or when keeping quiet is more sensible, it doesn't. It is both quiet and dramatic at the same time.

Awesome, that the British prime minister actually described politics and government as "some demented branch of the entertainment industry" ... Good you, Mr. Cameron.
In that same posting, Bagehot of The Economist also notes that

Right-wing British newspapers are often every bit as shrill as the American media. Leaping on the chance to display some easy, knee-jerk patriotism, several urged David Cameron to stand up for “British Petroleum” and rebuke Barack Obama for demonising the company. Instead, the line has been that the government neither owns nor will disown BP—and quietly to point out that the firm has lots of American shareholders and employees too. Ministers saw Mr Obama’s rhetoric for what it was: the flailing of a politician in a desperate fix. By saying very little in public, they defused what threatened to become a juvenile spat.

I really, really hope that this Tory-LibDem coalition will work out ...

Economic crisis, and stratospheric earnings

I am sure that it is only a matter of months before the governor of my state--Oregon--issues a pay-freeze. It has already been implemented in a few states, including California.
Meanwhile, there are a few continuing to earn gazillions of dollars and the public simply does not worry about it. In fact, they actively contribute their hard-earned dollars to enrich these few.

Don't believe me? Well, that is because you are not thinking about entertainers, like movie stars and basketball players. Don't you think it is atrocious that these people earn multiple of millions? But, hey, that is what the market system is all about. So, I find it strange that we completely ignore some of the multi-million earners in this market system, while we get insanely mad about some other multimillionaires. And it gets worse: these are not even "free market" transactions. MLB, for instance, is a Congress sanctioned monopoly! Players don't get free-agent status until they have served their time. .... ah, the twisted logic in life!
How much are the earnings? Here is an example about Lebron James:

At the age of 18, he was selected with the first overall pick in the 2003 NBA Draft by the Cavaliers and signed a whopping $90m shoe deal with Nike before his NBA debut.
Since then his cachet has soared, with rich people's bible Forbes magazine putting his total earnings at $270m.

Want to know how much dead entertainers earn? Yes, they are no longer alive! Click here.

Conserve Montana

Well, Hannah Montana that is :-)
The awesome minds at The Onion have come up with this that is actually a lot more real that satirical.