No posts from MM today. Is she off to Vietnam & Cambodia already? Is she not letting us know 'cause she's afraid "obsessional critic" brad will hitch his way to D. C. & go through her underwear drawer while she's out of town? Before I start obsessing on her undies (& I'm guessing big white granny panties, 'cause we all know one of the many crosses Ms. McA. must bear is difficulty in finding clothes to fit her statuesque proportions) let's take a look at her item on "Ezra" citing Atrios.
It's titled: "It's not theft, it's capitalism!" (Next week: "It's not theft, it's property!")
Considering that intellectual "property," especially in the case of original, creative (OK, it's film & tee vee, just give us a break here) writing, comes, Minerva-like, directly from the brain of the creator, and is not in any way, shape or form dependent on anything an employer may supply (labs, equipment, research assistants, what have you) this is the perfect illustration of the non-productive, non-wealth creating nature of the executive/investor/stockholder class that reaps the profits of others' labor & receives the Bush/Laffer tax breaks for the obsessively greedy.
Of course McMegan doesn't address the actual issue Atrios (why doesn't she call him by his first name?) raises (sympathy/understanding for workers, even if a fraction of them are veddy well off) but, much as I occasionally do here, picks on his use of one word, "expropriate." Again, it's not theft if an executive does it, but it is if a gov't. does it.
In Megan's fantasy world, the gov't., w/ its black helicopters & IRS agents ("Shoot for the head") even a gov't. that is, in name & style at least, a representative democratic republic, allegedly responsive to the people by whose consent it governs (Are those enough qualifications?) is a coercive force when it taxes you & provides services & protection from terrorists (cough, cough).
And the other side of her fantasy world is that everyone (even though unions only represent what, 12% of working people?) can negotiate some sort of contract w/ their employer, rather than the vast majority of us having to take what we're offered, or spend more time, money & effort in a probably vain hope of finding something better, in a world where the HR dep'ts. somehow manage to set the "prevailing wage."
No one is stealing from anyone else, except in the sense that the shopowner I purchased eyeglasses from yesterday expropriated" several hundred dollars from me, when I would much rather have had the eyeglasses for free.Well, don't let us stop you from learning how to grind your own lenses, four-eyes! (NB: I've been sporting cheaters since the age of six. A loooong time.) And I suppose the writers can just establish their own distribution channels & production facilities. So it's all completely fair & equitable, if you already have the money & things are structured in your favor, that is. But soon enough, w/ digital you name it, writers will be able to produce & distribute their own material, & the studios & suits will be aced out. Last gasp of the dinosaurs here, but they're not going w/o a fight.
And we get to the closing lines of Ms. McA.'s item. I'm puzzled here, whether she's actually this foolish, or if she's showing a previously unseen subtlety.
I'm also upping my Netflix subscription. Luckily, I haven't even started Lost or Babylon 5 . . .The major bones of contention, for those who do have a dog in this fight, are residuals for Internet plays of programs & DVDs. Is she subtly admitting that DVD sales are a serious issue, & that the writers should be better compensated for DVDs? Or is she undercutting her argument w/ a bit of "Ha ha, you can go on strike but I'll still be watching tee vee programs & you won't be getting adequate compensation for it?" Mystery, thy name is woman. (No sexism intended, just a bit o' cornball humor, gals & feminists of all genders.)