4/18/2006

Let them eat really tall pies

Here's something funny: The Gray Lady Wears Prada, in which Michelle Cottle ponders the New York Times' decision to create a new Thursday luxury porn section:

In fact, it's precisely this simultaneous mocking of, and wallowing in, our luxe-life obsession that makes "Critical Shopper" a creation of Frankensteinian genius. Plenty of Times readers may be dying to hear every last detail about the parking lot at Fred Segal's Melrose Avenue store, but some may feel a twinge of shame about their aggressive acquisitiveness. After all, the Times is bringing luxury porn to a much broader audience than, say, Millionaire or Rich Guy magazine. Those publications are preaching to the choir of conspicuous consumption--to readers who not only have scads of money but have few qualms, if any, about spending it ostentatiously. "Thursday Styles," by contrast, is seeking new converts, reassuring its more skeptical readers that there's really nothing wrong with showing off their good fortune. This is delicate work considering that even many ultra-affluent Times readers belong to the ambivalently wealthy ranks of the "Bourgeois Bohemians" profiled so piquantly in now-Timesman David Brooks's 2000 classic, Bobos in Paradise. A new breed of elites deeply conflicted about their material success, Bobos are morally appalled by any gaudy display that could make them look like "the vulgar Yuppies they despise."



In related news a vulgar Yuppie named Bloomberg has decided not to expand foodstamp coverage for able-bodied childless adults:

"It looked like we were departing from the Giuliani era's stinginess and cruelty when it came to dealing with poor people," said Douglas Lasdon, executive director of the Urban Justice Center, a nonprofit law firm that sued the city, under both mayors, over food stamp rules and procedures. "This has not been an administration that has bowed to the political winds. It is a bit petty and odd."

Councilman Bill de Blasio, a Brooklyn Democrat who is chairman of the General Welfare Committee, said he would hold hearings and try to change the mayor's mind. "It's a huge mistake," he said. "We have a growing hunger and poverty problem and we need this waiver. This has caught everyone off guard."



On the bright side, maybe the new Thursday Styles section will give starving New Yorkers some leads on posh dumpsters filled with half-eaten gold-dusted pork shank and suchlike. Hell, now that hunger, homelessness, and luxury porn are all on the rise, let us praise the smoothly functioning Bush economy for its boat-lifting tide, its lofty pies, and just that overall "can't-sleep-clown-will-eat-me" feeling.

5 Comments:

At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy i'm surprised, I knew it would happen, I knew it was in your thoughts and there it was at the bottom of your post. "IT'S ALL BUSHES FAULT". I think the words "Able bodied childless adults" Translation= Lazy ass healthy adults who have no interest in doing a damn thing to better themselves or the community they live in. And what really is amazing is these people don't even have to fight for there own cause, they have plenty of people like you to do it for them.

Scott k

 
At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, that 4.7% unemployment is a mofo! Its almost like you have to be willing to show up and work to get a job. What's a liberal arts major to do?

I'm crying myself to sleep over here. Thanks for dropping in the OMFG!! Bu$h = teh BAD!!! Nice touch.

-Censored.

 
At 5:32 PM, Blogger Mark D. said...

Hey folks, it's been pretty standard procedure to name an economy with the President who oversees it. There was Reaganomics. There was Clintonomics. There was the Carter Malaise. Sometimes a President will preempt such things by giving his economy a name straight off, e.g. "New Deal", "Great Society". This is what I was doing in this post, not "blaming Bush" but giving the economy a pretty valid name: "the Bush economy", where rich get richer, poor starve, atmospheres get poisoned, etc. Of cours it is an economy that functions largely the way he would hope, whether or not he "caused" it. He is backed by a rather powerful Republican establishment and business lobby, after all.

Scott K., clearly you have never had to experience foodstamps firsthand. Most people -- even lazy jobless people -- try to avoid the humiliation of having to apply for them. This is why they don't "fight for there [sic] own cause", they'd rather be *off* foodstamps.

 
At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was no Clintonomics.

You're thinking of the Contract with America.

(Nice try)

-Censored

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Mark D. said...

Don't get me wrong, whatever Clintonomics was (low interest rates? welfare reform? NAFTA? grinning benignly at the rash of dot-com IPOs?), I didn't like it. The only real economic brain in his cabinet was Robert Reich, and his policy recommendations went nowhere.

The Contract with America probably had some effects too, but not much. The Restoration of the American Dream Act (or whatever that was called) is the only one I remember directly affecting the economy in any way. The fact that nobody seems to remember it suggests to me it wasn't a big deal.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home