tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3729693531322134399..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Good News (Reporting), Bad News (Analysis)Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66592386960388549122010-01-25T23:52:13.387-06:002010-01-25T23:52:13.387-06:00OK, I don't know Andrew W.K., but the story do...OK, I don't know Andrew W.K., but the story does remind me of a great Young Fresh Fellows song, Beer Money.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10016052915234019892010-01-25T23:26:48.326-06:002010-01-25T23:26:48.326-06:00Yeah, we have so many more entertainment needs tod...Yeah, we have so many more entertainment needs today that careers can't help but be longer. I don't know if you know Andrew W.K., but he had a moment of fame in the early part of last decade, released a hard-rock album that got some critical attention and a most memorable video that got a lot of play on MTV. His music career more or less ended five years ago, but now he's the host of a teen-aimed show my sons watch on the Discovery Channel. If he'd come along 20 years earlier, he'd be graduating from law school right about now.<br /><br />Or look at Steve Allen: He spent the last 30 years of his life knocking around, not doing anything in particular except writing a bunch of books no one ever read, despite the fact that he was considered a genius of early TV. Nowadays he'd have a long-running talk show on MSNBC.Tom Nawrockihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03766845038505392731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11799077840782856422010-01-25T17:59:01.869-06:002010-01-25T17:59:01.869-06:00Tom,
Great comment on Bai.
Putting politics asid...Tom,<br /><br />Great comment on Bai.<br /><br />Putting politics aside, would you be willing to speculate about whether entertainment careers are longer or shorter today than, say, during the Carson era? It seems to me that TV shows last longer now, but that's just a guess, and there's certainly a denominator problem (there are way more TV shows now than there were in the three-network era). I don't know; I was listening to the (relatively) new Rancid album today, and they've been together about twice as long as the Beatles...any ideas about this?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66055021928997028602010-01-25T13:43:37.412-06:002010-01-25T13:43:37.412-06:00Bai often strikes me as someone who is very young,...Bai often strikes me as someone who is very young, although he's 41. He's one of those people who assumes that the way the world was when he was young was the way it always was. <br /><br />The reason his Carson analogy doesn't hold is that he fails to realize that it's Carson himself who is the outlier. Thirty years in the same time slot was never common on TV; in fact, it's unheard of, except for Carson and some Sunday morning talk shows. Dave and Jay and Conan all have had 15-20 year runs in their slots, which is phenomenal by any standpoint. It's like complaining that presidents burn out after two terms - look at how long FDR lasted! Where's our FDR of today?Tom Nawrockinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-70253934765548053002010-01-25T13:12:10.664-06:002010-01-25T13:12:10.664-06:00Bai is somewhat right, but for all the wrong reaso...Bai is somewhat right, but for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />It's not that we're all independents, so we flit back and forth between the parties. It's that the independents actually matter in modern American politics. <br />From 1828-1848, they didn't matter because the Dems had the numbers (ignore the Harrison/Tyler fluke). <br />From 1848-1860, they did matter, because the Dems weren't solid, and the party system was in true flux.<br />From 1860-1884, they didn't matter because Repubs were solidly in control.<br />From 1884-1900 (some might say 1896, I disagree), they did matter.<br />From 1900-1952, they didn't matter because one party was fully dominant (albeit, that party swtiched in 1930, but it was a wholesale realignment of the old-school variety).<br />And, from 1952-present, and increasingly so since the 1970s, they have mattered, as the two parties have been close enough to parity that the indies hold the balance. <br /><br />We're not all independents; most of us are partisans. But, at times in American history (and this is one of them), there haven't been enough partisans of one stripe to hold power consistently. Thus, the independents matter, but that's a far cry from saying they are all of us OR that they're in control. Because, at the end of the day, all they provide is voters, not politicians. Those are provided by the mechanics (machinations, at times) of the parties, not exclusively, but predominately.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com