There's been quite a few items in the news lately that I wanted to post my opinion on - nothing overly significant in the scheme of things, and nothing political, fear not.
Well, I guess anything is political from *someone's* POV, but whatever. It's not the primary focus here, that I can assure you.
All the way back on April 14th, after a hard day at her new job, I took Lisa to an early dinner at a favorite Mexican restaurant. With the weather finally hinting at the summer to come, we sat on the patio. At a table near us were two rough-and-tumble looking guys and the son of one of them, a middle school kid with a mullet.
When the waitress asked what they wanted to drink, one of the guys said "Bud Light," and a lot of people on the patio laughed, thinking he was kidding.
Bud Light, in case you don't recall, had only recently decided to sign a sponsorship deal with transgender Tiktok activist Dylan Mulvaney. This was unquestionably an odd choice for a beer brand, especially a a national brand most associated with college parties and testosterone fueled debauchery. There was an immense backlash and a public boycott, officially championed by conservative talking heads, but (judging by the results) quietly backed by a lot of people that weren't as keen to publicly announce their displeasure.
Bud Light sales and stock took a hit, with revenue dropping 10.5% from the same period in 2022, and for the first time in decades Bud Light fell to second place in sales, overtaken by Modelo.
So, back to the restaurant. I don't drink so I don't care what a beer brand choses to do with their sponsorship money. Even had I cared, what was I going to do, spend less than the zero I already do on booze? But I was not keen on this guy deciding to make a big point while I'm having dinner.
I misjudged his intentions. The man actually addressed the laughter in the room.
"I ain't no fan of whatever the hell her name is, and I think it was a stupid idea. I don't even like Bud Light. But I'm not gonna let some guys on the internet tell me how to think or what to be pi**sed about or how to spend my money, so yeah, I'm gonna eat my dinner and I'm gonna have a Bud Light."
And he did.
It was probably as close to those make believe internet tales - the ones that inevitably end with "and then everyone clapped" - as I've ever come across in real life.
On the same score: those people that jumped all over bar owners (Garth Brooks being one of them) who continued to serve Bud Light? Screw you. A business has every right to sell whatever legal product they like, just as you have every right not to spend your money there.
* * *
Michael Oher, the retired NFL lineman whose story was featured in the book/movie "The Blind Side," launched a press blitz (no pun intended) this summer claiming he was scammed by the Tuohy's, the family that took him in many years ago.
The public's reaction was quick, siding with Michael and deriding the family. The public's reaction was also (probably) wrong.
While I agree there's zero reason for the family to retain a conservancy over Oher, many of the allegations fail to pass the sniff test. He didn't realize he wasn't legally adopted until just this year? Odd. In his own 2011 book he discussed that very thing and the conservancy. Then too we have the series of texts the family has disclosed, in which Oher threatens them with a press barrage unless they pay what sounds an awful lot like an extortion demand. Nor do his claims of the Tuohy's using him to get rich make ANY sense; they were worth an alleged $220 million after the father sold his business years ago and even if they had been dirt poor who bets on a homeless teen eventually reaching the NFL? C'mon now. Get real. It's looking more and more like he's broke (by his prior standards, not yours or mine)and looking to make bank by throwing the family that took him off the streets under the bus.
I bring this up only to make this point (well, two points): One, sometimes even the best, most Christian action can bring you pain and distress; do it anyway. And two, the initial press barrage from a lawsuit is ALWAYS designed by the plaintiffs attorneys to do the most damage to the defendant in the public eye and force a settlement. Never, EVER, buy "truth" from one side, and one side alone, of an adversarial process.
* * *
While I think he's far too old for the job, probably senile (medically, not metaphorically), and not the most inherently honest man, I will say this: all in all, I think Joe Biden's done a pretty good job in office, esp with Ukraine. That's impressive, considering how awful he did with Afghanistan at the start of his term. And yeah, his defense of our southern border is non-existent, I know. But all in all . he's doing well. Now most of that must almost certainly lie at the feet of the people around him, propping him up, true: but so what? Results are what counts.
* * *
On July 14th, the actors union, SAG-AFTRA, joined the two month old writers strike in Hollywood. The fundamental issues seem to be an almost Luddite-like phobia about AI, and a more realistic objection to the current residual structure for streaming platforms.
Of course my heart lies with the writers, and they have an actual realistic worry about AI taking work away from them. Yet some of their demands seem outlandish, like the requirement that shows maintain a minimum number of writers on staff, regardless of the true needs of the show - the mind immediately jumps to The Sopranos universe, where mafia members had cushy "no show" or "no work" construction jobs guaranteed by union contract.
Now, if you poke around enough, I think you'll hear the talking points of the actor's union regurgitated around the web over and over by all sorts of people, even those who ignored recent strikes in more pedestrian occupations. Not because the arguments themselves are valid (although they may be), but because humans somehow subconsciously associate "backing SAG" with being that much closer to the limelight. At least, that's my theory.
A lot of the AI fears that SAG trotted out seemed over the top, and a rehash of the "green screen" debates of a few decades ago. Are there legitimate concerns and need for artistic controls? Sure. But say that. Don't claim this is about defending the future of extras (they're in a different union), or say you're afraid people will insert faces onto the bodies of other actors if the technology advances that far; that's already being done, in parody, on many TikTok accounts. It's not 'studio AI' they apparently fear, it's a common Google app.
Their fight is really about residuals, which is a less compelling point. It's hard to tell a plumber that you should be paid, again and again, for work you did twenty years ago. It's certainly not a "fairness" issue, as SAG wants you to think; it's a contractual issue, and if they can force the hand of the studios to guarantee and increase those residual payments then good for them. Period. If a plumber could finagle the same, they would too.
Now SAG seems to be aiming their public ire at the streaming platforms, but I'm not sure if that's just good press or a legitimate - but mistaken - target. Studios and distribution companies sell the rights of a show to a streaming platform; shouldn't the cut come at that point in the process? After all, you have some inkling about the value of what you're selling, no? The Office should be had for a far greater amount than a failed cop show; The Godfather for more than Deuce Bigaloo, Male Gigalo. Sell the rights to Netlfix for a year, for a zillion dollars, and let them stream it as much as people want,⁰0 while you divvy up the upfront sale revenue.
Frankly, if we want to be blunt, SAG needs to look in the mirror too. What other union do you know of that has some workers making enough to have private jets and mansions, while the vast majority of members don't make the $26,000/year minimum to get health insurance? That's an impossible disparity to rationalize away, no matter how many A and B list celebrities you get to pose in a picket line.
Anyway, like I said, it's a contractual issue. Whatever gains they make, they are welcome to them.
