Reality Check

Some of you might know that I am one of six co-writers of a rock opera that is currently in the final phases of production. The album (it is not a stage production) is slated for release sometime later this year, and will be released only in Europe and Australia, where the artist has a following.

Today comes this post from Andrew Sullivan that illustrates just how much in sales an artist needs to generate in order to earn the minimum wage of $1,160 per month ($6.70/hour). It shows that, if the entire source of revenue from the album were individual song downloads on iTunes, the artist would need to have 2,044 downloads each month. To make $100,000 a year ($8,333.33/month), that number goes up to 14,683 downloads.

Now, there are six of us working on this project, and if we agreed to split the revenue in six equal ways, that number goes up to 88,103 downloads per month to make that same $100,000 a year per person.

Now, some of the sales will probably also come from sales of physical CDs and album downloads, (not to mention performance and mechanical royalties through various rights societies like ASCAP and BMI, which are not included on the chart), but the income stream for a new artist is just not there (let's not forget that production and marketing costs for the CD must be recaptured by the record label before the artist sees a dime).

In the digital age, piracy is a big issue, so there's a huge portion of playing for free that artists have to contend with as well. So the question becomes, how do we keep seeing all these millionaire rock stars? The answer: touring and merchandising. A top-selling artist like Radiohead released their last album online months ahead of the physical CD release, and basically told customers that they could pay whatever they wanted (including nothing) to download the album. They did this without a record label to maximize the revenue stream. Finally, they hit the road and sold all manner of merch. With ticket prices hitting $100+ in some markets and big cuts of the t-shirt and other merch concessions, there are tens of millions to be made. The veteran trio Rush was one of the top draws last year (well deserved too if you ask my son Max).

So how does a new artist make it these days? Honestly, I don't think he does unless his music is being played on TV shows and in movies. After he becomes a name, then he can tour and sell merch.

I'll be happy to see any money for this work I've done, but it sure does make doing the work a lot less attractive.

Feeling the Chill Yet?

Whereat I turned me round, and saw before me
And underfoot a lake, that from the frost
The semblance had of glass, and not of water.
...
Each one his countenance held downward bent;
From mouth the cold, from eyes the doleful heart
Among them witness of itself procures.
...
Then I beheld a thousand faces, made
Purple with cold; whence o'er me comes a shudder,
And evermore will come, at frozen ponds.

-- From Dante's Inferno, Canto XXXII, describing the Ninth Circle of Hell

Traitors, to their Kindred and to their Country, have a special place in Hell, according to Dante. When I read this post from Andrew Sullivan this morning, detailing a statement made by the Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell which was a first-hand account of what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush knew regarding Gitmo detainees, I immediately flashed upon Dante had written to describe how cold and desolate things were for the worst sinners. And yet, the inhabitants of the darkest, coldest place in imagination were unrepentant and defended their actions even while encased in ice up to their necks, gnawing the heads of those next to them.

The Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, had this to say while under oath:

I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. From these discussions, I learned that it was his view that it was not just Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making. My own view is that it was easy for Vice President Cheney to run circles around President Bush bureaucratically because Cheney had the network within the government to do so. Moreover, by exploiting what Secretary Powell called the President’s “cowboy instincts,” Vice President Cheney could more often than not gain the President’s acquiescence.

And with the refusal to release photos of detainees, and to reserve the power to direct the CIA to assassinate American citizens in the name of national security, the current president is doing his best to avoid responsibility. These horrible incidents in American history need to be brought to light. My hope is that, after Obama is reelected and doesn't have to worry so much about preserving Democratic power in Washington, he'll direct more of this stuff to come out.

They Make No Sense

Pivoting off my previous post, witness Sarah Palin's recent characterization of Obama's announcement regarding the curtailment of nuclear weapons as "kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'" Jeez, she's SUCH an idiot! We're supposed to take that seriously? Forget that Reagan himself envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons.

This is something that Rudy Giuliani has conveniently forgotten when he says, "A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care. This new policy, like Obama's government-run health program, is a big step in that direction. President Obama thinks we can all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols."

First of all, Roosevelt authorized the development of nuclear technology for weapons, Truman authorized the use of nukes against Japan, and Kennedy considered using them to defend against the Soviets in Cuba. Does that sound like the left dreaming of nuclear disarmament? Secondly, what makes Rudy an expert on foreign policy? The only thing he ever did was be the Mayor of New York, which hardly qualifies him to spout off on anything except where to get the best pizza and ticket prices for Broadway shows.

So long as the Republicans fail to make any sense -- and with their leaders like Palin, Giuliani, Boehner, and McCain sounding like complete buffoons, and with their media accomplices like Drudge, Beck and Limbaugh stoking the fires of ignorance and fear among their rabid faithful -- there's no way that they'll ever accomplish anything good for this country.

Something interesting that Andrew Sullivan wrote about conservatism this morning:

Conservatism is about applying a skepticism toward government with a desire to make government work. It's skeptical but not nihilist; it's concrete and practical and, above all, attuned to the tragic idea that the world changes, that all reforms eventually end in failure and the task of politics is not to create a utopia or even some concept of justice, but to craft new solutions to new problems in a new environment.

I see where Andrew is going here, but what he basically described was today's progressivism, not conservatism. There isn't a progressive out there (and I'm not talking about old-school liberalism here) who believes that government is the end-all-be-all. We would agree that government is a problem when it comes to neeting society's needs. Reforms generally go too far and eventually fail, and then they have to be fixed. But Reagan changed conservatism forever when he uttered those fatefully derisive nine words in 1980: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." At that point, conservatives were supposed to hate the government and do everything in their power to subvert the role of government in people's everyday lives. Reagan started the nihilism. That Andrew forgets this point troubles me because he's been such a champion of Reagan over the years.

Bruce Bartlett and the VAT

Bruce has compiled his history of writings on the VAT, starting with his opposition to it in the mid 1980s. Here's an excerpt from a Heritage Foundation piece he wrote in 1985:

Without some overall constraint on the government's ability to tax and spend, it would seem inferior even to today's hodge-podge of taxes. And there is absolutely no just ification for a VAT as a new revenue-raiser. ... An economically neutral tax system, one that removes impediments to work, savings, and investment, while not distorting investment decisions, is clearly desirable. The VAT potentially could play an important role in the design of such a tax system.

Its virtues are many. Unfortunately, those very virtues make it politically unacceptable. As a hidden tax whose burden is incorporated into the prices of goods and services, it is too tempting a source of revenue for a government unrestrained by constitutional limits on taxing and spending. Therefore, a VAT should not be part of the U.S. tax system in any form -- regardless of its apparent short-term benefits, or its attractiveness to academics.

But, Bartlett writes:

I started to change my mind in 2003 when a Republican Congress and George W. Bush rammed the Medicare drug benefit into law. At this point, I realized that it was no longer possible to restrain the growth of entitlement programs before it was too late. This led me to conclude that a massive tax increase was inevitable. ... In August of 2004, I concluded that the magnitude of the tax increase that ultimately would be necessary to stabilize our national finances was too great to be achieved through higher income taxes. Tax rates would have to rise to levels that would have seriously negative effects on the economy. Therefore, we had to seriously consider the VAT because it has a long record of being able to raise substantial revenues at relatively low deadweight cost (the lost output over and above the tax take). In other words, we now needed a "money machine."

The comments that follow his piece counter his assertion. In response, one in particular stands out. The commenter identifies himself as Bruce Bartlett, but the tone of the comment suggests that the poster is hiding behind the economist's name:

The problem for conservatives is that they don't actually want to do anything to cut spending because that's politically unpopular. So they have talked themselves into believing that if they just keep taxes down and refuse to support new ones that spending will magically fall on its own. Until they leave this dream world and are willing to not only support really big spending cuts but work hard to get them enacted, I don't intend to pay much attention to them when they tell me how terrible the VAT is. Given the actions of Republicans over the last 10 years, they have zero--ZERO, ZERO, ZERO--credibility on the budget. Their record in power was to cut taxes willy nilly, enact every Republican sponsored pork barrel project no matter how worthless, create a massive new entitlement program to buy the votes of the elderly, start new wars without paying for a penny of the cost and then pull off a Big Lie worthy of Goebbels by claiming that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Anyone who believes this is either stupid bordering on retardation, mind-numbingly ignorant of the facts, or a partisan whore who doesn't care anything about the truth as long as his side is winning.

My emphasis. Of course, the commenter is spot on. Republicans today don't have positions except that position which opposes the president and the Democratic Party.

Still Think Race Is Not the Issue?

A recent University of Washington poll about race in America reveals the following beliefs among Tea Party supporters:

Approximately 45% whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that blacks are trustworthy.

Less than half of the Tea Party has a positive view of black people. I would not be surprised to learn that the results would have been far worse for blacks had the survey responders answered the questions honestly.

The results are far worse for gays and lesbians: only 36% thinks gays should be allowed to adopt children, and only 17% support same-sex marriage.

Political Cartoon of the Week

From Lalo Alcaraz.

Accurate Marketing

Looking to pick up a copy of Hannity's book Conservative Victory? Well if you go to one particular pharmacy, you'll find it right where it belongs.

Funniest complaint letter ever.

Hat Tip to Sullivan for this hilarious complaint letter written to Virgin CEO Richard Branson by passenger who'd flown from Mumbai to Heathrow.

Funniest bit about the food:

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking it’s more of that Baaji (ed.: Indian food) custard. I admit I thought the same too, but no. It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.

Once it was regurgitated it was clearly then blended and mixed with a bit of mustard. Everybody likes a bit of mustard Richard.

Screw the Details! Screw the Foreigners!

A recent poll by The Economist/YouGov revealed some pretty interesting results, as posted by Stan Collender. Over 62 percent of those polled thought we should cut spending rather than raise taxes to balance the budget. However, when asked which programs they'd most likely want cut, a vast majority -- 71 percent -- said that foreign aid should be cut. Additionally, 93 percent opposed cuts to Medicare or Social Security, the two biggest items in our budget.

As I've noted earlier, the U.S. spent just $40 billion on foreign aid last year. A mote of dust in the overall scheme of the U.S. budget. But nearly three-quarters of the people in the survey felt that was the most cut-worthy item in the budget. Cut it to zero, however, and it won't make a dent, so what's their point? It's this: fuck foreign aid and fuck foreigners. We're tired of our good tax money going over there to support communists, socialists, black people, and Muslim terrorists!

In answer to Stan's question: What would you do if you were a member of Congress facing this situation? I'd be holding town hall meetings every month in my district to anyone who would want to hear how the budget is structured, and then I'd go to my local TV news station and newpaper and answer questions about the budget. And I wouldn't stop talking about the budget until people understood that a cut in foreign aid doesn't mean squat. I'd also be very clear that if budget cuts are what they want, look at the biggest items and start there. Then I'd make them understand that budget cuts in any area mean cuts in jobs, which mean cuts in jobs for those in ancillary areas that serve the government, which might mean lost jobs in their town, county, or state. People think a tax increase is an immediate job loser? Both are an immediate loss of money to a business or consumer, which has far-reaching effects across the economy. If people want a balanced budget, demand less from government, or pay for what they ask for, or don't gripe when the government has to go into debt to pay for it.

People think being in Congress is such an easy job? I certainly wouldn't want it!

Palin/Bachmann 2012? You betcha!

Chris Bowers predicts Palin will be the nominee, and with a rally in Minnesota headed by the two GOP bat-shit crazy ladies that attracted 10,000 people, it doesn't take much to agree with that prediction.

Democrats, without getting too cocky about it, should welcome this development. Palin sure can fire up the base, but the more Republican thinkers and independent thinkers know about Palin, the less they like her. Sure, she can spit out platitudes about lowering taxes and decreasing regulation, but she'll have no idea how to sell it to a populace that for the most part wants Wall Street to pay for what they did to the American economy. Obama's largest contributors in 2008 were from Wall Street, and there's no reason to think that, if Palin is the nominee, they would abandon that ship in favor of true incompetence.

If she is the nominee, however, I'd like to see her try to avoid an open press conference the way she did during the 2008 campaign.