The Donald Trump Show

To Donald Trump, popularity defines his personal success. It is everything.

That’s why, after the 2016 election, Trump vehemently denied that he lost the popular vote or that his inauguration crowd was smaller than Obama’s. When the facts don’t jibe with his fantasy views on his popularity, Trump is compelled to alter the facts.

Trump similarly measured the success of his television show, The Apprentice, entirely by ratings (popularity). That’s why Trump deemed Arnold Schwarzenegger, Trump’s Apprentice replacement, a failure: Arnold’s ratings were lower than Trump’s.

As Trump sees it, the worst insult you can hurl at someone (or some thing) is that they are unpopular. He refers to the New York Times as “failing” because (according to Trump) its circulation is down. That’s all that matters. [By the way, Trump is lying here. Overall NYT circulation, including digital, is actually up.]

Trump views his presidency in the same way as The Apprentice…as a reality TV show…a form of entertainment. Even though every word he says and every action he takes can now have the most extreme consequences for the entire country — exactly the opposite of his role on The Apprentice — Trump remains laser focused on ratings and popularity — to the detriment of everything else.

Two recent quotes from Trump reveal this in its starkest terms:

On March 8, ABC News’ John Karl asked Trump whether an upcoming announcement would focus on ongoing nuclear proliferation talks with North Korea. Trump replied:

“It’s almost beyond that. Hopefully, you will give me credit.”

There it is. Whatever Trump does, whatever he accomplishes or fails to accomplish, what matters most to Trump is how much credit he receives. I imagine Trump would claim that achieving world peace would be “beautiful” — but only if Trump gets credit for doing so. His personal popularity and public admiration remain the primary goal. Everything else is tied for last place. This is narcissism at its purest and most venal.

Similarly, on March 10 at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to an article that had asked if he is “a good speaker?” Trump told the crowd:

“You know, how easy it is to be presidential? But you’d be so bored…”

There it is…again. What matters is not who Trump insults, what norms he tramples — or even what positive accomplishments he might achieve. What matters most is that he be entertaining — not boring. Because that’s what gets the best ratings. The idea that he might be a better President if he were a bit less entertaining — that the country might benefit from a more hard-working, more informed and more deferential President — this never occurs to him. [To be fair, it probably doesn’t occur to his core supporters either.]

This explains why, back in January, Trump assessed a meeting with Congressional leaders on the critical matter of immigration policy, thusly:

“Actually it was reported as incredibly good and my performance…got great reviews.”

You can’t tell whether this quote refers to Trump’s efforts to solve one of the most vexing dilemmas facing this country — or a guest appearance at a “professional” wrestling event. And that’s the point. To Trump, they are no different. His presidency is The Donald Trump Show. That’s also the key problem facing the rest of us. This country needs more than an ignorant, untruthful and self-absorbed reality TV show host as POTUS. Unfortunately, that’s what we have.

Posted in Media, Politics | 2 Comments

Academy Awards vs. Popularity: And the winner is…

I just read a Wall Street Journal article about the Academy Awards. It pointed out the now well-established discrepancy between what films win awards vs. which ones make the most money (i.e., are the most popular). The not-so-hidden subtext was there is something wrong here — and what’s wrong is that the Academy voters are “out-of-touch.”
 
I disagree. This situation is here is typical across all forms of art and entertainment. It’s not just a movies thing — and it doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the Awards process.
 
Take a look at the New York Times’ Best Seller lists for books. How many of these books go on to win a Pulitzer Prize or a National Book Award or a Nobel Prize or any other well-regarded award? The answer is almost none.
 
Or take a look at the Emmy Awards. Last year’s top winning shows were Veep, The Handmaid’s Tale, Big Little Lies and an episode of Black Mirror. The ratings of those shows were nowhere near the most popular shows (like NCIS or America’s Got Talent) which got no Emmy awards.
 
And so it goes. Sometimes there is overlap in popularity and awards — but that is the exception more than the rule. Movies are no different than other media. And rightly so.
 
To me, it reflects a basic truth: The “best” (as judged by critical standards of knowledgeable people) is often not what is most popular. Otherwise, a velvet Elvis would be hanging next to the Mona Lisa. If you want to see awards based just on popularity — watch the People’s Choice Awards.
 
That said, the Academy Awards do not have an unmarred history of picking quality over popularity. There are many occasions where the Best Picture award went to mediocre popular movies. And numerous articles decried those “injustices” at the time (and do so even today). I view the current situation as an improvement.
 
It is also true, as the WSJ article points out, that the gap between Oscar voters and the public has widened in recent years. There was a time when a truly great picture both won the Best Picture award and was among the most popular of the year (e.g., The Godfather). This almost never happens anymore. The WSJ attributes this to a shift in viewing habits (with more and more viewers watching the latest Netflix movie rather than going to the theater) and to the importance of international markets (which reward comic-book, sci-fi and action movies above all else) for box office success. Again, I don’t view this as indicating that Academy voters are “out of touch.”
 
In fact, I was astounded by one statistic in the WSJ article: The average American sees only 4 movies a year! And these are almost all super-hero blockbusters like Wonder Woman. Given that, how can you expect the public to make any sort of informed judgment on what is the best of the year?
Posted in Entertainment, General, Movies, Television | Comments Off on Academy Awards vs. Popularity: And the winner is…

Help me! I can’t justify getting a HomePod!

I really…REALLY…want to buy an Apple HomePod. This should not be a surprise to anyone who knows me. I’ve been a dedicated Apple fan for decades. Our home is filled with almost every product Apple sells — from iMacs to MacBooks to iPhones to iPads to Apple TVs. The HomePod would fit perfectly into our personal Apple ecosystem. And, from what I’ve read (as well as my own in-store testing), the HomePod sounds great — as good or better than any comparable digital speaker. Its price is on the high side — but not way out of line for what it delivers.

So what’s the problem? What’s stopping me from going immediately to my local Apple Store and grabbing one off the shelf?

The answer is that I don’t know what I’d do with the HomePod when I got it home. There is no appropriate place to plunk it down. Literally. To explain exactly what I mean here, allow me to take you on an audio-centric tour of our home.

We start at the lower level — the family room. Here you’ll find a full-featured home theater setup. At its core is a Denon receiver with a 5.1 set of Polk speakers. Connected to the Denon hub, via HDMI ports, are a television, a Blu-ray player, a TiVo DVR and an Apple TV. I see no advantages to including a HomePod in this setup.

Even if I just wanted to play Apple Music, the Denon supports AirPlay; I can stream directly from my iPad or iPhone to my home theater. Although some reviews have gushed about the HomePod’s “audiophile”-grade quality — capable of amply filling up a large room with booming sound, let’s be clear: there’s no way the HomePod comes close to what my home theater setup delivers. Praise for the HomePod’s sound is relative — it depends on what you’re comparing it to. If you think the HomePod represents the “best sound ever” — you’ve never experienced what truly great audio sounds like.

So…nope…no HomePod in the family room.

Climb the stairs to the main level of our house and you’ll be at the door to my office. Hmmm. Maybe the HomePod would fit here — connected to my iMac. Sorry, but no. Currently, the iMac’s audio-out goes to a pair of original Monsoon speakers (with its matching floor-standing subwoofer). This may well be the oldest computer accessory still in active use in my house — and there’s a good reason for this. Despite its age, the Monsoon remains one of the best desktop speakers ever created. The HomePod may be able to shake your desk at loud volumes, but so what? My Monsoons have been doing this for years…even when the volume is nowhere near its maximum. Plus, the Monsoon flat panels provide superb stereo separation — something a solo HomePod cannot do at all.

Strike two. The HomePod will not find a home in my office.

We now arrive at the final (non-bedroom) location in our house: the open-floor-plan living room/dining room/kitchen. Here, you’ll find a Yamaha YAS-706 soundbar (plus subwoofer) connected to a television and the usual collection of other peripherals. While not comparable in quality to the downstairs setup, the Yamaha is still capable of delivering distortion-free room-filling sound.

The soundbar supports both AirPlay and Bluetooth. Via AirPlay, I can send music from iTunes on my Mac — or from my iOS devices — directly to the Yamaha, without having to separately turn the soundbar on. It’s all automatic. Similarly, via Bluetooth, I can almost instantly connect the Yamaha to my second-generation Amazon Echo sitting nearby; this combines excellent sound quality with the convenience of Alexa voice commands.

Add it all up and there seems no benefit to a HomePod here. “Wait a minute!” you may be thinking, “How about replacing the Echo with a HomePod? You’ll have a better sounding speaker than the Echo and you can use Siri instead of Alexa.” True enough — except for one major caveat: My home is already immersed in the Alexa ecosystem. In addition to the afore-mentioned Echo, I have four other Alexa devices spread throughout our home!

With my current setup, I can simultaneously play music over three (non-Dot) Echoes — providing inexpensive Alexa-controlled multi-room sound. The HomePod won’t be able to match this until AirPlay 2 arrives. Yes, the Echo’s audio quality is inferior to the HomePod — but it’s still fine enough for quick and casual listening.

Of course, the Echoes do more than play music. They work with our Ecobee thermostat and several smart lights we’ve installed. We also use Alexa throughout the day — for timers, reminders, calendar events, shopping lists, movie times, weather, news and too many other tasks to list them all here. While I might be able to transfer the bulk of this to Siri — why bother? Especially when Siri remains the weakest feature of the HomePod. Plus, at $350 a pop, there is no way I am going to invest in five HomePods.

Bottom line: I don’t see a switch from Echo/Alexa to HomePod/Siri coming any time soon. As things now stand, every relevant location in our house contains technology that better serves our wants and needs than a HomePod would. As much as I would love to justify buying a HomePod, I can’t see how.

I’m sure many people live in places where a HomePod would be an ideal fit — especially if they have not already heavily invested in other alternatives. That’s great. But I’m also confident that my situation is not an unusual one. That is, a home, even one that is otherwise super-friendly to Apple, where the HomePod winds up being too little too late.

All is not completely lost. I can envision a second or third generation HomePod (perhaps even a line of HomePods at different price points) that would convince me to abandon my Echoes. But I can also imagine this never happening. For now, it’s a game of wait-and-see.

Posted in A/V equipment, Apple Inc, iOS, iPad, iPhone, Mac, Technology | 4 Comments

Who are the strangers? Not Trump supporters

Trump supporters would have you believe they are the most aggrieved party in the country right now.

As covered in “Strangers in Their Own Land” (a recent book by Arlie Hochschild that is in many ways a sequel to “What’s the Matter With Kansas”), these feelings of resentment can lead voters to support political candidates and positions that are clearly against their economic self-interest.

In searching for a resolution to this seeming paradox, the author focuses on the feelings of disenfranchisement of Trump supporters in Louisiana…the sense that the country no longer works for them or cares about them. Despite working hard, they feel passed over — as various minority groups cut in line ahead of them. These folk feel especially aggrieved by the “liberal elites,” who reside primarily on the coasts and who, so they claim, look down on them and consider them to be “ignorant bumpkins.” In response, they support candidates such as Trump who appear to “get” them culturally.

Up to a point, I can be empathetic. But, in light of what has happened these past months, another part of me wants to scream: “What the hell are you talking about?” To see why, let’s twist the prism a bit and look again:

To start with, as seen in countless television interviews, Trump voters typically express at least equal, more often greater, contempt for the “libtards” they disdain…than the liberals have ever expressed towards them. Indeed, it often seems that the primary political agenda of these right-wingers is to oppose whatever it is that liberals want. “If liberals are upset, we must be doing something right” is their credo. The specifics of the issue hardly matter. And so they maintain their support for Trump because, no matter what else he is doing (even if it ultimately hurts his supporters), he is pissing off liberals. It’s hard to maintain empathy for such a position.

More importantly, let’s be clear about who’s actually in control of this country.

Of the 50 state governors, 34 are Republican. Republicans now control a record 68% of state legislative chambers. Together, this has allowed state governments to gerrymander election districts, pass voter suppression legislation — and carry out other similar actions — all designed to prevent political opposition from having a fair chance at winning upcoming elections.

At the national level, the U.S House of Representatives and the Senate are both controlled by Republicans…including a significant segment that represents the extreme right wing of the party. And, of course, our President is Republican. This is a rare trifecta of one-party control.

Since taking office, via executive orders and administrative appointments, Trump has tried to undo virtually everything Obama accomplished and pretty much everything progressives support (from Internet neutrality to consumer protections to immigration reform to support for international treaties to preservation of national monuments to sabotaging Obamacare — and on and on). And he is succeeding.

Look at the map below (taken from Time). Does this look like a country dominated by liberals? Certainly not from a geographic perspective. Demographic studies predict that, in a few years, 70% of our population will be concentrated in just 15 states. Put another way, 70% of our Senators will come from a 30% minority of our country, most of whom are Republican.

And thanks to Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, there remains a conservative majority on the Court…one that looks to be maintained for at least a generation. If Trump manages to stay in office long enough for another justice to exit, the size of the majority may grow — and the rest of the Federal courts will similarly shift dramatically in a conservative direction as he fills vacancies.

Meanwhile, in the media realm, the Sinclair Broadcast Group is a strongly conservative company that currently dominates radio station ownership. Fox News, a strongly right-wing slanted television station, is the most popular of all cable news stations.

Even the Russians have thrown their support to Trump, using computer hacking and other illegal means, to hurt Trump’s opposition.

Finally, these supposed “strangers in their own land” lament that their Christianity is under attack (pointing to such silly falsehoods as a prohibition against saying “Merry Christmas”). The truth is that “Christianity is the most adhered to religion in the United States, with 75% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian.” As a Jew and an atheist, it’s hard for me to accept that Christians are more subject to attack than the groups to which I belong — especially when we have a President that appears to give air cover to racists and bigots.

Yet…despite all of the above…Trump supporters continue to contend that they are the most aggrieved, persecuted and underrepresented group in this country. Don’t believe it. Yes, the demographics and economics of the country are changing…and some people are facing more hardships than others as a result. This is a recurring problem — and we need to work to solve it. However, there are plenty of underrepresented aggrieved people who are not white male working class conservative Christians living in the middle of the country. The solution is not for Trump supporters to “take their country back.” The country was never “theirs” to take back.

Essentially, if Trump supporters don’t like the way the country is being run, they can’t blame Democrats or liberals or Jews or African-Americans or immigrants or atheists. Wake up and look around at who’s actually running this country. No, you are not the strangers in your own land. Increasingly, it’s the rest of us who are.

Posted in Media, Politics | Comments Off on Who are the strangers? Not Trump supporters