Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

Sex, Cyberspace, Snobbery and Harvey

The problem was fundamental: Rich guys don't want to socialize only with one another, and once you let in enough attractive young women and such your VIP site loses [its] cachet and everyone might as well just hang out on Facebook.

I'm not sure Gawker has the second part of the problem precisely right (though A Small World's membership policies seem well-designed to allow "[t]rusted and loyal ASW members who meet certain criteria" to invite "a limited number of their friends" enough attractive young women to keep all the bankers happy. But even assuming that's the dynamic at work, there seem to be at least four distinct possibilities: a) Snooty rich men don't want the kind of women who would sign up to meet only snooty rich men; b) Snooty rich men need a larger pool of women to draw from than a 'limited number of their friends" can provide;  c) Even snooty rich letches don't want to be made to feel like snooty rich letches; d) Even non-lecherous snooty rich men don't want a website where their competition is other rich men! They'd rather be the richest guys in an average neighborhood, where the population is easier to impress.
 
So, is aSmallWorld's unsuccess a victory for social equality? You make the call: 

Yes! Attempted stratification undone by the common characteristics (sex drive) of mankind! Sex, solvent of snobbery.
 
No! The status hierarchy of money just needed a bigger empire in which to recapitulate inegalitarian financial relations as inegalitarian sexual relations! 

All the lechery-related reasons suggested above point to "no," yet it's hard to not see aSmallWorld's decline as, somehow, a "yes." How about a dialectical Third Way:  In asserting itself outside its own sphere the hierarchy of money nevertheless sows the seeds of its own destruction! [Which would be ...?-ed Facebook] ...

 P.S.: Why didn't The Atlantic think of this idea? An exclusive site where "Brave Thinkers" like Pinch Sulzberger and the "Atlantic 50" ("the most influential commentators in the nation") can talk to each other! Writing the first draft of history! Then we charge the Boeing lobbyists $10,000 each to join! And let everyone else pay to watch! It's genius. The American Idea! ... [Isn't that the Atlantic business plan?--ed Not yet fully realized. Email suggestions to David@IoverpaidforthebestopinionwritersinAmericaandnowImdesperate.com] 8:44 P.M.

___________________________

Bob Wright's New Electric God

The "man in charge of the [Chevy] Volt’s battery development and integration" is bailing out of General Motors "in the middle of [the Volt's] frenzied gestation." TTAC thinks it's a perverse side-effect of government intervention--with all the new federal electric car money sloshing around, and pay caps looming, it's more lucrative to be an independent "consultant." ... 5:35 P.M.

___________________________

Ben Sheffner says Gawker is "running a very risky business." Why? No libel insurance. ... 12:30 P.M.

___________________________

Bob Wright thinks the Web is the new God, in a particular sense. .... 1:37  A.M.

___________________________

Charles Lane argues that unions are now a "significant" impediment to "sensible health care reform" because of their tooth-and-nail fight against taxing "Cadillac" health plans. ... Even if you think (as I do) that the unions have a point when they argue they gave up wage increases in order to get lavish health benefits, isn't the answer to give them five years (or until their next contract negotiation) to rebalance the mix to what it would be in a world in which employer health benefits didn't go untaxed? ... If the problem for powerful unions is they no longer have quite the clout they used to have to extract wage increases in exchange for giving up "luxury" health benefits ... well, that's their problem. ...

P.S.: Lane also criticizes unions who support single payer but want to preserve their right to bargain for "supplemental" coverage.

Probably the only thing less likely to pass Congress than single-payer is single-payer with a layer of extra benefits for unions only.

Hmm. Why shouldn't unions, or anyone, be free to bargain for supplemental benefits**--at least for more treatments or services--on top of what's available in a single payer plan (as long as those benefits are taxed)? Lane seems to imply that the idea of single payer is that the government plan would have near-monopoly status--you take what it offers, and that's it. No adding on to the system for, say, cancer drugs the government's decided not to pay for.** If that's Lane's version of single-payer, I know a woman named Betsy who'd like to talk to him. ... 1:50  A.M.

___________________________

Whatever you think of the Polanski case, this is a good hed:

Free Roman Polanski! Demand Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen

1:51  A.M.

___________________________