Day Eighteen: Bailing Out Buffoons

One space for me. One space for my asshole.

Today as I was making my approximately 47 minute commute home from work - most of which was spent crawling at 19 miles per hour behind a Cadillac Escalade - it occurred to me that I don't necessarily feel that it's fair to pay for the US auto industry's mistakes.

Of course, by now, anyone with access to a radio or television should be familiar with all of the arguments supporting an economic bailout for the "Big Three." According to economic experts, "Higher car prices, the end of incentives and vehicle shortages could occur if GM and other Big Three automakers don't get bailout.." I understand this and also realize the human toll - an estimated loss of 2.5 million jobs by those who are paid directly or indirectly by a robust auto industry. But, like many others, I also see a great deal of stupidity linked to the current situation in Detroit.

For years now, the Big Three have ignored calls to discontinue their love affair with the tacky, gluttonous, gas-guzzling SUVs and big dumb trucks that currently clog up American roadways. In the 1980s and 90s, US automakers were concerned primarily with manufacturing cars (remember them?) Since the late 90s, however, they've been more and more obsessed with hoisting inefficient behemoths upon the American public. In fact, in 2006, 70 to 75% of Ford's production was SUVs and trucks. Anyone with half a brain could have seen that this couldn't sustain itself. High gasoline prices are and will be the death knell of the SUV culture. But instead of gradually weaning us off of these monsters, the Big Three greedily squeezed as much blood from the stone as they could.

Further, American cars have had a justifiably bad reputation for decades now. I don't know about you but I certainly don't buy American-made automobiles, and when my faithful, gently-used Camry finally gives up on me, I intend to replace with with another Toyota Camry. Foreign, specifically Japanese, automakers have been running circles around American brands with regard to dependability and owner loyalty since the mid 80s. If one thinks of a lemon, one almost invariably thinks of an American car. Instead of choosing to address this head on, and making cars that matter, the Big Three, in their self-satisfied conceit, continued to churn out an inferior product. They figured that Americans wouldn't choose foreign products over their own. They were wrong.

Many critics are blaming unions for this mess. They feel that auto companies have been capitulating to unreasonable union demands over the years, leading to complacency and bloated contracts. While this may help explain why the Big Three can't dramatically cut production costs, it doesn't explain why such shitty ideas and products keep rolling down from the top. Unions aren't responsible for the creative and productive missteps that Ford, Chrysler and GM have taken for the last decade. This is more of an issue of poor management than it is of union bullying.

So here we sit. On the verge of a depression. Stuck between the almost equally terrible decisions to bail out the imbecilic US auto companies or to allow them to collapse under the weight of their own horrible judgment. My feeling is that no matter the decision, we're all going to end up getting the raw end of the deal. Given the current state of the economy, and my own precarious employment, I find it somewhat ironic that these thoughts came to mind during a commute that I might no longer have to take.

Blaxplanation Disclaimer: We - the American consumer - are to blame as well. I read recently that with gas prices on the decline, sales for SUVs and trucks are back on the rise. We've learned nothing, and part of me believes that we deserve what we're going to get.

Cristal Redux

“Money, Power and Respect! Well, one out of three ain’t bad.”

My best friend, John, and I have been having an argument about the meaning and impact of Jay-Z’s protest of Louis Roederer, in general, and the Cristal brand in particular. John supports Jay-Z’s efforts. I think it’s the most insignificant protest I’ve ever heard of. I decided to make a post of excerpts from our exchange because our debate has brought up a few more points that I want to make.

John: "The bottom line is that you are reading too much into it [my view of Jay-Z’s hypocrisy]."

ACT: See, I think the bottom line is that you AREN'T reading enough into it. The fact that Jay-Z actively supported and marketed for a company about which he knew nothing - for FREE – is bad enough. The fact that he was doing it to celebrate his status is even worse. The fact that he does this with (despite hip hop being consumed, in large part, by whites) urban black youth is inexcusable. Frankly, I think it's cause for celebration when something like this comes back to bite him, and others, in the ass.

John: "..saying that the average black man can't afford the stuff is pointless."

ACT: The point, my friend, is that this tacky, gluttonous, hyperconsumerized culture that Jay-Z revels in doesn't consider the wants and needs of those of us who live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, why should we give a damn about him or his absurd "protest?"

John: "He [Jay-Z] took a stand purely based on the racist comments from the company's president."

ACT: We may just have to agree to disagree here. What you see as a stance I see merely as reactionary. If someone decides to boycott Walmart because they underpay their workers or force small area business to close, that's a stance. If someone boycotts Walmart because the Walton children say they don't want their business, that's just, as I've said before, plain common sense.

John: "Hip Hop is a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry and that economic power should be wielded."

ACT: I agree with you here. In this case, though, I don't really think it's being wielded at all. Wielding power means making impactful changes to a community, industry, group of people, system, etc. If this boycott leads to Louis Roederer establishing some sort of scholarship for urban youth or developing a diversity sensitivity program within the company I'll be the first one to applaud Jay-Z's efforts. As of yet, it hasn't even led to an apology.

John: "Just because you or I can't afford a bottle of Cristal doesn't me we shouldn't support him."

ACT: Aaaaah. See, this is, fundamentally, where you and I differ. This is how I see it. Jay-Z wanted people to think he's important and was desirous of flaunting his wealth so he bragged incessantly about what he could afford - implying, btw, that others could NOT afford it. He bragged about diamonds despite the fact that the diamond industry is a corrupt, murderous monopoly. He bragged about expensive cars and clothes despite the fact that much of his black listening audience can barely afford to eek out a living. He boasted, on every single record, of his history in the drug trade despite the fact that drug use has crippled the "black community" for decades ("Hov did that so hopefully you don't have to go through that" was just a stupid attempt to sound conscious). He continued the unfortunate trend of objectifying women, most of whom are black. Then, one of the companies that he's been celebrating - an alcohol manufacturer! - rejected people of his ilk and suddenly he's Jesse Jackson. I have a major problem with someone actively participating in their own exploitation, as well as that of others, and then turning around and looking for support when they realize they've been played for a fool.

John: "What are you talking about!? You are out of your mind if you don't think what black folks mean to Cristal isn't significant. Do you KNOW HOW MUCH money the Hip Hop industry and movement behind it brings to Cristal annually?!?"

ACT: Maybe I'm deluded. But I DO know that Louis Roederer hasn't been in business for 230 years on the strength of the black dollar. They'll be just fine without the hip hop crowd. Plus, I think one of the things that we have to consider is that Cristal had panache among its clientele long before rappers started buying it. It was considered the choice of the ELITE. That's why these rappers started drinking it. They didn't make the brand hot. They just jumped on the bandwagon. A bandwagon that whites own.

John: "Seriously. It is what it is. A very powerful black man using his influence to attack a company that doesn't support where he came from and his people. Period."

ACT: Money doesn't necessarily equal power. Purchasing power perhaps. But you can be rich and own clubs and market sneakers with your name on them and not be powerful. Power is the ability to get your way in society despite the objections of others. In that regard, the Bush/Cheney crew is powerful. The military is powerful. Microsoft is powerful. The tobacco companies are powerful. The NRA is powerful. Jay-Z is just a rich retired rapper whom those with real power don't even have to acknowledge.

ACT: One final thing: Have we considered that perhaps Frederic Rouzaud just might know what the hell he's doing? Maybe he realized that he might well have to choose between maintaining the loyalty of his wealthy white patronage and establishing the brand among the hip hop Nouveau Riche. Maybe whites who have enjoyed the brand amongst themselves for the last 230 years don't want to drink the same champagne as tasteless Negroes. Maybe Rouzaud was reacting to that when he was interviewed.

Cristal Bites The Hand That Foolishly Feeds It

Remember when we used to have meaningful protests?

Apparently, the makers of Cristal champagne don’t necessarily appreciate all that the hip hop community has done for the brand.

In the latest slap to the face of those who seek to exalt the consumption of expensive products over common sense and good taste, Frederic Rouzaud, managing director of Louis Roederer (the producers of Cristal champagne) has implied that he doesn’t court the patronage of the hip hop community. In an interview with The Economist magazine, he responds to a question about his products popularity with rappers by stating, "That's a good question but what can we do? We can't forbid people from buying it. I'm sure Dom Perignon or Krug would be delighted to have their business." I'm wagering that my man Lou thought he was pretty safe making these comments considering that they would appear in The Economist. I mean, The Economist ain't The Source.

Now, Jay-Z himself has descended from on high to launch a personal and professional protest against the brand. "It has come to my attention that the managing director of Cristal, Frederic Rouzaud views the 'hip-hop' culture as 'unwelcome attention,"' Jay-Z said in a statement released Wednesday. "I view his comments as racist and will no longer support any of his products through any of my various brands including The 40/40 Club nor in my personal life."

Really? Word? Is this the same Jay-Z who wrote such classics as “Ain’t No Nigga,” “Rap Game/Crack Game,” “Nigga What, Nigga Who,” “Big Pimpin’,” “Is That Yo Bitch?” “2 Many Hoes,” and, along with R Kelly, that lovely ode to female sexual anatomy, “Pussy”? Perhaps he should ask himself who he thinks has done more harm to black folks, Frederic Rouzard or he. After all, a whole hell of a lot more black people listen to Jay-Z than have ever consumed a bottle of Cristal.

Or maybe what Jay-Z and other rappers should be asking themselves is why they feel compelled to promote alcohol, overpriced vehicles, gunplay, black on black murder, violence against women, the selling of drugs, blood diamonds and a whole litany of silly, destructive shit in the first place. As much as we love Biggie, Jay-Z, Tupac, Nas, or the legion of up and coming Dirty South MCs, we have to admit that they’ve poisoned countless young, black minds with their gleeful endorsement of death, violence, sex and excess. How many videos do we have to endure that feature black women shaking their asses, cats throwing yellow diamonds and jewelry (by Jacob!) at the camera and dudes spilling Cristal on women’s chests as they speed down the rode in Lamborghinis?

As I’ve written before, I LOVE it when these conservatives and corporations let folks know how they feel about them. In this case, the worst possible scenario I can imagine is that these primitive capitalists, who are well compensated for embarrassing and exploiting our people, but generally not compensated at ALL for name-dropping Mercedes Benz, get their feelings hurt.

My guess is that Rouzard’s comments and Jay-Z’s little protest won’t have much of an impact on rappers who seem to need to rub their supposed status in our faces. I just can’t see flipping on the increasingly shitty BET and watching hip hop videos in which dudes throw their “Father of the Year” trophies or college degrees at the screen.

The Problem With Jordan

Well, I wouldn’t go THIS far but…

“Republicans buy shoes too.”

This is the quote that doomed Michael Jordan, in my mind, as little more than a corporate pitchman, a shill, completely devoid of social, political or race consciousness. This was in response to those who wondered why the pre-eminent black athlete of his era wouldn’t endorse fellow black North Carolinian, Harvey Gantt in his Senatorial bid against enthusiastic racist, Jesse Helms. This was even after Helms played the ‘race card’ (that’s right – whites have played the race card MUCH longer and more effectively than we) with a campaign ad playing to white paranoia. According to an article from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the commercial became known as the "’white hands’ ad, in which a white man's hands crumple a rejected job application while a voiceover intones, ‘You needed that job...but they had to give it to a minority.’”

I have to admit, I always rooted for Jordan. But Jordan’s response made me wonder if he wouldn’t mind Ku Klux Klan members so long as they were wearing his sneakers under their white robes. Yet, my disappointment in learning that Jordan apparently didn’t give a damn about taking a stand against a certified bigot like Helms, was only matched by my confusion when I saw Jordan backing Bill Bradley in his 2000 presidential bid – AFTER it had become apparent that Bradley would lose the nomination to Al Gore. Jordan admitted at the time that his unprecedented move was not motivated by any particular familiarity with Bradley’s policies, but by, of all things, LOVE: ”I love Bill Bradley and I'm learning more about his campaign as it goes further...But I do see myself supporting him. And I have had some conversations with Bill about it, and I've always respected him as a leader."

“Hmmm…,” I thought. “Nothing especially enlightening in that statement.” Then it occurred to me – a little late, I now realize – that Bradley was a teammate of Jordan’s uber-coach, Phil Jackson, on the championship Knicks teams of the 1970’s. Jackson backed Bradley. Jordan made his aggressive attachment to Jackson known publicly and often. So I concluded (and not, I think, unreasonably) that Jackson called in a favor to Jordan and Jordan, ever dutiful, decided to jettison his ‘Republicans Buy Shoes Too’ stance and support his former coach by supporting Bradley – even if he didn’t really know shit about Bradley’s politics.

Now, I’ve never expected Michael Jordan to be Muhammad Ali or even Charles Barkley for that matter. After all, he’s got a bland, valuable, corporately built and supported image to uphold. But the RBST deal-breaker isn’t the only example of Jordan abandoning his blackness, hell, his humanity, so as not to offend the sneaker buying public. Consider these:

• "I'm more concerned with my jump shot." – Sociologist Dr. Todd Boyd paraphrasing Jordan’s response when asked for his reaction to the Rodney King verdict-inspired riots in LA.
• “My job with Nike is to endorse the product. Their job is to be up on that.” – Jordan’s response to Nike’s paying Indonesian workers 30 cents a day when he was raking in 20 mil a year in endorsements.

In the words of Douglas Kellner, author of The Sports Spectacle, Michael Jordan, and Nike: Unholy Alliance, “Michael Jordan, like many athletes corrupted by the sports spectacle and commercial culture, has abrogated his basic political and social responsibilities in favor of expensive clothes, commodities, and a megastock portfolio.”

Not that it would have changed history, but maybe all that time I was rooting for the wrong cat.

Primitive Capitalists

Here's some real news. Rappers have an affinity for Mercedes Benz. At least that's what a survey released last week found http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/12/30/rap_brands/index.html

And what's ironic is that only a select few of those rap cats are cashing in on their blanket endorsements. Most of them market directly to hip hop's predominately white consumer base for free. So who're the REAL pimps and hos?