It's obviously grotesque to pick a "worst thing" about the #Astroworld catastrophe that killed ten people (including a young child), but it's pretty easy to pick a "most enraging thing" about the disaster - how foreseeable and preventable it was. 1/
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
The kind of crowd-crush that killed and maimed those Astroworld attendees happens all the time. There was another stampede *at the Astrodome, two weeks previous*, at a Playboi Carti show.
As @ddayen writes in @TheProspect, this happens at concerts all over the place, whenever you have the combination of general admission venues, a set of barriers that kettle attendees, and understaffed security. 5/
It happened in Central Park in 2018, at Snoop Dogg and Gwen Stefani gigs in 2016, and more.
It would be weird if all these different venues all engaged in the same unsafe practices, but there's a common thread running through all of this: Live Nation, the monopolist whose conglomerate also includes Ticketmaster, Pandora and Siriusxm. 7/
Live Nation also has an equity stake in 300 major venues. If you're going to a gig, whatever happens is Live Nation's fault, because it runs the show.
As Dayen writes, monopolists don't have to care about adverse outcomes from corporate negligence. 8/
It's nearly impossible to enjoy live music without enriching Live Nation, so why should they give a shit if people who go to those shows get killed?
Live Nation understaffed the Astroworld show. It understaffs all its shows.
(It *did* have a contingency plan for dead concertgoers, though: security staff were to refer to these corpses as "Smurfs" so as not to alarm other concertgoers). 11/
Live Nation knows that, as a monopolist, it's both too big to fail and too big to jail. The DoJ can whack it with $20,000,000 fines for corporate espionage and it just shrugs it off:
No wonder the company's stock-price hit a record high in the middle of a pandemic in which the global market for live events declined to a figure indistinguishable from zero:
Harvard is a very, very selective school. Only 3.43% of applicants get in. But that's not the whole story. Writing in @theguardian, Tayo Bero says that 43% of the white student body was admitted on criteria other than merit.
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Those 43% are ALDCs: athletes, legacies, dean's interest list (children of major donors) or children (of Harvard faculty). Three quarters of ALDCs do not have the grades to be admitted to Harvard on their own merit. 3/
Back in 2014, a pair of political scientists published a study of 1,779 US "policy issues" over 20 years, concluding that elected officials make policy to benefit the richest ten percent of the country to the exclusion of the needs of everyone else.
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
This was true irrespective of whether there was mass pressure from citizen groups. In the USA, politicians make sure that richest ten percent get whatever they want and do nothing for the rest of us. 3/