You know, I always appreciate the effort when a corporation tries to solve a problem by involving its customers or other individuals. It's not like that company is already making pretty good money off of their customers, and it's not like executives could easily put $20,000+ each to a good-deeds project (not with most of their $140,000+ salaries in mortgages, leases, and other sundry investments). Shit: why not appeal to the conscience of the guy making barely $30,000/year and take the charitable donations out of him, and others like him? I mean, there's more of him than there are executives, right? It's economies of scale, not entitlement or greed, and nothing more... I've already talked about the pure wretchedness of asking people for charity money in a check-out line, but I'd like to rephrase some of my ideas about modern charity in general:
1. No Money? No Deal.
If I wanted to give money to a charity I would walk around a city until a charity salesperson cornered me and asked me if I had 'a couple minutes' to stand around and learn why what they do is important and worthy of my money. I'd listen, they'd pitch me a donation/month level, then they'd get angry while I tried to extricate myself from paying them money, trying to offer my time or effort (which nobody accepts because, evidently, I'm a useless piece of shit best employed as a wallet for special interests) in lieu of the money I need to live the barest simulacrum of an adult life. They wouldn't even treasure the fact that I stopped to give a sympathetic ear to their cause. To crown the experience, if I stayed strong and refused to pledge $5-50 a month (because I'm underemployed and all) they would get angry at me, the guy who promised only to hear them out patiently, uncomfortable on a downtown street. All because I don't want to pledge $25 a month when I don't really have $300 a year to pay to the Duck Saviors or the Eco-watch or the Gay Angel division of Premature Heroes dot com.
That's all completely painful bullshit. Seeing a young idealist go from thinking I'm an easy mark and a way to fill the day's quota to thinking I'm just a heartless waste of time hurts me, especially when they're so earnest and clearly involved, and I really don't have the money to spare, but the whole gambit is up. I don't want to sign up to pay a certain amount of money a month and be locked into that, when I could be back to being unemployed in a month's time. Compare their attitude when I'm walking away to their positive sales pitch and smile at the start. Yikes, all about a charity. That to me is one of the ugliest scenes imaginable, it's hard for me to say no to people my age who have to stand in the street and sling these good causes, but years of grinding near-poverty have made my heart very hard about charity. I only toss a bum a dime (or a dollar) on a few special occasions a year. I give monthly to the Red Cross already, because one time I just couldn't shake the charity salesperson, no matter how evasively I talked of good deeds and dollar-to-aid ratios. More than that I will not give until society gives me five figures wrapped up in a cushy salaried position.
Showing posts with label ethical consumers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethical consumers. Show all posts
1/27/14
Explain Yourself, or Don't, Nobody Cares
Expostulatory blogging is kind of a dead thing. The overreaching narrative of the times is outrage and discord, with a healthy mix of disinterest and distraction thrown in. For good measure, sometimes there is added a aggrandized sense of injury or unopposed wrongs. In this environment blogging to do anything but maybe get a good line in is a waste of time – engaging the stories and constructively analyzing them is best left to 'the adults': paid journalists, high profile bloggers, and the generally execrable morons with weekly columns.
For anyone wanting to blog for anything but niche topics or absurdly obtuse generality (or 'comedy' options such as the way stale top 10/12/15/25 lists, or 'jokes') the field is intensely competitive. Aggregators have created a system in which maybe 10% of all internet users bother to go beyond the internet's collective front pages. Even linking seems quaint and mildly outdated. The only real blogging left is niche blogging about the outrages and abuses of modern society, or being political, or getting paid to blog to sell something.
It helps explain the rise of people who have absolutely zero self-awareness: people who never think past the snappy one-liners and one-dimensional politics of the internet. These kinds of people, even when well-intentioned, only serve to hurt their own causes. 'Misogyny' becomes a sort of mantra that progressive dudes bray mindlessly whenever simple OR complex issues regarding women emerge from the amoral fracas of the modern media environment. People on the fence see nothing but a faceless horde of shmucks wanting to prove their progressivism and decide, Hell, why not start trolling these point-seekers en masse? You can't blame them. Aggrieving the crowd is as righteous a battle for some as fighting for the oppressed is for others.
For anyone wanting to blog for anything but niche topics or absurdly obtuse generality (or 'comedy' options such as the way stale top 10/12/15/25 lists, or 'jokes') the field is intensely competitive. Aggregators have created a system in which maybe 10% of all internet users bother to go beyond the internet's collective front pages. Even linking seems quaint and mildly outdated. The only real blogging left is niche blogging about the outrages and abuses of modern society, or being political, or getting paid to blog to sell something.
It helps explain the rise of people who have absolutely zero self-awareness: people who never think past the snappy one-liners and one-dimensional politics of the internet. These kinds of people, even when well-intentioned, only serve to hurt their own causes. 'Misogyny' becomes a sort of mantra that progressive dudes bray mindlessly whenever simple OR complex issues regarding women emerge from the amoral fracas of the modern media environment. People on the fence see nothing but a faceless horde of shmucks wanting to prove their progressivism and decide, Hell, why not start trolling these point-seekers en masse? You can't blame them. Aggrieving the crowd is as righteous a battle for some as fighting for the oppressed is for others.
12/3/13
Is Death Grips this Era's Rage Against the Machine?
[citation needed] Apart from the heightened requirements for being considered legit anti-corporate and the fact that Death Grips isn't that political, it almost seems possible. Time moves in cycles, and it has been a while since there was a Rage Against The Machine-esque group in or near the mainstream, that I know of, but Death Grips seem to be the perfect candidate. Behind the facade, they don't even have coherent words to get an agenda from... actually this whole thing is falling apart: the new Rage would obviously be a New Sincerity band.
However, I get this sense from Death Grips that they're projecting an even bigger identity than what they actually possess. It's like how Rage was part of the 'Che Guevara T-Shirt era' of counterculture, a largely corporate construction referencing or alluding to deep things like a Tibetan monk on fire or how bad racism was. Death Grips is the new counterculture, which may be more legit, but has even less coherence.
As far as I know only Death Grip's tendency to release their albums for free is solidly anti-corporate or at all activist, and they don't really project any leftism or rightism in their lyrics at all. They more exist in a great, drugged out realm where politics can't claim them for its own insidious purpose. The idea that they are not just dudes making music, and instead dudes getting paid a lot to make music for some kind of viral marketing project, is very tempting mostly because I'm a hugely cynical skeptic.
The machine has won. Rage was one of its products and the crowd that used to listen to them sincerely have all moved on, mostly towards being yuppies. Death Grips exists in the absence of hope or progress, an aesthetic the group wallows in, as if to prove there is nothing left – a statement powerful enough to put it on equal footing with the largest, least counterculture countercultural movement of the 1990s.
It all relies on the idea that maybe Death Grips is saying something by screaming incoherently about drugs and paranoia and lust, but I know for a fact the group's listeners do not wear Che Guevara shirts. I have my ideas about their fans, in particular I think a lot of them are anything but as hardcore and mentally unsound as the music suggests, and the music writes a bigger cheque than Rage ever did because it seems to mostly be balls-out insanity.
Note that both groups were signed to Epic Records Co. Death Grips is no longer with them due to self-releasing albums and other rebellious things that Rage never did at all. Rage did manage to get a very comprehensive listing as 'questionable music' in the wake of 9/11, when any actual radical had not listened to them for nearly a decade. Ultimately very idea of counterculture 1990s is either very scary or incredibly laughable so I would put the two groups in different categories at least temporarily. I don't think the distinction would help either band and to be honest I don't think they have anything in common at all.
However: this does not mean that Death Grips is not this era's Rage Against the Machine. Epic Records execs must have seen the same underground/indie/counterculture buzz in both bands in order to want to sign them. Nobody cares that much about either band right now, but Death Grips is alive at least. Death Grips did not get the over-mainstream cool people and instead nabbed the indie nerds who are too cool and self-aware for horrorcore but into something similar, to the eternal chagrin of the Execs, who then dumped DG after finding or making a suitable excuse. I know they were part of the corporate overlords' plans somehow. Just like Rage. More the fools us.[citation needed]
However, I get this sense from Death Grips that they're projecting an even bigger identity than what they actually possess. It's like how Rage was part of the 'Che Guevara T-Shirt era' of counterculture, a largely corporate construction referencing or alluding to deep things like a Tibetan monk on fire or how bad racism was. Death Grips is the new counterculture, which may be more legit, but has even less coherence.
As far as I know only Death Grip's tendency to release their albums for free is solidly anti-corporate or at all activist, and they don't really project any leftism or rightism in their lyrics at all. They more exist in a great, drugged out realm where politics can't claim them for its own insidious purpose. The idea that they are not just dudes making music, and instead dudes getting paid a lot to make music for some kind of viral marketing project, is very tempting mostly because I'm a hugely cynical skeptic.
The machine has won. Rage was one of its products and the crowd that used to listen to them sincerely have all moved on, mostly towards being yuppies. Death Grips exists in the absence of hope or progress, an aesthetic the group wallows in, as if to prove there is nothing left – a statement powerful enough to put it on equal footing with the largest, least counterculture countercultural movement of the 1990s.
It all relies on the idea that maybe Death Grips is saying something by screaming incoherently about drugs and paranoia and lust, but I know for a fact the group's listeners do not wear Che Guevara shirts. I have my ideas about their fans, in particular I think a lot of them are anything but as hardcore and mentally unsound as the music suggests, and the music writes a bigger cheque than Rage ever did because it seems to mostly be balls-out insanity.
Note that both groups were signed to Epic Records Co. Death Grips is no longer with them due to self-releasing albums and other rebellious things that Rage never did at all. Rage did manage to get a very comprehensive listing as 'questionable music' in the wake of 9/11, when any actual radical had not listened to them for nearly a decade. Ultimately very idea of counterculture 1990s is either very scary or incredibly laughable so I would put the two groups in different categories at least temporarily. I don't think the distinction would help either band and to be honest I don't think they have anything in common at all.
However: this does not mean that Death Grips is not this era's Rage Against the Machine. Epic Records execs must have seen the same underground/indie/counterculture buzz in both bands in order to want to sign them. Nobody cares that much about either band right now, but Death Grips is alive at least. Death Grips did not get the over-mainstream cool people and instead nabbed the indie nerds who are too cool and self-aware for horrorcore but into something similar, to the eternal chagrin of the Execs, who then dumped DG after finding or making a suitable excuse. I know they were part of the corporate overlords' plans somehow. Just like Rage. More the fools us.[citation needed]
8/27/13
The Vat-Grown Future
I can understand the recent hullabaloo about vat-grown beef (even though the price of a few grams is tens of thousands of dollars): the current system used to raise and prepare a majority of beef is equal parts cruel and insane. You don't have to have a soft heart to lament the existence of factory farms and feedlots, unless you're the kind of person who pretends to be a total badass (maybe you were molested as a child, I don't know). If you think making animals stand for hours in ankle deep shit or live entire lives in tiny cages is cool you're probably also a psychopath or at least pro-prison sociopath. Vat-grown meat is a step in the right direction, since the idea of feeding the world with naturally-grown protein is getting to be really, really laughable. Still, it's kind of useless as a solution, and favors the armchair-ethicist over the realist: a counterproductive situation 'progressive movements' are often haunted by.
Fisheries are collapsed, hunting is no longer a way of life for the overwhelming majority, and factory farming is a soulless practice of agribusiness that stains the world in unhealthy shit, diseased blood, novel human/animal illnesses, and misery – not to mention fast food and all associated problems. Anyone who says differently is a corporate shill, an unapologetic ecocidal turd, a Scientific OptimistTM , or plainly ignorant. So, basically, the idea of further separating the populace from its food is the only one that wins out, and few people see the problem with it, as long as it prevents the cruel and bloody deaths of cute animals (which are often not that cute and generally die a sterilized, clinical death after a life of perfect, almost middle-class indolence and occasional active cruelty).
Meanwhile, we could source all of our protein, cheaply and very efficiently, from insects. We can still have a good cut of beef or chicken, but insect protein can cover, say, Monday to Thursday, and cheaply. It is a solution that has been staring us in the face since the dawn of time, but at some point our phobias overruled common sense and we stopped eating bugs. Now, in the 11th hour of a crisis hundreds of years in the making, we have once again proven that we can be smart, but never reasonable.
Easy living has eroded any sense of pragmatism we had, and instead of taking matters into our own hands we have pushed food further into the corporate fold and away from our own hands, which we are generally afraid to get dirty. Ethical neutrality is not worth the price, beyond which lies the fact that agribusiness is not going anywhere. Animals will continue to suffer for as long as they are profitable, agriculture will continue to desiccate and toxify the earth and 'pests', as well as anything nearby or downriver. A small cost to pay to ensure nature doesn't get anything intended for ourselves. But we're not selfish, and thinking otherwise is 'not realistic', sorry. Don't think about the dead lakes and rivers, or the dying oceans. Listen to the greenwashing machine and damn well heed how it is telling you not to worry. Or listen to the deafening silence of pop culture, I mean, who gives a fuck?
Then, when the rape of the earth has eliminated the chance of raising edible animals, food will move completely out of the reach of the populace and into the security of corporate production thanks to research potential generated today. Does it amplify the horror enough to know that not only are living creatures processed into competitively-priced foods, but that the process of raising the animal itself can be bypassed? Or is that ethical, to cut out the animal's contribution, while still eating of its flesh? Even the borderline sadistic systems in place today still have a beating heart, and the symbolic act is still committed, even though shrouded by the mystery of NDA contracts and secure facilities. Needless to say, vat-grown appeals to the people who can't stomach the current model. It stinks, though. If GMOs are freaky frankenfoods then Vat-Grown is undead zombiefood. No double standards.
However, that's life as an omnivorous mammal: you sometimes kill to eat. Then, because of a healthy omnivorous diet which includes hunting and foraging activity, you gain the mental acuity and leisure to reflect on the act of killing. You turn it into an art and thrive. Then, twenty thousand or more years later, you get to the point where the idea has been so over-thought, and the act so over politicized and perverted by industry, that it is no longer palatable or acceptable ('unless you stop worrying and start enjoying!'). Since it is the modern world, and a healthy respect for nature is not an option, the only cure remaining is to develop the technique of growing meat in a bloodless, clinical way, so that it dies apart from any animal, so that the vast stocks of commercial livestock can go into the history books and possibly extinction while we grow our mega cities and hoard terabytes of data per second and eat our ethically sourced protein loaves. The only thing better than eating beef once a week, shutting down most fast food outlets, and finding better sources of living protein is to make an undead mockery of flesh in a lab because we're too infantilized to give up our excesses and face the reality of cost and value.
Madness is what it is. The plan seems to be to abolish the cycle of life or at least further commodify it. Plants are living things that we kill all the time, without seeming to care a bit, and we also gorge ourselves on their sex organs, and that's acceptable – but killing a dog to eat is cruel and/or worthy of mockery? Eating ants, roaches, slugs, spiders... any of the bountiful and varied insect species is crazy, absurd? When the oceans are emptied, the air is full of cow farts, and land covered in pig and chicken shit? Farming insects cheaply, each house producing a few dozen pounds a month, each apartment growing a few pounds, plus enriching soil... no that's crazy. It's as crazy as razing the suburbs and growing traditional food there. What we need, obviously, is bloodless, ethical, lab-grown meat – it's never going to play into corporate or political power fantasies.
There is a parallel to this in drone warfare. Pure logic founded on historical fact (hahahaha) would assume that if a global conflict was not worth risking a soldier's life, it was not a conflict worth engaging in (hahahaha). If it was not popular enough to sustain casualties, it was not popular enough to be conducted by a democracy. But, you see, take out the aggressor's wasted lives, and the populace no longer has the ethical high-ground it is used to enjoying. Now, having made war bloodless for your country (and even more infuriating and hopeless for another) you get to kill with impunity, and the rage you generate can be explained as the unenlightened reaction of religious fanatics. The dissenters, domestic or otherwise, can be explained away as "DISLIKED POLITICAL GROUP" or "BIASED RABBLE ROUSER" while the insane reality of the situation continues to make life unpleasant or untenable for the rest.
"Why drink water when you can have a tasty Coca Cola? Probably because you're a mindless consumer – the New Livestock. Have we got some fantastic new products for you!"
Textual Note:
Hi there, I've been a little shrill, I admit, though I don't apologize for it. If the future of where and how humanity sources its food does not matter to you, you won't understand why I take the tone of alarmism. Obviously the whole thing is a bit sensationalistic... but so is the 'sustainability is for faggots' crowd, who are a bunch of despicable, small-minded wretches. Also, I think I've proven I have a great affinity for hyperbole. But please do remember that there are actual problems and that the future is uncertain, and that the current model of a disinterested public eating food created in a vacuum away from their sight is kind of fucked up, and could be changed for the better. Sorry if it wasn't funny/insightful/verified enough - I admit I am off my game. That is all, thanks for reading as always, and stay true to the game.
Fisheries are collapsed, hunting is no longer a way of life for the overwhelming majority, and factory farming is a soulless practice of agribusiness that stains the world in unhealthy shit, diseased blood, novel human/animal illnesses, and misery – not to mention fast food and all associated problems. Anyone who says differently is a corporate shill, an unapologetic ecocidal turd, a Scientific OptimistTM , or plainly ignorant. So, basically, the idea of further separating the populace from its food is the only one that wins out, and few people see the problem with it, as long as it prevents the cruel and bloody deaths of cute animals (which are often not that cute and generally die a sterilized, clinical death after a life of perfect, almost middle-class indolence and occasional active cruelty).
Meanwhile, we could source all of our protein, cheaply and very efficiently, from insects. We can still have a good cut of beef or chicken, but insect protein can cover, say, Monday to Thursday, and cheaply. It is a solution that has been staring us in the face since the dawn of time, but at some point our phobias overruled common sense and we stopped eating bugs. Now, in the 11th hour of a crisis hundreds of years in the making, we have once again proven that we can be smart, but never reasonable.
Easy living has eroded any sense of pragmatism we had, and instead of taking matters into our own hands we have pushed food further into the corporate fold and away from our own hands, which we are generally afraid to get dirty. Ethical neutrality is not worth the price, beyond which lies the fact that agribusiness is not going anywhere. Animals will continue to suffer for as long as they are profitable, agriculture will continue to desiccate and toxify the earth and 'pests', as well as anything nearby or downriver. A small cost to pay to ensure nature doesn't get anything intended for ourselves. But we're not selfish, and thinking otherwise is 'not realistic', sorry. Don't think about the dead lakes and rivers, or the dying oceans. Listen to the greenwashing machine and damn well heed how it is telling you not to worry. Or listen to the deafening silence of pop culture, I mean, who gives a fuck?
Then, when the rape of the earth has eliminated the chance of raising edible animals, food will move completely out of the reach of the populace and into the security of corporate production thanks to research potential generated today. Does it amplify the horror enough to know that not only are living creatures processed into competitively-priced foods, but that the process of raising the animal itself can be bypassed? Or is that ethical, to cut out the animal's contribution, while still eating of its flesh? Even the borderline sadistic systems in place today still have a beating heart, and the symbolic act is still committed, even though shrouded by the mystery of NDA contracts and secure facilities. Needless to say, vat-grown appeals to the people who can't stomach the current model. It stinks, though. If GMOs are freaky frankenfoods then Vat-Grown is undead zombiefood. No double standards.
However, that's life as an omnivorous mammal: you sometimes kill to eat. Then, because of a healthy omnivorous diet which includes hunting and foraging activity, you gain the mental acuity and leisure to reflect on the act of killing. You turn it into an art and thrive. Then, twenty thousand or more years later, you get to the point where the idea has been so over-thought, and the act so over politicized and perverted by industry, that it is no longer palatable or acceptable ('unless you stop worrying and start enjoying!'). Since it is the modern world, and a healthy respect for nature is not an option, the only cure remaining is to develop the technique of growing meat in a bloodless, clinical way, so that it dies apart from any animal, so that the vast stocks of commercial livestock can go into the history books and possibly extinction while we grow our mega cities and hoard terabytes of data per second and eat our ethically sourced protein loaves. The only thing better than eating beef once a week, shutting down most fast food outlets, and finding better sources of living protein is to make an undead mockery of flesh in a lab because we're too infantilized to give up our excesses and face the reality of cost and value.
Madness is what it is. The plan seems to be to abolish the cycle of life or at least further commodify it. Plants are living things that we kill all the time, without seeming to care a bit, and we also gorge ourselves on their sex organs, and that's acceptable – but killing a dog to eat is cruel and/or worthy of mockery? Eating ants, roaches, slugs, spiders... any of the bountiful and varied insect species is crazy, absurd? When the oceans are emptied, the air is full of cow farts, and land covered in pig and chicken shit? Farming insects cheaply, each house producing a few dozen pounds a month, each apartment growing a few pounds, plus enriching soil... no that's crazy. It's as crazy as razing the suburbs and growing traditional food there. What we need, obviously, is bloodless, ethical, lab-grown meat – it's never going to play into corporate or political power fantasies.
There is a parallel to this in drone warfare. Pure logic founded on historical fact (hahahaha) would assume that if a global conflict was not worth risking a soldier's life, it was not a conflict worth engaging in (hahahaha). If it was not popular enough to sustain casualties, it was not popular enough to be conducted by a democracy. But, you see, take out the aggressor's wasted lives, and the populace no longer has the ethical high-ground it is used to enjoying. Now, having made war bloodless for your country (and even more infuriating and hopeless for another) you get to kill with impunity, and the rage you generate can be explained as the unenlightened reaction of religious fanatics. The dissenters, domestic or otherwise, can be explained away as "DISLIKED POLITICAL GROUP" or "BIASED RABBLE ROUSER" while the insane reality of the situation continues to make life unpleasant or untenable for the rest.
"Why drink water when you can have a tasty Coca Cola? Probably because you're a mindless consumer – the New Livestock. Have we got some fantastic new products for you!"
Textual Note:
Hi there, I've been a little shrill, I admit, though I don't apologize for it. If the future of where and how humanity sources its food does not matter to you, you won't understand why I take the tone of alarmism. Obviously the whole thing is a bit sensationalistic... but so is the 'sustainability is for faggots' crowd, who are a bunch of despicable, small-minded wretches. Also, I think I've proven I have a great affinity for hyperbole. But please do remember that there are actual problems and that the future is uncertain, and that the current model of a disinterested public eating food created in a vacuum away from their sight is kind of fucked up, and could be changed for the better. Sorry if it wasn't funny/insightful/verified enough - I admit I am off my game. That is all, thanks for reading as always, and stay true to the game.
7/7/13
Spit on Apologists or Don't Stop Believing: The Decline of the Middle Ground
Before they kill all of the rest of us. There's been an ongoing crisis for the last ten or so years and you will be hearing about it soon. Anyone who pays attention to nature or depends on it for a living can tell you some things that will make you uneasy. Things that might even get you to rethink your casual, materially-prosperous, entitled and contented life in the Global Consumerist Utopia. Things like the decline of honeybees, songbirds, everything but rats and rodents, it seems. Of course it's all very far away from the sort of stuff the average person cares about, like earning enough to live, or, having succeeded at that, earning enough to prosper.
Yes, I don't mean to be snide or aggressive, but a lot of people in the world are living in a goddamn fantasy. Humanity as a whole is becoming a soulless horde of consumerists and apologists. Everyone remembers the clothing factory collapse in Bangladesh, right? Oh, that's right, it was swept under the rug by the inevitable march of time. But the apologists came out of the woodwork then, to protect the capitalist practices which 'create wealth and jobs' in the third world and 'victories for feminism'. Now, I'm not a card-carrying Feminist so I don't purport to speak for women, but I highly doubt that cheap labor and globalism are victories for women, or anyone besides executives and their slaves.
The scariest thing happening right now, besides the potential dawn of a long era of climate change, or the degradation of the environment, or the dawn of an invincible corpocracy, or even the total fucking of the world by trillion-dollar multinational corporations and their countless parasite offspring, or the emergence of well-funded self-deluded police states, or the fracturing of human society by internet individualism and sub/urban anomie... one of the scariest things happening is the collapse of honeybee populations. Google Colony Collapse Disorder for more information. Or ignore this information and go on running your mouth and taking everything for granted. Believe in the physically impossible unceasing growth of Capitalism.
I think it's one of the great ongoing stories of the last decade. I've been keeping a tally and I've seen exactly two bees in the last few days, and I am fairly sure it was the same bee both times. I have a cherry tree and this year's yield was tiny - probably because of the lack of bees and the fucked-up weather. You rarely hear anything about the bee situation, and you would have had to be paying attention to apply a good narrative to it. To be blunt about it: beehives are dying off, leading to potential food crisis and, worst case scenario, a cascade of extinctions. Lots of great, non-engineered foods are possible only because of the honeybee. Fruits and nuts and anything that eats them is directly endangered. Why? Any number of reasons, but a few are becoming more and more apparent: try agribusiness and their overuse of pesticides (which goes along nicely with the GMO Narrative, a pile of shit I will try to keep out of).
This story is fantastic because two groups of people I despise ignore it (and I'm not talking about the Consumerist Masses, even though they're despicable, dumb, and deranged): the pro-and-anti GMO people. Now, food production is very important in theory and practice. Anything that can feed more people using less land probably a good investment, but there is a bit of the old hubris in the practice of genetic engineering – at least it seems like there is. I'm sure there are good people working there, but good people have been pulled into every evil thing we have ever done as a species – without them the evil ones wouldn't be capable enough.
Hippies are annoying but corporates are just as shitty: and both are largely ignoring the bee crisis. I have no strong opinions on GMO crops, but I hate agribusiness, and I hate Monsanto, like any conscious person with a heartbeat. They always believe in fixing a problem with another problem, and they've never admitted to their faults. Caught in a powerful embrace with world governments, and too rich to be subject to the law, corporations have a mindset analogous to papal infallibility. That alone makes me hate them: they could feed the poor for a million years but there would still be suffering poor. Both sides go wet for politics, but they lose their rabid erections as soon as people insist on the truth.
You could argue agribusiness feeds us, but even in the first world people are going chronically hungry. The food supply is arranged for maximum additives, engineered products, and subsidies. Before food is wasted by the consumer, it is wasted by the restaurant, the supermarket, the factory, the government, or the farmer. People would tell you that this is bullshit spread by fatalistic idealists who don't really know what's happening. People who tell you these things are apologists, and they will also tell you that all is well in the third world, to trust in your local or federal police force, to keep a fixed address, and to make as much money as you possibly can. Because they don't want to be alone, and the people who pay them don't want to fall out of power, and those people you never meet end up with more of your money than you'd think.
I guess the story goes like this: we're humans and we have such big brains. We're so smart: we can't go wrong. We deserve our excesses, and we are close to the Most Prosperous Era in History, when all problems will fade away, but we have to keep believing in the capitalist, empirical, and statist precepts that brought us to this point. No abuse of science cannot be cured by another abuse of science. Nature needs our help. We can improve nature. We are smarter than billions of years. We are more powerful than the seasons. We can do anything. We can solve inequality. We can believe in hope and progress. We can buy anything, even health, even love, even happiness. In 20 years we will construct the first artificial souls. So who gives a fuck about declining bee populations? We can solve that with either more poison or robot bees, and nothing needs to change, and we're going to be alright: I bet you twenty thousand give-a-fuck-points that Monsanto already bought the solution to the problem they, aided by plenty of other short-sighted profiteers, created.
Who gives a fuck about traffic jams? Radioactive contaminants bouncing around for thousands of years, and millions of lifeforms? Who cares about an unstable, overleveraged, dangerous food supply? As long as there's food on the table, nobody will care about this one planet we have that we are pissing away. Think about that when you see some sweaty fuck in a car, getting angry at a traffic jam, burning thousands of units of energy just to be bored and frustrated. Then look at the next one, and so on, and so on, forever. Some day, our hungry and scarce distant descendants will look back to this era and wonder if we were even capable of feeling shame.
Yes, I don't mean to be snide or aggressive, but a lot of people in the world are living in a goddamn fantasy. Humanity as a whole is becoming a soulless horde of consumerists and apologists. Everyone remembers the clothing factory collapse in Bangladesh, right? Oh, that's right, it was swept under the rug by the inevitable march of time. But the apologists came out of the woodwork then, to protect the capitalist practices which 'create wealth and jobs' in the third world and 'victories for feminism'. Now, I'm not a card-carrying Feminist so I don't purport to speak for women, but I highly doubt that cheap labor and globalism are victories for women, or anyone besides executives and their slaves.
The scariest thing happening right now, besides the potential dawn of a long era of climate change, or the degradation of the environment, or the dawn of an invincible corpocracy, or even the total fucking of the world by trillion-dollar multinational corporations and their countless parasite offspring, or the emergence of well-funded self-deluded police states, or the fracturing of human society by internet individualism and sub/urban anomie... one of the scariest things happening is the collapse of honeybee populations. Google Colony Collapse Disorder for more information. Or ignore this information and go on running your mouth and taking everything for granted. Believe in the physically impossible unceasing growth of Capitalism.
I think it's one of the great ongoing stories of the last decade. I've been keeping a tally and I've seen exactly two bees in the last few days, and I am fairly sure it was the same bee both times. I have a cherry tree and this year's yield was tiny - probably because of the lack of bees and the fucked-up weather. You rarely hear anything about the bee situation, and you would have had to be paying attention to apply a good narrative to it. To be blunt about it: beehives are dying off, leading to potential food crisis and, worst case scenario, a cascade of extinctions. Lots of great, non-engineered foods are possible only because of the honeybee. Fruits and nuts and anything that eats them is directly endangered. Why? Any number of reasons, but a few are becoming more and more apparent: try agribusiness and their overuse of pesticides (which goes along nicely with the GMO Narrative, a pile of shit I will try to keep out of).
This story is fantastic because two groups of people I despise ignore it (and I'm not talking about the Consumerist Masses, even though they're despicable, dumb, and deranged): the pro-and-anti GMO people. Now, food production is very important in theory and practice. Anything that can feed more people using less land probably a good investment, but there is a bit of the old hubris in the practice of genetic engineering – at least it seems like there is. I'm sure there are good people working there, but good people have been pulled into every evil thing we have ever done as a species – without them the evil ones wouldn't be capable enough.
Hippies are annoying but corporates are just as shitty: and both are largely ignoring the bee crisis. I have no strong opinions on GMO crops, but I hate agribusiness, and I hate Monsanto, like any conscious person with a heartbeat. They always believe in fixing a problem with another problem, and they've never admitted to their faults. Caught in a powerful embrace with world governments, and too rich to be subject to the law, corporations have a mindset analogous to papal infallibility. That alone makes me hate them: they could feed the poor for a million years but there would still be suffering poor. Both sides go wet for politics, but they lose their rabid erections as soon as people insist on the truth.
You could argue agribusiness feeds us, but even in the first world people are going chronically hungry. The food supply is arranged for maximum additives, engineered products, and subsidies. Before food is wasted by the consumer, it is wasted by the restaurant, the supermarket, the factory, the government, or the farmer. People would tell you that this is bullshit spread by fatalistic idealists who don't really know what's happening. People who tell you these things are apologists, and they will also tell you that all is well in the third world, to trust in your local or federal police force, to keep a fixed address, and to make as much money as you possibly can. Because they don't want to be alone, and the people who pay them don't want to fall out of power, and those people you never meet end up with more of your money than you'd think.
I guess the story goes like this: we're humans and we have such big brains. We're so smart: we can't go wrong. We deserve our excesses, and we are close to the Most Prosperous Era in History, when all problems will fade away, but we have to keep believing in the capitalist, empirical, and statist precepts that brought us to this point. No abuse of science cannot be cured by another abuse of science. Nature needs our help. We can improve nature. We are smarter than billions of years. We are more powerful than the seasons. We can do anything. We can solve inequality. We can believe in hope and progress. We can buy anything, even health, even love, even happiness. In 20 years we will construct the first artificial souls. So who gives a fuck about declining bee populations? We can solve that with either more poison or robot bees, and nothing needs to change, and we're going to be alright: I bet you twenty thousand give-a-fuck-points that Monsanto already bought the solution to the problem they, aided by plenty of other short-sighted profiteers, created.
Who gives a fuck about traffic jams? Radioactive contaminants bouncing around for thousands of years, and millions of lifeforms? Who cares about an unstable, overleveraged, dangerous food supply? As long as there's food on the table, nobody will care about this one planet we have that we are pissing away. Think about that when you see some sweaty fuck in a car, getting angry at a traffic jam, burning thousands of units of energy just to be bored and frustrated. Then look at the next one, and so on, and so on, forever. Some day, our hungry and scarce distant descendants will look back to this era and wonder if we were even capable of feeling shame.
12/12/12
That Time of The Year, Pt.2 : Based on a True Story
In 2011 this rule held true: if it was December there were a lot of movies coming out 'based on true stories'. I feel like 'based on a true story' is the sort of phrase that deserves to always be put in quotes. It stands out. I remember going to a theater and seeing two or three 'based on a true story' movies. Could be my memory is destroyed. You can check for yourself in many ways, I'm sure, but I will provide one.
I guess seeing a fabulous movie with roots in the mundane, grimy, desperate reality of life is a heart-warming thing. It's not terrible. You can't simply hate the story for being insipid or unbelievable. However, you can throw shovelfuls of shit onto the screenplay, script, and performances. I'm not one for 'true story' movies myself, but I can see the appeal. Recent Denzel vehicle Flight was also allegedly 'based on a true story' in the trailers. There is some discussion about that. Again, maybe my memory is shot.
It seems to me, after some reflection, that the winter months and the final weeks of autumn is the key season for 'based on a true story' movies. I guess film-goers need their hearts warmed, too. I will include in this discussion biographical films. I saw The Master this year in an independent cinema in late November. It fits the bill, even though the movie was released much earlier. I just wanted to say that I watched a movie. Was it good? Hell yeah it was interesting. I've never seen such a good, unbiased movie about Scientology in my life. The word 'Scientology' isn't even used once, as far as I know, in the movie. That's brilliant. L. Ron Hubbard is renamed. It's a work of art. Drags a bit. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in it and he's a masterful actor who positively keeps the damn thing going.
But I digress. Take one of recent history's most successful and critically lauded Milk, which was released on November 26, 2008. It was a movie 'based on a true story' and some might have called it a 'biographical film' or even a 'biopic'. I'm more or less an idiot, but even I can see this trend. I won't go ahead and say December is peak month for this type of movie, but it is certainly roughly in the middle. It is the median month for 'based on true story' entertainment.
Though, following this line of reasoning, every war movie ever made is 'based on a true story' and most crime movies as well. Then, let's get existential and very post-modern critical and just say that every movie and every book and every narrative ever is 'based on a true story'. Most music is probably born along those lines. Everything creative is partly 'based on a true story'. This is problematic, because I mean a specific type of feel-good, heartwarming, nonthreatening, almost unconscious type of movie. The type that would star Sandra Bullock and a minority actor, and you'd find your girlfriend watching it late one evening – absorbed, transported, and entirely quiet. Why can't she be like that when Ted is playing?
Except that movie with Sandra Bullock is not really so unconscious. I feel bad for considering it problematic. It's probably legitimately progressive, and probably has integrity as a work of art, as a consumer product, and as a social statement. I don't actually know, though. I never saw it. All I know is that, apparently, it was based on a true story, and according to that logic probably came out between mid-November and late-February.
I guess seeing a fabulous movie with roots in the mundane, grimy, desperate reality of life is a heart-warming thing. It's not terrible. You can't simply hate the story for being insipid or unbelievable. However, you can throw shovelfuls of shit onto the screenplay, script, and performances. I'm not one for 'true story' movies myself, but I can see the appeal. Recent Denzel vehicle Flight was also allegedly 'based on a true story' in the trailers. There is some discussion about that. Again, maybe my memory is shot.
It seems to me, after some reflection, that the winter months and the final weeks of autumn is the key season for 'based on a true story' movies. I guess film-goers need their hearts warmed, too. I will include in this discussion biographical films. I saw The Master this year in an independent cinema in late November. It fits the bill, even though the movie was released much earlier. I just wanted to say that I watched a movie. Was it good? Hell yeah it was interesting. I've never seen such a good, unbiased movie about Scientology in my life. The word 'Scientology' isn't even used once, as far as I know, in the movie. That's brilliant. L. Ron Hubbard is renamed. It's a work of art. Drags a bit. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in it and he's a masterful actor who positively keeps the damn thing going.
But I digress. Take one of recent history's most successful and critically lauded Milk, which was released on November 26, 2008. It was a movie 'based on a true story' and some might have called it a 'biographical film' or even a 'biopic'. I'm more or less an idiot, but even I can see this trend. I won't go ahead and say December is peak month for this type of movie, but it is certainly roughly in the middle. It is the median month for 'based on true story' entertainment.
Though, following this line of reasoning, every war movie ever made is 'based on a true story' and most crime movies as well. Then, let's get existential and very post-modern critical and just say that every movie and every book and every narrative ever is 'based on a true story'. Most music is probably born along those lines. Everything creative is partly 'based on a true story'. This is problematic, because I mean a specific type of feel-good, heartwarming, nonthreatening, almost unconscious type of movie. The type that would star Sandra Bullock and a minority actor, and you'd find your girlfriend watching it late one evening – absorbed, transported, and entirely quiet. Why can't she be like that when Ted is playing?
Except that movie with Sandra Bullock is not really so unconscious. I feel bad for considering it problematic. It's probably legitimately progressive, and probably has integrity as a work of art, as a consumer product, and as a social statement. I don't actually know, though. I never saw it. All I know is that, apparently, it was based on a true story, and according to that logic probably came out between mid-November and late-February.
10/18/12
Bookishness Reloaded
50 Shades of Grey and its ilk have been on the bestseller lists all year. Really long now and I'm wondering about it. They've basically made it a place for them to hang out. I don't know how any serious watchers of the bestseller list feel about it. I don't even know if there are serious watchers of the bestseller lists. I suppose, ultimately, there should be a few, and none of them should be surprised by what generally hangs out there. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with what hangs out there.
The whole 50 Shades debacle is the latest of an entire series of its kind. The ecosystem of modern publishing doesn't strike one as exclusively healthy – but there's nothing wrong with it, per se. Or so one thinks, ultimately the nonfiction lists aren't really super hopeful either. But there's also sometimes interesting stuff. Whether or not it's brewed by committee, exploits the zeitgeist, and has 'buzz' and 'word of mouth' and 'traction' are the great indicators of sales. Commercial success nullifies critical success and proves the naysayers wrong, inept, and out of touch. Or it should/might/doesn't, depending on how you feel about unlimited free market, incorporated.
The funny thing is, in this era dictionaries have actually created entries on mots célèbre that have no longevity or ultimate worth. I'm looking at you, 'frenemy'. The news crowed joyously about frenemy and friends getting into Webster and Oxford for the better part of a week, probably more than 12 months ago now. What increases the hilarity factor is that the conservative book set (most publishers, consumers, etc) actually sees the potential for twitter literature as a good thing. They might shit if it was considered to switch to a pure paperless market (which is sort of a scary idea when one considers it), but they will fill their own pages with the sort of meaningless colloquial twaddle that has no fundamental role in language. The white noise of language and of literature, and the much hyped 'echo chamber' effect of Twitter is involved somehow. Publishers bank on books that are too big to fail and they go to town whenever some book becomes so important that everyone needs a copy right now. They aim to remain relevant as opposed to fundamental. Language skills and general output are fucked enough without a neoliberal approach to neologisms.
So if you really think about the situation as it stands, the publishing ecosystem is a bit like every other large-scale market ecosystem: some smaller companies, independent organizations, and identities cling to the vestiges with varying success; by and large it consists of gigantic entities producing essentially a monoculture. So what? The incredible size and awesome power of these entities is something that should inspire us, their offerings are delivered with unthinkable force to vast numbers, on a scale that was relatively recently unthinkable. This is no minor business, even this allegedly 'dying' publishing industry.
There exists more written word than can be reliably processed by any one person. This condition is hardly new or revelatory, but it seems worth mentioning no matter how many thousands of years it's been true. Seeing as the human world still exists, and written word is still very essential to its development and even survival, the immense pile of written work should not merely be considered refuse. Some of it obviously stinks, but it's necessary.
Still. At this advanced stage the offerings aren't always on the level. The fact that one book hangs onto a bestseller list for months, in one country, means that not enough books are being shared, or that the market isn't dynamic enough, or anything because its actual value cannot be the ultimate monetary sum represented by its time on the bestseller lists. All of which is beside the point, I know.
The whole 50 Shades debacle is the latest of an entire series of its kind. The ecosystem of modern publishing doesn't strike one as exclusively healthy – but there's nothing wrong with it, per se. Or so one thinks, ultimately the nonfiction lists aren't really super hopeful either. But there's also sometimes interesting stuff. Whether or not it's brewed by committee, exploits the zeitgeist, and has 'buzz' and 'word of mouth' and 'traction' are the great indicators of sales. Commercial success nullifies critical success and proves the naysayers wrong, inept, and out of touch. Or it should/might/doesn't, depending on how you feel about unlimited free market, incorporated.
The funny thing is, in this era dictionaries have actually created entries on mots célèbre that have no longevity or ultimate worth. I'm looking at you, 'frenemy'. The news crowed joyously about frenemy and friends getting into Webster and Oxford for the better part of a week, probably more than 12 months ago now. What increases the hilarity factor is that the conservative book set (most publishers, consumers, etc) actually sees the potential for twitter literature as a good thing. They might shit if it was considered to switch to a pure paperless market (which is sort of a scary idea when one considers it), but they will fill their own pages with the sort of meaningless colloquial twaddle that has no fundamental role in language. The white noise of language and of literature, and the much hyped 'echo chamber' effect of Twitter is involved somehow. Publishers bank on books that are too big to fail and they go to town whenever some book becomes so important that everyone needs a copy right now. They aim to remain relevant as opposed to fundamental. Language skills and general output are fucked enough without a neoliberal approach to neologisms.
So if you really think about the situation as it stands, the publishing ecosystem is a bit like every other large-scale market ecosystem: some smaller companies, independent organizations, and identities cling to the vestiges with varying success; by and large it consists of gigantic entities producing essentially a monoculture. So what? The incredible size and awesome power of these entities is something that should inspire us, their offerings are delivered with unthinkable force to vast numbers, on a scale that was relatively recently unthinkable. This is no minor business, even this allegedly 'dying' publishing industry.
There exists more written word than can be reliably processed by any one person. This condition is hardly new or revelatory, but it seems worth mentioning no matter how many thousands of years it's been true. Seeing as the human world still exists, and written word is still very essential to its development and even survival, the immense pile of written work should not merely be considered refuse. Some of it obviously stinks, but it's necessary.
Still. At this advanced stage the offerings aren't always on the level. The fact that one book hangs onto a bestseller list for months, in one country, means that not enough books are being shared, or that the market isn't dynamic enough, or anything because its actual value cannot be the ultimate monetary sum represented by its time on the bestseller lists. All of which is beside the point, I know.
5/9/12
Recent News Suggests that the Swiss are Idiots Too
Recent news suggests that the Swiss, long known for looking down at other countries for wars and stupid decisions, have a tendency to be pretty stupid, too. Having a rave at a zoo is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, since any legit raves take place in abandoned warehouses or vampire nightclubs.
Stupid event planning like this is bound to lead to problems. This story wouldn't even have existed in a rational world organized by logical thinkers and responsible adults. However... c'est la vie.
The dummy crowd have claimed another two victims, which weren't even human, at literally the dumbest possible event. There were few other outcomes than dead animals and a shocked public. The User Comment Rodeo v1.2x instantly pinged the most interesting and unthinkable response, which I felt compelled to post here so as to offer context:
This scathing, ignorant, and extremely stupid post basically reflects all the many things that are wrong with the story. These animals didn't belong in Switzerland – at all. But whatever, animals in captivity should be allowed to live fruitless and unfulfilling lives for the entertainment of religious wieners who believe that animals in captivity are precious and that there's nothing wrong with harvesting a few for the benefit of the public.
On the other hand this post is obviously a troll, from the double-single-standard animal abuse refrain that the evildoers be made to suffer to the same extent of their animal victims. Fucking dolphins overdosed at a rave. This world is evidently a few idiots away from a critical mass of stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence that will likely remain unnoticed for years.
Some Swiss losers deserve to have their drugs taken away from them, forever, for attending this insane farce of an event. The fools who organized this event should have their event-planning licenses revoked in perpetuity. The zoo is obviously going to buy two new dolphins and I'm sorry for their loss, even if I don't agree with their policies or whoever vetted this insane rave.
Stupid event planning like this is bound to lead to problems. This story wouldn't even have existed in a rational world organized by logical thinkers and responsible adults. However... c'est la vie.
The dummy crowd have claimed another two victims, which weren't even human, at literally the dumbest possible event. There were few other outcomes than dead animals and a shocked public. The User Comment Rodeo v1.2x instantly pinged the most interesting and unthinkable response, which I felt compelled to post here so as to offer context:
This scathing, ignorant, and extremely stupid post basically reflects all the many things that are wrong with the story. These animals didn't belong in Switzerland – at all. But whatever, animals in captivity should be allowed to live fruitless and unfulfilling lives for the entertainment of religious wieners who believe that animals in captivity are precious and that there's nothing wrong with harvesting a few for the benefit of the public.
On the other hand this post is obviously a troll, from the double-single-standard animal abuse refrain that the evildoers be made to suffer to the same extent of their animal victims. Fucking dolphins overdosed at a rave. This world is evidently a few idiots away from a critical mass of stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence that will likely remain unnoticed for years.
Some Swiss losers deserve to have their drugs taken away from them, forever, for attending this insane farce of an event. The fools who organized this event should have their event-planning licenses revoked in perpetuity. The zoo is obviously going to buy two new dolphins and I'm sorry for their loss, even if I don't agree with their policies or whoever vetted this insane rave.
12/21/11
The Fate of the Book
So much very subtle and quiet hype about the end of the bound stack of paper sheets known as 'the book'. There have been many books over the years, and I think everyone can agree that they were not always perfect, nor ever had an overwhelming reputation for improving the world. But there's a certain something to books and even if they are dying, take heart: our generation will be able to come by books cheaply for the duration of our existence, unless they begin burning bales of books.
If the global stock of books is significantly destroyed in the next twenty years, or publishing is severely repressed by economic or colluded forces, then at the very least books will have predicted that. Basic reading and communication skills will not likely be replaced, so language will continue, and the flow of ideas will merely take on another, potentially better form. Or our eyes will atrophy from an unmitigated hegemony of digital screens, flashing lights, and confused information.
Maybe there will be a tidal-wave of information in the future which will overwhelm us. Maybe it will get the better of us. We could be changed forever.
Or the book could go on well into the future, as some type of elitist symbol that nobody understands. Probably this view of the book's future is already some cliche that has been analyzed and exploited in hundreds of books. Maybe the book will suffer a renaissance in a few years, or maybe all the news sensationalism and existential dawdling will come to naught, and the book will be as ubiquitous and burdensome as ever – perhaps forever.
In the end, if it goes, the memory of the book will either be exterminated, merely forgotten, or enshrined by some freakish bibliophilia committee as the centerpoint of some futurist, knowledge-based cargo cult. And however it goes, the book will remain as at least a symbol.
But in the meantime there is all kinds of mawkishness about books and print media in general. It seems that the publication industry gets more fatalistic while the technology industry fills with empty hype. There is no real confrontation between the two industries. Largely, the recent history of the matter is that the print industry has had to accept and learn to work with tech, gadget, and electronics industries. It's not really the same as the music industry and the internet, though there are similarities.
So these publishers and maybe even some bibliophiles are very worried and the internet is very unconcerned. That's basically the gist of the story. In my mind television, the postal service, and radio are the real danger zones, and they're still around more than ten years after the internet. Writing killed or perverted most oral tradition anyway, so whatever happens at this point is fair and not unprecedented.
If the global stock of books is significantly destroyed in the next twenty years, or publishing is severely repressed by economic or colluded forces, then at the very least books will have predicted that. Basic reading and communication skills will not likely be replaced, so language will continue, and the flow of ideas will merely take on another, potentially better form. Or our eyes will atrophy from an unmitigated hegemony of digital screens, flashing lights, and confused information.
Maybe there will be a tidal-wave of information in the future which will overwhelm us. Maybe it will get the better of us. We could be changed forever.
Or the book could go on well into the future, as some type of elitist symbol that nobody understands. Probably this view of the book's future is already some cliche that has been analyzed and exploited in hundreds of books. Maybe the book will suffer a renaissance in a few years, or maybe all the news sensationalism and existential dawdling will come to naught, and the book will be as ubiquitous and burdensome as ever – perhaps forever.
In the end, if it goes, the memory of the book will either be exterminated, merely forgotten, or enshrined by some freakish bibliophilia committee as the centerpoint of some futurist, knowledge-based cargo cult. And however it goes, the book will remain as at least a symbol.
But in the meantime there is all kinds of mawkishness about books and print media in general. It seems that the publication industry gets more fatalistic while the technology industry fills with empty hype. There is no real confrontation between the two industries. Largely, the recent history of the matter is that the print industry has had to accept and learn to work with tech, gadget, and electronics industries. It's not really the same as the music industry and the internet, though there are similarities.
So these publishers and maybe even some bibliophiles are very worried and the internet is very unconcerned. That's basically the gist of the story. In my mind television, the postal service, and radio are the real danger zones, and they're still around more than ten years after the internet. Writing killed or perverted most oral tradition anyway, so whatever happens at this point is fair and not unprecedented.
1/28/11
Harmless News Story or Intentionally Downplayed Opportunity for Ethical Boycott?
A story I happened to read today developed serious undertones of 'Age of Indifference' malaise in less than five minutes. The first embarrassing part of the story is that, while the article is posted in the 'Diversions 'n Oddities' section, it's a story about drug catapults on the Arizona-Mexico border. This has to be some kind of lesson in provincialism in news reporting, right? This is better than indifference. This is global indifference in the two best flavours: national and international.
Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.
The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.
What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.
Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.
So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.
Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.
For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact:
Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.
The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.
What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.
Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.
So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.
Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.
For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)