This is Jack Layton all over again. The honorable Jim Flaherty was pretty much the only guy in the entire CPC (the much maligned party of the machine-like Stephen Harper administration) who was well liked and at least as competent as he was respected. In terms of fiscal policy he was a latter day Paul Martin, holding together a country with a problematic and potentially dim economic future. Here's to Jim Flaherty, the man who killed the penny, kept a large and diverse country from falling apart during a deep and cutting recession, and who wasn't afraid to lash his raft to a ridiculous flotilla of egoistic idiots and domineering mutants as long as it allowed him a chance to do what was right and important to him: balancing the books. If you've not heard yet: he died earlier today. Cue elegies.
It is a sobering thing that came out of the blue, happening just as Canadian politics were ripe for wagers, with staffers getting kicked out the back door of parliament in the dead of night, victims of failed power-grabs. A new reason for MPs to cry openly in the streets and alleyways of Ottawa. A real downer, reminding the people of Canada that there is always a cost, that happy endings can be few and far between amidst the cocaine and scandal of the political class. Without a likeable character or strong finance minister, the Conservative Party of Canada will be frantic – moreso than usual – to grasp at some kind of legitimacy, even as it comes to light that just about everyone in the party (with the exception of the late Mr. Flaherty, and maybe Prime Minister Harper) was wasting taxpayer money, scheming corrupt acts, contemptuous of the public, or doing anything other than being constructive or humble.
I want to pay my respects to the man who was really the hallowed minority of likeable Canadian Conservatives, one who put duty above ideology, and the only one who transcended the ingrained curmudgeonliness of the role to be a real public servant without flogging any personal brand or becoming self-righteous or mad with power. Whatever else his shortcomings, he didn't fuck up the country and its people will be universally thankful for his service and sorry for his early and sudden passing. He did his work as well as he could, and balanced the budget against all odds, leaving an improved situation for his successors. Three weeks ago, when he stepped down as finance minister, the word on the street was his decision was prompted by bad news or bad health, or maybe the coming apocalypse. Likely it was a combination of the former two issues, and he understandably took it as a sign that he had to take time for himself while he could.
I'm no expert and I didn't know the him,. I'm a sloppy blogger from an indeterminate but probably English-speaking area of the world. I only knew a few things about him because of his role in the awesome political landscape of Canada, and I draw my conclusions from that scenery. I get the sense he enjoyed his job, and he certainly did it credit. I don't want to be mawkish, because he was a committed and diligent realist and probably scoffed at mawkishness. Still, it must be said that the silver lining of a cloudy era has died with him; an entire country is left a little poorer in both the literal and figurative sense of the word. However it must also be said that economic solvency came at the price of personal well-being – he was at least in part the victim of overwork at the altar of the system he served – a warning, perhaps, that all that glitters is not gold, even in the kingdom of the complacent consumer. It couldn't have been a stress-free run, though: it could've been any combination of things but that.
As the media goes on about him, others' condolences and heartening anecdotes about him, the life story of a fiscal champion, etc, the ultimate message, one that even Flaherty might've missed, will likely slip by under the radar. Anyway, that's my meandering, steaming, obligatory mess of an article, which I felt was necessary given this event, which will be overblown and played out by the Canadian media anyhow (and generally cursorily reported or underreported by international media), and I spinelessly contribute white noise for digital cyber-hit numbers which justify my likely sad existence, but that's how it is when you have ideas about a great HST-esque return to political analysis and the rug gets pulled out from under you and there hasn't been anything posted to the old blog in a while.
(Dimitri Soudas being kicked unceremoniously out of the PMO, and his ex-pageant wife being a bit of an entitled, selfish bitch is funny news that could make for some great analysis, but the planned article on that might never come to light after today.)
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
11/5/13
Let us Get Huffy and Rejoice in our Doomedness: I, Rambler II
Amidst the rise of surveillance/police states that are no longer just pre-Arab Spring/Classified/Cold War throwbacks (thanks Chelsea Manning) one gets the sense that, as a species, we have gotten no closer to regaining our collective shit than at any point since the Agricultural Revolution. I've become very well acquainted with the sensation of a rapidly accelerating crisis. It's a bit like the Fukushima Daiichi reactor 1 shortly after the tsunami smashed the facilities, when it lay destroyed, creeping by steady degrees out of control... the edifice of control revealed as the folly of unreal maniacs, watched by clueless and frightened idiots, the situation only tempered by the courage and knowledge of those who were once considered alarmist, disposable, and ignorable.
Nobody wants to curb the debilitating spread of convenience consumerism. There is lots of talk. Everyone seems stupefied about the political landscape. We waste our breath to summarize it. Nothing distinguishes our era more than waste. Businesses, governments, and shills are all absolutely overjoyed to be part of a world economy that is premised on the insane principle of unlimited growth on a shrinking planet, of the useless squandering of resources. Profit is king, and governments are its thrall. Moderates are toothless, the countercultures are all dead or miniscule, the relentless march of progress goes on, shitting where we eat and belching poison fumes into the air we breathe. Human potential is squandered and used up at the same rate: who can blame the junkies now? The capitalists stand unchallenged, they who were as evil and soulless as the communist exploiters they reviled and nearly destroyed the world to curb. In the most powerful country in the world, host to the most powerful multinationals you can't even begin to imagine, a corporation is legally equivalent to a person.
The junkies, at least, are honest in their self-destructive pursuits, and probably contribute less to wastage than the respectable classes of citizen-consumers, whose per capita throughput of plastic garbage is enough to bury an entire small property each and every year. Let's not even get into energy or food waste. The wealthy are smug and spit on the middle class, who smugly spit on the working class, who wearily spit on the working poor, who accidentally spit on the destitute. Respect is rarely earned or given to or from any of 'the little people'. Respect is a commodity. Self-interest in the age of individualism has led only to the abandonment of societal and individual progress. Self-denial is less than a relic: it is the ghost of an unheard-of type of human... all else is myth but gratification. We will become lower apes yet, at this pace, while the descendants of humanity spit on us, completing the cycle. Likely they will be too cruel and abstracted to actively exterminate our relict populations.
And in this atmosphere of toxic and vile and inhuman activity, is it really any wonder that cruelty and hatred grow freely? Is it any wonder that laws cannot protect people from themselves, or children from each other? The people who are surprised by the modern world are obviously blind to what it really is. I can't blame anyone for being a junkie, a consumerist whore, or willfully ignorant and distracted (three increasingly similar things) and there are not many who can lay blame for it. What is important is that the entire situation of the world is becoming too alarming, is growing too quickly, and is passing far too quickly out of the hands of common people (you know, the abused slaves and serfs of yesteryear, who stood to gain the most from modernity and progress). With technology as a crutch it is very tempting to see the next generations of humanity as nothing but unnecessary, mentally-truncated cripples ruled by a new aristocracy.
"There is bad, yes, but there is also good in the world." I never declared that hope was dead, I was suggesting that hope itself is currently as endangered as any crumbling, over-harvested species in any pillaged environment. Things like OWS just alienate hope from reality. There are not enough skeptics and too many cynics, but both are outnumbered by shills and apologists. I'd take the world's bitterest cynic over any shill apologist - I prefer honesty to optimism where my entire species, its homeworld, and its livelihood are in question. Nobody has successfully taught the lesson of unity without coercion... true moral and philosophic problems go unanswered while we charge into the minutest details of quantum physics. Values are changing, but you ought to get top value for your dollar. We should take something back, even at this late point, to prove to our doomed descendants that we were not just fickle, feckless, fussy cowards with fine words and utopian ideals.
We are shocked and offended that nature would take anything back that we gleaned from it. Yet, we come from it, and owe our all to it. This is absurd. We consider ourselves entitled to pillage not 'the environment' alone but in fact all of life which we commonly see as nothing but a means to wealth, contentment, and satisfaction. We do not treasure or honor life for its own sake and therefore we will not solve the pathological behaviors behind the ecological and social problems we claim to want to solve. Mostly we have failed to understand nature... we force it into models and theories instead of learning from it. We hate the idea of nature reclaiming its 10% so much that we will stop at no lengths, not even poisoning ourselves, to prevent a weed from growing or an insect from feeding. Meanwhile we make such noise about unborn babies that our callousness in other regards seems schizophrenic.
Why wouldn't I hide in a narcotic haze, or try to buy my way to peace of mind (irony!), or even kill myself? More and more I have no answer, can barely see around myself, and realize that awareness is no substitution for action, for a coherent response to an increasingly incoherent world. It's a pity that radicals are marginalized to the point where they have no alternatives and tiny audiences. It's a pity that the only moderates who are allowed to speak are the ones telling us that we have done no wrong, that we have nothing to regret and a bright future. It's a pity no side in any of the day's big arguments has any respect, any foresight, any capacity to entertain alternative world-views. I guess I should give in, and just passively wait to be subsumed in the coming wave of tech-oligarch globalist worthlessness and wretchedness, into the hopeless and shit hell we deserve, into the ongoing death of the world we barely knew. Lambs for slaughter: I tell you I wouldn't mind being a child again...
Nobody wants to curb the debilitating spread of convenience consumerism. There is lots of talk. Everyone seems stupefied about the political landscape. We waste our breath to summarize it. Nothing distinguishes our era more than waste. Businesses, governments, and shills are all absolutely overjoyed to be part of a world economy that is premised on the insane principle of unlimited growth on a shrinking planet, of the useless squandering of resources. Profit is king, and governments are its thrall. Moderates are toothless, the countercultures are all dead or miniscule, the relentless march of progress goes on, shitting where we eat and belching poison fumes into the air we breathe. Human potential is squandered and used up at the same rate: who can blame the junkies now? The capitalists stand unchallenged, they who were as evil and soulless as the communist exploiters they reviled and nearly destroyed the world to curb. In the most powerful country in the world, host to the most powerful multinationals you can't even begin to imagine, a corporation is legally equivalent to a person.
The junkies, at least, are honest in their self-destructive pursuits, and probably contribute less to wastage than the respectable classes of citizen-consumers, whose per capita throughput of plastic garbage is enough to bury an entire small property each and every year. Let's not even get into energy or food waste. The wealthy are smug and spit on the middle class, who smugly spit on the working class, who wearily spit on the working poor, who accidentally spit on the destitute. Respect is rarely earned or given to or from any of 'the little people'. Respect is a commodity. Self-interest in the age of individualism has led only to the abandonment of societal and individual progress. Self-denial is less than a relic: it is the ghost of an unheard-of type of human... all else is myth but gratification. We will become lower apes yet, at this pace, while the descendants of humanity spit on us, completing the cycle. Likely they will be too cruel and abstracted to actively exterminate our relict populations.
And in this atmosphere of toxic and vile and inhuman activity, is it really any wonder that cruelty and hatred grow freely? Is it any wonder that laws cannot protect people from themselves, or children from each other? The people who are surprised by the modern world are obviously blind to what it really is. I can't blame anyone for being a junkie, a consumerist whore, or willfully ignorant and distracted (three increasingly similar things) and there are not many who can lay blame for it. What is important is that the entire situation of the world is becoming too alarming, is growing too quickly, and is passing far too quickly out of the hands of common people (you know, the abused slaves and serfs of yesteryear, who stood to gain the most from modernity and progress). With technology as a crutch it is very tempting to see the next generations of humanity as nothing but unnecessary, mentally-truncated cripples ruled by a new aristocracy.
"There is bad, yes, but there is also good in the world." I never declared that hope was dead, I was suggesting that hope itself is currently as endangered as any crumbling, over-harvested species in any pillaged environment. Things like OWS just alienate hope from reality. There are not enough skeptics and too many cynics, but both are outnumbered by shills and apologists. I'd take the world's bitterest cynic over any shill apologist - I prefer honesty to optimism where my entire species, its homeworld, and its livelihood are in question. Nobody has successfully taught the lesson of unity without coercion... true moral and philosophic problems go unanswered while we charge into the minutest details of quantum physics. Values are changing, but you ought to get top value for your dollar. We should take something back, even at this late point, to prove to our doomed descendants that we were not just fickle, feckless, fussy cowards with fine words and utopian ideals.
We are shocked and offended that nature would take anything back that we gleaned from it. Yet, we come from it, and owe our all to it. This is absurd. We consider ourselves entitled to pillage not 'the environment' alone but in fact all of life which we commonly see as nothing but a means to wealth, contentment, and satisfaction. We do not treasure or honor life for its own sake and therefore we will not solve the pathological behaviors behind the ecological and social problems we claim to want to solve. Mostly we have failed to understand nature... we force it into models and theories instead of learning from it. We hate the idea of nature reclaiming its 10% so much that we will stop at no lengths, not even poisoning ourselves, to prevent a weed from growing or an insect from feeding. Meanwhile we make such noise about unborn babies that our callousness in other regards seems schizophrenic.
Why wouldn't I hide in a narcotic haze, or try to buy my way to peace of mind (irony!), or even kill myself? More and more I have no answer, can barely see around myself, and realize that awareness is no substitution for action, for a coherent response to an increasingly incoherent world. It's a pity that radicals are marginalized to the point where they have no alternatives and tiny audiences. It's a pity that the only moderates who are allowed to speak are the ones telling us that we have done no wrong, that we have nothing to regret and a bright future. It's a pity no side in any of the day's big arguments has any respect, any foresight, any capacity to entertain alternative world-views. I guess I should give in, and just passively wait to be subsumed in the coming wave of tech-oligarch globalist worthlessness and wretchedness, into the hopeless and shit hell we deserve, into the ongoing death of the world we barely knew. Lambs for slaughter: I tell you I wouldn't mind being a child again...
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.
7/29/13
An Addendum To 'Wikipedia Style Guide': RoboCop Remake
During my brief research for the Wikipedia Style Guide article (which could've been better) I discovered that there is a planned release of a new RoboCop in 2014. Let the wrongness of a fucking RoboCop remake sink in for a moment. It doesn't feel good, does it? I mean, the RoboCop sequels were themselves inexcusable but inevitable, given the era in which they were made. The remake is even more inevitable, really, by the same ratiocination. I shouldn't be surprised in the least, except I rarely see movies at theaters, let alone the multiplexes that screen the impressive trailers of the next generation of big and dumb or deep and profound who-gives-a-fucks*.
I suppose I'm an idiot to object, but the remaking of a solid 80's masterpiece in the corporate wasteland of the 21st century which it was originally set in seems wrong to me on a fundamental level. It's almost a twisting of physical laws, as if a yottoscopic black hole passed through my mind while I had a perverse thought about how weird a relation it would be, and then via singularity that thought manifested itself as part of reality, or as possibility in minds close to the film industry. It's that weird to me. It's like the manifestation of a nightmare – but that's essentially what the world has been, behind the scenes at least, for my entire life and probably all other humans as well... which is the point of entertainment.
Overstatement. It's more fun than saying that a bunch of hacks want to release a new movie based on an old concept, as if they have anything meaningful to add to a concept they're borrowing for lack of inspiration. Profit trumping history. I guess that's what it is to live in 2013. Detroit is actually declaring bankruptcy (check out RoboCop 2 if you think I'm schizoid) and cocaine is as big a problem in America as ever, to the point where they either need to construct many real-life RoboCops (as well as a small army of ED-209s) to stop the trafficking or just let it win and stop making a fuss.
I don't want to be the wanker who says that a movie was 'eerily prescient' about 'modern society' because RoboCop was eerily contemporary about 80's culture and eerily great in every possible way, but movies aren't prophets and that particular one was only proven right because of the sheer amount of subliminal and/or retrograde insight the movie possesses. I bet the remake will make multiple references to drones. I am told that's a bet I'm not allowed to make. Mark my words: fuck RoboCop 2014, that shit ain't right.
"Get ready for a hip, new RoboCop who understands EDM music and doesn't mind a bromance... or two!"
It boggles my mind, and then along comes this fucking remake which I'm sure can safely be judged on what kind of car the new RoboCop drives. Probably written by committee, guided by fuckers, and destined to be a grave insult to the spirit of the original in every possible way. Corporate slickness, top-40 EDM song in the trailer, GFX up the ass, possible box-office hit, dialogue from idiot hell, blood-curdlingly dumb and sensationalistic in every way... I'd buy that for a dollar and so will you!
I suppose I'm an idiot to object, but the remaking of a solid 80's masterpiece in the corporate wasteland of the 21st century which it was originally set in seems wrong to me on a fundamental level. It's almost a twisting of physical laws, as if a yottoscopic black hole passed through my mind while I had a perverse thought about how weird a relation it would be, and then via singularity that thought manifested itself as part of reality, or as possibility in minds close to the film industry. It's that weird to me. It's like the manifestation of a nightmare – but that's essentially what the world has been, behind the scenes at least, for my entire life and probably all other humans as well... which is the point of entertainment.
Overstatement. It's more fun than saying that a bunch of hacks want to release a new movie based on an old concept, as if they have anything meaningful to add to a concept they're borrowing for lack of inspiration. Profit trumping history. I guess that's what it is to live in 2013. Detroit is actually declaring bankruptcy (check out RoboCop 2 if you think I'm schizoid) and cocaine is as big a problem in America as ever, to the point where they either need to construct many real-life RoboCops (as well as a small army of ED-209s) to stop the trafficking or just let it win and stop making a fuss.
I don't want to be the wanker who says that a movie was 'eerily prescient' about 'modern society' because RoboCop was eerily contemporary about 80's culture and eerily great in every possible way, but movies aren't prophets and that particular one was only proven right because of the sheer amount of subliminal and/or retrograde insight the movie possesses. I bet the remake will make multiple references to drones. I am told that's a bet I'm not allowed to make. Mark my words: fuck RoboCop 2014, that shit ain't right.
"Get ready for a hip, new RoboCop who understands EDM music and doesn't mind a bromance... or two!"
It boggles my mind, and then along comes this fucking remake which I'm sure can safely be judged on what kind of car the new RoboCop drives. Probably written by committee, guided by fuckers, and destined to be a grave insult to the spirit of the original in every possible way. Corporate slickness, top-40 EDM song in the trailer, GFX up the ass, possible box-office hit, dialogue from idiot hell, blood-curdlingly dumb and sensationalistic in every way... I'd buy that for a dollar and so will you!
**** I suppose they more commonly go by the colloquialism 'movies' or 'films', but when
intelligent people band together and overthrow the world order they will be referred to as who-gives-a-fucks, I have it on good authority, since they generally function as soulless propaganda, socially acceptable narcotic, profit-motive, and distraction. Various cinema will still be allowed, for obvious reasons, but it is hoped calling them who-gives-a-fucks will be humbling to the industry.
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:
11/23/10
I am a Sloppy Blogger
Yep. I'm a sloppy blogger. You don't see my kind too often. Obviously, you don't see them because they don't post and don't offer explanations for silence. Sloppy bloggers are a bit like lovers - if you don't like them, you don't care about the infrequency because it doesn't bother you if they are really dead or onto some new thing. However, if you do like sloppy bloggers, absence will make your heart grow so fond that you will tell other people about this guru-style blogger who posts three times a month and writes about nothing. You will understand that the rigours of actually living are too much sometimes. Maybe you have some idea about the north American economy. Acronymed : the nAe. Mind capitalization or it could actually refer to a real thing.
So in my own grand tradition of coining words I hereby coin: sloppy blogger. That's my term and I invented it. Unlike other even better words and terms and phrases, I will allow this one to be public, because it needs to be given actual life that only the internet can provide.
So in my own grand tradition of coining words I hereby coin: sloppy blogger. That's my term and I invented it. Unlike other even better words and terms and phrases, I will allow this one to be public, because it needs to be given actual life that only the internet can provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)