Recent Entries
Archive
Friends
User Info

< previous 30 entries *
Epistulae Ciceronis
A Perfectly Squiffy Jag

Recent Entries

30.05.09 Saturday
06:52 pm - Strawberries will never taste so good
"When our food and clothing and housing all are born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate all other thinking. In our time mass or collective production has entered our economics, our politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea God... There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man." - John Steinbeck, from East of Eden.


{int i; i=1; i++}

01.02.09 Sunday
01:32 pm - Dogville
"There's an American TV show in which the president of the US is black. People say, 'Oh look, that's OK, there's a black president on TV.' That's completely humiliating because that's not how it is. There's no black president. Political correctness kills discussion." - Lars von Trier.


{int i; i=0; i++}

15.11.08 Saturday
02:08 pm - John's Birthday Party


[+230 | Slideshow]

[info]uncelestial had a pretty epic birthday party at his new home last night. The best addition (which I'm totally going to gank for my next theme party) was a greenscreen photobooth with 20+ backgrounds. Of course, the 9/11 background was the most popular - you just can't go wrong with exploding planes.

I was in a quiet mood last night and took quite a few photos, although my camera managed to make the rounds so I'm looking forward to what debauchery found its way onto my memory card. Of course, I still haven't posted photos from my halloween party yet so we'll see if I ever get around to going through them.



{int i; i=7; i++}

22.10.08 Wednesday
01:57 pm - Political Quiz.
Let's talk about the real issues.

Super-long political poll )


{int i; i=28; i++}

20.10.08 Monday
01:27 pm - Castrated Men and Uptight Women.

The other day, [info]herbaliser pointed me to a post on the Stranger’s Slog by Dan Savage regarding “nice guys” and their fear of being (seen as) pigs, centering around a letter from a 28-year-old virgin (!!).

This, as many of you know, is one of my pet topics. I can’t stand nice guys. And, to be clear, I’m not talking about people who are genuinely nice; I’m talking about people who need to be perceived as nice. Men who, due to shyness, insecurity, or some misplaced ideology (think: masculine guilt) cower behind safe opinions, don’t stand-up for themselves and go out of their way to behave how they think people want them to behave. Spineless men who, inevitably, descend to either self-righteousness judgment, a victim mentality or both. These are the scumbags who think pretending to be a girl’s friend gives them some sort of priority ranking in her dating life – and then get mopey when she dates a “bad boy” (who is really just someone who is confident, assertive and willing to make the first move). If you’re reading this and it sounds at all familiar: grow a dick. Seriously.Discuss.


{int i; i=70; i++}

03.09.08 Wednesday
07:19 pm - Sexual Subtext of Politics
Last week, [info]herbaliser sent me a link from the Stranger talking about how McCain's offensive, fundamentally, "seeks to translate Obama's hard-won political currency into the primal terms of unbridled, white-female lust for black cock". This concept, of course, is not new - the book Gender and Law blames a similar fear on the introduction of gender-specific law in the United States (actually a fascinating argument, but tangential to this post). And, of course, as a white male I share this fear of disempowerment by way of the great obsidian obelisk [contemplate].

But, really: shame on the Republicans for resorting to such base bigotry in their political campaigns.

This is old news, though. No one cares about Obama's cock anymore. Our minds are far too occupied with what Sarah Palin might be like in bed. In fact, since McCain's announcement of his running mate, the few remarks I've heard about Sarah Palin's politics have been completely eclipsed by the impressive amount of content pertaining to the attractiveness of her and her family. Every feminist fear of what Clinton's campaign would inevitably deteriorate into has been realized in response to the Palin's nomination.

The fascinating part is that this hasn't spawned from the mouths of right-wing radicals like Rush Limbaugh, but from my own circle of left-liberal friends. But, of course, Sarah Palin gave up her right to being evaluated independent of her gender as soon as she chose to support the rights of unborn babies. In fact, since the pro-life movement is an overt attempt of the patriarchy to keep women in a subservient position, can Sarah Palin really even qualify as a female?

But, of course, none of this really matters anyway - why bother evaluating her politics when we know she slept her way to the top anyway?


{int i; i=10; i++}

12.04.08 Saturday
09:59 am - Supporting the Troops = Supporting the War
The "support the troops, not the war" fad bothers me on several fronts. Of course, being a fad, this is an unpopular position. But that's never stopped me from getting up on my soapbox before. In fact, if anything it's probably my biggest motivator to speak up. And it's rants like this where my conservative sensibilities start to shine through )


{int i; i=14; i++}

13.10.07 Saturday
01:37 pm - What is black?
In all of the excitement and hype of Hispanic Awareness Year, our friends of darker skin colors have been largely neglected. In an effort to bring attention to the diversity of flavors that minorities come in, I'd like to address an important issue: what is black?

Recently, NSBE Magazine voted Microsoft the best place for black engineers to work. The cover of the magazine shows two (undoubtebly) black boxers with an audience of (allegedly) black corporate-types in the background. Now, as a black American* I find this wildly offensive.

Up front, this magazine promotes the stereotypical association of blacks as athletes, and particularly boxers, which detracts from other socially equalizing images such as the black politician, the black diplomat, or the black actor (yes, these jobs now all come in black).

Additionally, and more importantly, the group of (allegedly) black corporate-types are much lighter than the boxers - in some cases, so much so that it's only clear that they're black because of the context. This supports two other stereotypes that really get under my skin.

First, successful black people are light skinned. Everyone knows that. Look at Michael Jackson and Halle Berry. Clearly, the darker skinned people belong in the ring, where as the light skin people belong in the office.

Second, that One Drop of African blood makes you black. Essentially, white means 100% white; everything else is black. I'm roughly 10% Native American, but no one would identify my as a red skin. Admittedly, stereotypically black traits are often genetically dominant (e.g., black hair) but how is it that someone who is a majority non-African be considered black? (Let's disregard for a minute that blacks aren't exclusive to Africans).

To help illustrate this, I've developed a Scientifically Foolproof measure of Blackness, and applied it to the photos on this page. Note that the Authentic Black® (source) is 66% black. The boxers are around 50%. The corporate engineers? 40% - a full 20% less black than the Authentic Black®.

Kola Boof's extremely racially offensive and politically incorrect article "The PROOF: Authentic Blackness" pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. She observes the trend, particularly in America, for beauty and success amongst blacks (particularly black women) to be associated with lighter and lighter skin. She argues that most African Americans are not Authentic Blacks and, in fact, that their actions and breeding patterns show a resentment of their African heritage. She argues that a shared heritage, cultural background or cause does not make you black - only blood. "We are not so worthless...that just anybody can be us." (I recommend reading the full article; it's full of memorable quotes such as referencing the BET as "white supremacist minstrel network.. (aka 'the mulatto follies')".

* OK, so I'm not a black American. In fact, according to my Scientifically Foolproof measure of blackness, I'm only 9%. I did make it all the way through a broadcast of the Tavis Smiley show once, though. Do you think it'd give me a chance with this hottie??

Current Friend-Of Count: 322.


{int i; i=23; i++}

11.08.07 Saturday
10:33 am - "I'd love to tug those rings just a little with my teeth."
In response to a photo I posted, [info]thaumata asks:
    so, i am curious about something: as a woman, every time i post any kind of even slightly risque photo, i can expect sleazy comments from strangers that i've never even heard of. i mean, i can post an empty shoe and get six comments from the foot guys, and there are obviously tons of men trolling for boobies on flickr, which entertains me to no end. (they are called lives... look into it...)

    but as a girl, i'm really used to this. i expect it. but i always wonder what, as a guy posting photos of women, you think about comments like this, and what it makes you think about the other people who share your gender.

    thoughts?

    ps - someone should tell that guy that beautiful has a U.
My response: People like sex. )

Which is why I'm officially announcing my decision to become a erotic porn photographer. Who's my first subject? Besides Sid?


{int i; i=29; i++}

04.02.07 Sunday
11:30 pm - Washington "Defense of Marriage Initiative"
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
  • add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  • require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  • require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
  • establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  • make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.
Interesting political strategy. Opinion?


{int i; i=69; i++}

08.06.06 Thursday
10:48 pm - Coffee house chatter
I'm at Trabant. Typical scene. Two older men. Turtle necks with tweed jackets. Arguing about religion. What Christ meant when he said "blah, blah, blah". What the problem with society is. Why Bush is like a Crusader. I assume they're professors. Or they're students who never graduated but never left; take your pick. Anyway, they're really quite passionate about it. It's pathetic. I hope that by the time I'm their age I have something better to talk about than religion. Like the weather.


{int i; i=18; i++}

25.05.06 Thursday
09:52 pm - Look at my brains
Today we were driving down I5 and this semi pulled up next to us and yelled "nice tits!" Initially I thought he was calling me fat, but then I realized he was talking to Katie. She was wearing her seatbelt across her chest which gave particular emphasis to her rack. She started blushing.

That's the funny thing about Katie. Most girls I've dated would have flipped the guy off and then gone off on a rant about the sexual objectification of women, but she can get hit on by the least desirable elements of society (like the toothless guy in Mexico) and still be flattered.

Of course, by contrast, I think half the time when women bitch about a guy hitting on them they're just using the opportunity to draw attention to the attention they're getting.

Of some relevance, Katie noted today that she felt terribly rejected when I didn't try to put my dick in her on our first date. It's not that she would have put out, but given her interpretation of my alleged reputation she assumed that it was a reflection on her (which is ironic as I never fuck a girl on the first date).

Katie is pretty succinct in her analysis of this psychology. She wants to print a low cut shirt with the words "look at my brains" printed across the neckline.


{int i; i=78; i++}

22.05.06 Monday
12:29 am - Online Prostitution Goes Public
To:JohnS@komotv.com
Date:May 22, 2006
Subject:Selling sex online


Thanks for your insightful investigation about selling sex online.

It really bothers me that Craigslist doesn’t take responsibility for the content other people post on their site. I’m sure Craig has gotten filthy rich off people selling prostitution via his free web service. And the audacity to expect the community to monitor his site for him!

Based on your article, you may be interested in covering a similar situation that has fallen underneath the legal radar for years. In my neighborhood (out in Bothell) there is a municipal park with a public bulletin board in it (nothing fancy like Craigslist, just an old fashioned cork board). Similar to Craigslist, though, it is unmonitored by the owners - my very own city government!

The other day I walked past it and saw a girl advertising "baby-sitting" services. Is she over eighteen? Do her parents know she’s doing this? Is she reporting her income to the IRS? More importantly, what else might she be selling? It appalls me that my tax dollars are going to support this type of negligence.

I expect depravity and the corruption of youth from the Internet. I mean, it’s the same forum that brought us pornography and MySpace. I expect government to hold itself to a higher level of public responsibility, though.

I’d love to see you cover this in a follow-up investigation.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Caney
A concerned citizen


{int i; i=31; i++}

01.05.06 Monday
04:23 pm - "Immigration rights"
I've seen photos on my journal (my official news source) of people protesting and rallying against proposed legislation for "immigration rights", which seems to really be about illegal immigration rights. I've also read no fewer than a dozen rants on why the protests (and the rhetoric surrounding them) are ridiculous (in the views of the authors).

What I have yet to see is an argument representing the views of the protesters. If you're reading this and you've attended one of these protests I'd love to hear your side of the argument.


{int i; i=41; i++}

25.04.06 Tuesday
06:03 pm - Pro-Life Democrats
I posted about this a long time ago but I thought it was interesting enough to revisit.

Poll #717092
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Are you, as Howard Dean (Chairman of the Democratic National Convention) has proposed, willing to embrace pro-life Democrats?

View Answers

No. It violates the ideological principles of the party.
1 (2.4%)

No. It violates my personal values which I am unwilling to compromise on.
22 (52.4%)

Yes. It is a necessary pragmatic move to win the vote against the Republicans.
8 (19.0%)

Yes. In fact, I would consider myself a pro-life Democrat.
3 (7.1%)

N/A. I don't vote for or support the U.S. Democrat party or their ideals.
8 (19.0%)



Feel free to discuss.


{int i; i=29; i++}

11.04.06 Tuesday
02:35 am - Vicarious Victims and Emotional Plagiarism
A few weeks ago there was a mass shooting in Seattle. I guess everyone probably knows that. A few of the people killed were involved with a social circle I am connected to. I met one of them a couple times, at most, but could hardly consider him a friend - we might not have even been formally introduced. Some of my friends, however, were really close to the victims.

The week that followed, my LiveJournal friends list was chock full of eulogies, pictures of the victims and discussions of memorial services, funerals, etc. People shared stories of the friends they lost. What initially started out as a news story was transformed into a tragic event as the names of the victims were given life via first-hand testimonies by people I know and respect. That brought the story home.

As such, I can understand why even people who didn't know the victims were impacted by the event. I can understand why people cried, became reclusive or even posted introspective entries as a means of dealing with the implications and aftermath of an event they could identify with even if they weren't directly connected to it.

What made me sick, though, was the realization that a number of the people posting in remembrance of their "close friend's" deaths didn't actually know the victims any more than I did - perhaps a brief meeting or introduction, chance encounters at random parties. In a couple instances it seemed like people were playing up their ties to the deceased in order to gather sympathy, attention or some connection to the media spotlight.

Don't get me wrong - as mentioned above you don't have to know the people to feel connected to these events, just as you didn't have to know the victims in 9-11 to feel the impact. Embellishing or exaggerating ties in order to leach off the tragedy as a means of compensating for unrelated emotional insecurities, however, is downright pathetic.

This isn't targeted at anyone individually. I'm not making any personal judgments nor is this some passive-agressive attack; where and when appropriate I've confronted people on this directly. I don't want to get into a debate with anyone over how well they knew so-and-so. That's not the point. This is simply a reflection of a phenomenon that I found disturbing. It bothered me in much the same way that it bothered me when corporations started putting up billboards after September 11th with patriotic slogans followed by their corporate logo. It felt cheap, insincere and insulting to the people who actually suffered.


{int i; i=74; i++}

13.03.06 Monday
01:13 pm
The BBC has posted a shocking article suggesting that boys would rather learn about destructive technologies (like explosives) while girls would rather study things like the human body and healthcare (unbelievable!). And in response, some are apparently calling for segregation of classes according to gender sex.

I essentially agree with every one of [info]monoecious's points on this topic so instead of restating them I'm just going to plagiarize her response:
    first thought: this could be exactly what people looking for gender equality or gender neutrality would NOT want.

    second thought: they should just offer two classes and let the students choose rather than assigning them by sex.

    third thought: the cynic in me thinks that even if they let the students choose, the classes would still acquire an association with gender, like shop and home-ec used to be. sigh.
Now, the article isn't clear on how this would be administered or who exactly is calling for this segregation, but even the suggestion of it baffles me.


{int i; i=44; i++}

03.03.06 Friday
01:52 am - Why women prefer attached men.
This topic has popped up on my journal before. Over and again I find that most women are attracted to attached men (e.g., in a relationship, married). Some girls will passionately disagree with this; most, however, will offer the explanation that him being attached means that he's commitment oriented. I don't personally agree with that rationale, even beyond the obvious loophole that if a guy cheats on his wife for you then he's obviously not commitment oriented.

The one explanation that I've been told that makes some sense is that it's safe. You can flirt with a married guy and it's just practice; there's a ready-made excuse to reject him (should it be necessary) and he's less likely to be clingy. This is pretty much identical to the classic reason why women like gay men, which I suspect is a very similar dynamic and leads into my own interpretation...

My personal theory on this has to do with confidence and validation. I think that confidence is sexy and I think there is a certain confidence afforded by attachment; this is contrasted to a desperate single who will fuck just about anything left in the bar after last call. Likewise, if a guy who doesn't need sex or attention because it is waiting for him at home is interested in you then obviously you are a step above the rest; in a certain competitive spirit, it is more validating. It's the same reason why power is attractive; it's more exclusive.

Really, though, this is speculation. I'm not a girl. And conversely, I've been told that most men are simply oblivious to attachment; they will pursue a girl no more and no less than if she were single not because they (don't) respect commitment but because they are not paying attention to obvious cues (like, say, a wedding ring).

That said, what do you think? And, as usual, I'm not looking for obvious ideological textbook answers. Further, just because you're an exception doesn't mean this isn't a trend. And obviously I'm not talking about the lecherous old forty year old who sits in the corner of the bar leering at the hot twenty-somethings that are completely out of his league.


{int i; i=83; i++}

20.02.06 Monday
06:26 pm - All sorts of fucked up.
I was going to make Katie sign this but apparently even I have some level of compassion.

So, instead, I'm allowing her to first cross out three terms of her choice, excluding the word "not" (although I retain the right to a one-time veto).


{int i; i=18; i++}

01.02.06 Wednesday
03:13 am - Letting Go of Roe
"The Democratic Party's commitment to preserving Roe v. Wade has been deeply unhealthy for abortion rights, for liberalism more generally, and ultimately for American democracy." [Source; via [info]langston].


{int i; i=30; i++}

26.01.06 Thursday
11:30 am - "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
What happens when anti-choice women get knocked up? [Punchline]. Only it's not really funny at all. (From [info]skiplogic).


{int i; i=9; i++}

22.01.06 Sunday
02:57 pm - Consumer responsibility vs. social fad
You know those Che Guevara t-shirts that every hipster and social rebel owns? Is it a political message or just a fashion trend? What if it was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)? Or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (Farc)? In other words, modern rebel organizations that are deamed terrorists by the United States.

Now, regardless of your interest, what if buying those t-shirts meant you really were supporting those organizations - not just in image, but also with a $12USD contribution? That's precisely what a Danish company is doing (despite Danish law that could put supporters of "terrorist" organizations in jail for ten years). [Source; thanks to [info]lormagins for the link].

In some ways, this raises similar questions raised in my post regarding the Christian boycott of Microsoft. On one hand, using the dollar to "vote" for causes that you find valuable is the essence of capitalism. On the other hand, as with the Che Guevara t-shirts, something like this could easily be fueled by apathy, fashion fad or a desire to be viewed as independent -- as opposed to a genuine support for the political agendas of these organizations.

Likewise, while the definition of terrorist is arguable (remember: the U.S. revolutionary soldiers were often seen as the equivelent of terrorists by England) it's also true that many of these organizations are (regardless of their ideologies) no more than organized crime; others represent very real social interests and ideals. It's often hard to tell what their ultimate agenda (or final operating practices) will be until they are in power. There are plenty of cases (such as Yugoslavia or Rwanda) where the stated ideals took a back seat to state sponsored genocide (for instance).

Thoughts?


{int i; i=43; i++}

19.01.06 Thursday
08:59 pm - Corporations and Social Issues
Rev. Ken Hutcherson's call for the boycott of Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Nike and other companies that support legislation to treat sexual orientation as a protected class is intriguing.

On one hand, I think it's wonderful that consumers are evaluating the ethics of a company and making purchase decisions accordingly - that is the responsibility of an informed electorate in a capitalist society. If people did the same thing regarding unfair business practices, child labor, poor production quality/design, etc then we would need less government intervention and would be creating an incentive for businesses to uphold ethics consistent with these value systems.

On the other side, we've all seen how the introduction of social issues into politics has polarized the nation and allows presidents like George Bush to be elected based largely on their social platform as opposed to their qualification as a leader or their stance on, say, the economy and foreign affairs. In this regard, social issues have become a smokescreen behind which important issues are buried and support is rallied.



The idea of people choosing products purely based on religious affiliation and opinion over social issues creates a precident that I find frightening. I can't imagine most of my friends buying products from companies that openly deny employment to homosexuals; likewise I can't imagine the Christian or extreme social conservatives buying products from companies that openly support homosexuals. The idea of company's being pressured to weigh in on this issue further polarizes the nation and pushes politicians and corporations away from their primary responsibilities.

Of course, the other issue behind this is companies using their financial influence to dictate political decisions and, as the article points out, social policy. That isn't much different than the church or any other special interest lobbying for their view to be universally applied via a political channel. I may personally agree with the view in this case, but it's a dangerous precident (albeit, really, one that has been established by both corporations and churches some time ago).


{int i; i=30; i++}

12:02 am - "Is your community becoming a third world city?"



"Furthermore, we have yet to discuss the links between Home Depot and the National Council of La Raza, an anti-American organization that supports open borders, amnesty and drivers' licenses for illegal aliens." More, plus Mexifornia).


{int i; i=72; i++}

18.01.06 Wednesday
08:54 am - But I'M not a racist...
This is being relayed second-hand from Katie and so the details may be off, but the concept should be consistent. Apparently it was MLK day Monday (who knew?) and NPR had a show asking the question, "Is racism still alive today?" (or something to that effect). The majority of the callers gave the standard line, "yes, but I'm not a racist". The usual scapegoats were named such as corporations or Southerners (fucking biggots).

Anyway, after a while this woman calls and says what (IMHO) every self-aware American (if not human) ought to say (paraphrased): "After thinking hard about this question, I have to admit that yes, I am a racist; I hold biases towards minorities and while I may not act on them I can't pretend they aren't there. If, for instance, I see an African American in a nice car I'm immediately aware of that it's not normal." She then goes onto say that by nature we notice breaches from patterns and implies that it's a pattern for there to be a correlation between race and income (for instance; which, of course, we all know to be true).

Kudos to her, right? I mean, until people become aware of their own biases, no matter how politically incorrect, how are we supposed to face them? Anyway, the radio host (and I'm not sure what show this was) completely misses the point and, apparently, chastises her with baiting questions like "so, if you were an employer, you wouldn't hire someone simply because they were black?". Because, you know, all racism is that overt, right?

This country is going to hell in a hand-basket but, you know, it's not because of me -- it's because of those {Southerners, Republicans, Rural-folk, Corporations, etc, etc, etc}. After a while the ignorance and broad generalizations of these statements starts to sound pretty comparable to "this area used to be nice, until the Mexicans moved in".

Speaking of Mexicans: In California, the Home Depots have institutionalized day labor by offering training and providing referral services to known illegal Mexicans. The California State Attorney General has come out in support of this concept, acknowledging that the state will not press charges against illegal immigrants. On one hand citizens are protesting; on the other, of course, they're hiring them to install their cabinets and carpeting and decks. I sure wish we had this program up here; it's much easier than having to proposition the crowds that pool downtown every morning looking for day work.


{int i; i=75; i++}

01.01.06 Sunday
11:01 pm - The Ninth Ward
When Hurricane Katrina hit, Katie and I were in Belize. While almost all of the news stations down there were covering the disaster, we didn't get much exposure to it since we were traveling; most of our news came third hand through people we talked to while in towns. Driving into New Orleans everything seemed pretty much back-to-normal; it has been, after all, four months. We got off Highway 10, drove down Canal Street and hid out in the French Quarter for a couple days; as previously posted, the only real evidence of the hurricane was the FEMA-booked hotels and limited workforce.

Today, we were supposed to drive to Base Saint Louis. According to a few people we talked to, New Orleans received news coverage due to how big of a city it was, but Bay Saint Louis was where the real damage was. We got a late start, though, and weren't sure we wanted to take the two hour round trip back to Mississippi and so decided to check out the Ninth Ward first. Apparently, the Ninth Ward is where much of the flooding damage was the worst (as far as New Orleans is concerned); as such we were expecting water damage but not significant wind damage or structural impact.

Driving toward the Ninth Ward, we stopped and took a dozen or so photos of beautiful old houses with boarded up windows, piles of garbage out front and water marks on the side. As we entered the Ninth Ward, we found more damage: collapsed decks, roofs without shingles, garbage all over the street. The area was completely empty of human life outside of the occasional army vehicle or police car. It was pretty humbling to see how a neighborhood could be transformed into a ghost town overnight.

As we approached the bank where the levy broke, however, I realized that the previous hundred photos I'd taken didn't even come close to representing or capturing the damage. Even after that, the hundred or so photos I took of the real damage don't really do it justice. After the thirtieth splintered house or the fifteenth upside down car you stop taking photos; it's the same image, the same story. What the photos don't capture, though, is the scale. After a while Katie and I just drove down the streets, mile after mile, unable to reconcile what we saw with what we knew it once to be. In many ways, I found the initial impressions more difficult to witness: when you see a house with a broken window and a hole in the roof you can relate; when you stand in front of a horizon full of broken two-by-fours, bricks and twisted metal, though, it just feels like a movie -- the set for some post-apocalyptic thriller. It reminds me of Stalin's quote regarding tragedies vs. statistics.

I remember hearing on NPR a couple months ago about teams going in to rescue animals. The report made me angry, to an extent; with so many humans dead, injured or displaced it seemed like animals should be the last of the worries; not to be completely heartless, but from a pragmatic perspective we had better use for volunteer labor in the aftermath of the storm. Driving through the streets of the Ninth Ward, however, I came to respect those efforts. When you see the damage, when you think of how hard it would be to come "home" to find everything you own completely demolished, it would mean so much to know that your dog or cat, at least, is alive and well.

I still don't know if the weight of what we saw today has really sunk in. It's just too hard to personalize it. Initially, I felt a bit guilty going in with my camera; I knew that I was essentially just gawking, sort of a train-wreck fascination. After spending a day amongst the ruins, though, I realized that you can't fully exploit that sort of situation; the very act of witnessing it changes your perspective and demands a level of sympathy I wouldn't have thought myself capable of. The whole thing is just awful.


{int i; i=13; i++}

18.12.05 Sunday
05:13 pm - Creation in Symphony
Katie and I started to watch Creation in Symphony, which is a three tape documentary created by the people at the Creation Evidence Museum. (This is not related directly to Kent Hovind (aka "Dr. Dino") or his Dinosaur Adventure Land in Florida, although the concepts are similar). The basic premise of the series is to disprove the theory of evolution; both rely heavily on an attempt to prove that dinosaurs and mankind lived during the same time period.

My motivation for watching the series is two-fold. First off, I'm watching it for entertainment value. Second, I am curious what foundation, if any, the documentary presents for challenging evolution (it is, afterall, simply a theory). I've attempted to approach it with an open mind, although clearly I'm also critically evaluating it. More... )

{int i; i=39; i++}

01.12.05 Thursday
01:28 pm - Consumer Awareness Rant
Yesterday, in a conversation with [info]starfish77 and [info]belovedrooster (at a wonderful crepery on 611 Pine) we touched upon the topic of corporate public relations and consumer awareness.

The topic that sparked my rant was Victrola's press release (which influenced write-ups in a number of national papers, including the New York Times, I believe) regarding their decision to cut wireless internet on weekends. Instead of just acknowledging that during peak times (like weekends) the service cuts into their profit potential, they rationalized it as an effort to foster community by encouraging people to get out from behind their laptops and socialize. Ultimately, this was probably a smart move on their part. but it epitomizes what I often think of as a consumerist mindset that feels that the number one responsibility of businesses is to serve society and that the secondary interest is to make a profit. The first and foremost goal of business is to make a profit just as the first and foremost goal of most people who work is to make a profit.

At the core, I can't blame Victrola. I've worked in marketing, I've written press releases; I'm well aware of why spin marketing works. The whole goal is to position selfishly driven decisions as investments into your consumer. And sometimes this makes sense because consumers, like businesses, are self-driven. No one is going to buy a product that has a label exclaiming "Now with 30% less product so we can afford bigger yachts!", but if you position it as "Now with an ergonomic design that makes it easier to hold" it ties into individual's interests.

What bothers me is when this is taken to such an extreme that corporations are being completely false and, worse, consumers are buying it. I'm sure no one honestly believes it, of course; we're too cyncical about corporate motives. But if the corporation were honest about their objectives they'd be boycotted.

I deal with the same thing in business. Seasoned clients (higher up management and medium-sized-business owners) usually understand business at an objective level. They will negotiate but they're always aware that I need to make a profit. Not only that but many understand that the more profit I make the better quality product they will likely received; that there needs to be an incentive. This is what makes corporate sales fun; it's all about finding that balance between what they are willing and capable of paying while still making a profit for my firm. With lower level, younger or less experienced managers, however, they have a touch of this consumerist mentality; there is almost this unspoken expectation that I am there to cater to and serve their needs. The kiss of death with these clients is to acknowledge in any way that you are making a profit or that you might have selfish interests that aren't completely aligned with theirs. There is this naive egocentricism to it fueled by the flawed philosophy that "the customer comes first" (which is like saying that any person should put the needs of another above their own; unrealistic and ultimately unsustainable).

Those that know me know that I'm not idealistic enough to expect this to change. I understand, culturally, why people are this way. I understand why corporations respond to it. I understand the opposite extremes (where big businesses snowball consumer interests with monopolistic practices with no acknowledgement or respect for the long term consequences).

Still, I find it downright insulting when I open my email to see things like an advertisement from The Body Shop for the Until there is a cure AIDS awareness bracelet. For $25 you can show your support for AIDs. The email tells the consumer that the Body Shop is a progressive company that supports socially responsible interests such as AIDs prevention, awareness and support. What the email (and product details) fail to mention is that this is just a product; no percentage of the product is going to support AIDs research. Although, trust me, if it were then you can be sure you'd know about it; everytime I go to the Body Shop they are sure to tell me how wonderful of a business they are because they gave money to XYZ women's charity.

Of course, as mentioned, corporations are selfish. So perhaps there is benefit in humoring them by acting impressed by these trivial grants; it provides an incentive for them to continue them. And, ultimately, I don't care WHY people give money (I fully expect it to be selfishly driven) as long as they give it; charity or any socially responsible cause isn't in the position to look a gift horse in the mouth. That isn't going to stop me from getting grumpy, though, and excercizing my consumer rights (by not buying products or by writing bitchy rants like this) when corporations try to snowball me with the gimmic of compassion over self-interest.


{int i; i=50; i++}

13.11.05 Sunday
12:15 am - In search of change.
Katie and I were chased for a short distance after refusing spare change to this old guy with crutches tonight. I was tempted to turn back and break in his knee caps but realized that it would be a bit redundant - someone had apparently beaten me to it. He was a persistent fucker, though.


{int i; i=18; i++}

18.10.05 Tuesday
12:09 pm - Nice.
Fucking USA. I'm going to have this song stuck in my head all day, thanks to [info]likeamarmoset hah.


{int i; i=2; i++}

Top < previous 30 entries