As far as I’m concerned, the debates mean almost nothing. It is not the talking points between candidates that are relevant. It’s not even the discussion between parties. It’s how far away from their respective bases the policies have strayed that makes this campaign so interesting. It appears to be a competition for who listens less to public opinion.
The Republicans have come under constant fire. Their corruption has been exposed in many aspects of the political process. They advocate tax cuts and liberties to the richest one percent while a financial bloodletting is taking place among the other ninety-nine percent. Business is given allowances that are proving to be immensely detrimental to the country as a whole. They repeat the mantra, “support our troops,” while leaving them without armor in favor of contracting mercenaries. They redundantly reference nine-eleven—most notably just today—to tap into lingering fear to relinquish control at opportune times. They are ignorant to many environmental issues that are obvious to anyone with a passing interest in the world around them.
The Republican debate—fittingly in the Reagan library—depicted a group of Bush clones. They side themselves with the same policies that have the President at a twenty-eight percent approval rating. They deny the public opinion that stripped them of their advantage in Congress. The same policies that have the country at odds are being tauted as new and unique talking points. Their moderator remorselessly creates a horrific hypothetical situation that exemplified the party’s fear mongering. Their responses reflected the lack of progress our country has made in the years since that tragic attack they speak so tediously of.
Democrats are rich elite trying to connect with a middle class that their policies have killed. They are considered a diverse party, but are more accurately linked to minorities by default against the mono-racial right. They perpetuate a victim complex while creating weak policies. They’ve developed an obsession with environmental issues. They’ve completely turned their backs on the voters that gave them the slight majority. They don’t take the initiative to cut corporate influence or executive power. They lack backbone and are uncomfortable in their leadership roles.
The candidates repeat incessantly the need to get out of Iraq. But, they continue to provide the President with all the monies he requests. Their new proposal has weak benchmarks that will be talked up as a bold step. Their investigations into corruption are stalled and laughable. They avoid the topic, just as the right does, of Iraqis wanting an end to the occupation. This is likely because the oil companies are attempting to weasel into large portions of the reserves there and will have big money to donate to the political party in power.
We need a new party, made up of the people actually affected by the policies put before Congress. The dying middle class, the laborers, those that see corporatism as one of many symptoms in the death of our empire. The soldiers, returned from combat, fresh from their exploitation there. Where they were used as pawns by the administration without compassion.
But, it will fail. The media will ignore it aside from passing derogatory remarks. The campaigns will fizzle without the funding of nervous corporations. They will be dismissed as idealists by the masses. They will be denied the credibility granted those that have worked so hard to lose theirs.
So we’re left with two corporation-backed parties that are putting on an act. They pretend to represent a base that neither remembers. They continue a war of words, over social issues of little importance, to give the impression of opposition. Behind this facade is a well coordinated progression to a shared goal.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
faith
I’m not a religious man; most people know this. In fact I haven’t been in any sub-Cross seating arrangement, aside from one wedding, since I walked out of my Confirmation ceremony. But I have Faith. My specific beliefs are different than most. They have some reliance on an omniscient being, but they’re based more on personal responsibility than repetition of memorized chants. I won’t bore you with them here, or at least not presently.
Organized Religion is fundamentally flawed. When you take individual faith and apply it to the masses you are forced to set precedents and remain predominantly inflexible. I’d like to explain why organized Religion has almost no bearing on my activities. I’ll reference Catholic tradition because it’s the only one I have even a passing knowledge of but the others run the same general flaws.
Religion—not the comet watchers—is based on texts that are thousands of years old and stories that are older. Oral traditions still live on from Greece, Rome, and earlier. They are exaggerated, fantasized, and filled with symbols of the time that even when first told would not be taken literally. There are hundreds of books and stories that were excluded from today’s Bible because of prejudices and social climates of the time. The main characters were dead for hundreds of years before their stories were even written.
It is impossible for me to fathom that God would use such incredibly inefficient means to relay His message. He’s omnipresent after all. Wouldn’t it be more effective for him to wait until the children He created in his image had a comprehension of historical referencing before He told them how to live to avoid damnation? And why would He take the time to talk to us at all? He created, by his own power, the universe. On the scope of the universe we are at zero on the scale of importance. Only in our own egocentric perspective would we think we could even have a miniscule effect on something so immense.
Within the Book there are moral tales that explain how to act and guide those into the paradise of Heaven. Along with these are stories that explain why the Earth acts as it does. Wrath of God due to sin is to blame for geological, microbial, and meteorological disaster. Since Its writing, all of these have been explained by scientific reason. In recent century we have discovered bacteria, viruses, and DNA. There is a probable, even if coincidental, explanation for the plagues. And this is the second fault of Religions: their defiance of science.
The disconnect between science and religion is baffling to me. Religion continuously resists any discoveries that challenge its view of the world. The world used to be flat. The Sun used to orbit the Earth. Dinosaurs couldn’t exist because the Earth is only six thousand years old. Women were vessels, contributing nothing to the process of procreation aside from a warm place for nine months. We all now know these are ridiculous. We’ve seen the round globe in photos from space, we use dinosaurs every day to commute to work, and women contribute as much, if not more, to the creation of life than men.
It seems to me that Religion could use this evidence and further study to prove the existence of an all-powerful being. The processes and coincidence that led to our existence are infinite. There are laws governing every aspect of life on this planet and even more that govern the movement of stars and galaxies. Ecosystems are incredibly diverse and interconnected. Things we take for granted, like walking at a steady pace, breathing easily, and seeing the world around us, are all reliant on millions of different factors. Isn’t that proof there’s something out there providing guidance? Or proof that in it’s creation the Universe was given a general purpose or direction? If you don’t see a God in everything around you, you’re not looking. And because Religion hasn’t embraced every discovery as more evidence of infinite wisdom I can only view it as simply ignorant.
Thirdly, religion spurs from a belief in an omnipotent being from which everything was created. Unfortunately, because our brains cannot understand even a fractional fraction of the implications of this, Religion has promoted exclusion. The blueprint for each western Religion is the same, with different players, timelines, and stories. Whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian, Muhammad, Moses, or Jesus, we all believe in one all-powerful God. Billions have perished in the name of this Higher Power because of believing in a different One or not believing in One at all.
Persecution of homosexuals, other races, and other cultures saturates Religious history. The belief that one Religion is superior to another, or that a culture without Religion is inferior, is uniquely human. If Religion is based on the belief in a higher power that is all powerful and forgiving, why would anyone be excluded? Why would He hold one culture above another? Why would strict adherence to guidelines make a difference? Why wouldn’t He promote the interaction of cultures and species in order to coexist on the planet he created to work toward a greater good?
Religion is a set of rights and wrongs that were determined by hundreds of scribes, each adding their interpretations, connections, and exaggerations. It is a set of stories to explain acts of nature and the unknown that have been—and are being—systematically explained through other means. Religion’s contempt for smaller belief sets, known as cults, is that of an older brother ridicules a younger as he learns to walk, but with malice. Is there really a difference? Or is it just age and history that makes Religion right and a cult crazy? The recruiting tactics of certain sects of Religion have the stench of desperation as the outdated nature of Religion is realized. The superiority complex that Religion cultivates is disastrous on the world stage as cultures become increasingly reliant on each other without understanding one another.
Faith should always be prominent. It is a driving force toward action and great change. Faith is flexible. It adapts to changes in society, climate, and science fluidly. Faith can bring people together. Understanding of Faith can help someone gain wisdom and the ability to look beyond their immediate surroundings. Without Faith a person can lose optimism, become heavy with helplessness, and easily be overwhelmed. But, when you manipulate that Faith into a religion you lose strength in flexibility and you create strength in conformity. A denial of constant cultural and scientific shifting makes Religion insignificant.
Organized Religion is fundamentally flawed. When you take individual faith and apply it to the masses you are forced to set precedents and remain predominantly inflexible. I’d like to explain why organized Religion has almost no bearing on my activities. I’ll reference Catholic tradition because it’s the only one I have even a passing knowledge of but the others run the same general flaws.
Religion—not the comet watchers—is based on texts that are thousands of years old and stories that are older. Oral traditions still live on from Greece, Rome, and earlier. They are exaggerated, fantasized, and filled with symbols of the time that even when first told would not be taken literally. There are hundreds of books and stories that were excluded from today’s Bible because of prejudices and social climates of the time. The main characters were dead for hundreds of years before their stories were even written.
It is impossible for me to fathom that God would use such incredibly inefficient means to relay His message. He’s omnipresent after all. Wouldn’t it be more effective for him to wait until the children He created in his image had a comprehension of historical referencing before He told them how to live to avoid damnation? And why would He take the time to talk to us at all? He created, by his own power, the universe. On the scope of the universe we are at zero on the scale of importance. Only in our own egocentric perspective would we think we could even have a miniscule effect on something so immense.
Within the Book there are moral tales that explain how to act and guide those into the paradise of Heaven. Along with these are stories that explain why the Earth acts as it does. Wrath of God due to sin is to blame for geological, microbial, and meteorological disaster. Since Its writing, all of these have been explained by scientific reason. In recent century we have discovered bacteria, viruses, and DNA. There is a probable, even if coincidental, explanation for the plagues. And this is the second fault of Religions: their defiance of science.
The disconnect between science and religion is baffling to me. Religion continuously resists any discoveries that challenge its view of the world. The world used to be flat. The Sun used to orbit the Earth. Dinosaurs couldn’t exist because the Earth is only six thousand years old. Women were vessels, contributing nothing to the process of procreation aside from a warm place for nine months. We all now know these are ridiculous. We’ve seen the round globe in photos from space, we use dinosaurs every day to commute to work, and women contribute as much, if not more, to the creation of life than men.
It seems to me that Religion could use this evidence and further study to prove the existence of an all-powerful being. The processes and coincidence that led to our existence are infinite. There are laws governing every aspect of life on this planet and even more that govern the movement of stars and galaxies. Ecosystems are incredibly diverse and interconnected. Things we take for granted, like walking at a steady pace, breathing easily, and seeing the world around us, are all reliant on millions of different factors. Isn’t that proof there’s something out there providing guidance? Or proof that in it’s creation the Universe was given a general purpose or direction? If you don’t see a God in everything around you, you’re not looking. And because Religion hasn’t embraced every discovery as more evidence of infinite wisdom I can only view it as simply ignorant.
Thirdly, religion spurs from a belief in an omnipotent being from which everything was created. Unfortunately, because our brains cannot understand even a fractional fraction of the implications of this, Religion has promoted exclusion. The blueprint for each western Religion is the same, with different players, timelines, and stories. Whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian, Muhammad, Moses, or Jesus, we all believe in one all-powerful God. Billions have perished in the name of this Higher Power because of believing in a different One or not believing in One at all.
Persecution of homosexuals, other races, and other cultures saturates Religious history. The belief that one Religion is superior to another, or that a culture without Religion is inferior, is uniquely human. If Religion is based on the belief in a higher power that is all powerful and forgiving, why would anyone be excluded? Why would He hold one culture above another? Why would strict adherence to guidelines make a difference? Why wouldn’t He promote the interaction of cultures and species in order to coexist on the planet he created to work toward a greater good?
Religion is a set of rights and wrongs that were determined by hundreds of scribes, each adding their interpretations, connections, and exaggerations. It is a set of stories to explain acts of nature and the unknown that have been—and are being—systematically explained through other means. Religion’s contempt for smaller belief sets, known as cults, is that of an older brother ridicules a younger as he learns to walk, but with malice. Is there really a difference? Or is it just age and history that makes Religion right and a cult crazy? The recruiting tactics of certain sects of Religion have the stench of desperation as the outdated nature of Religion is realized. The superiority complex that Religion cultivates is disastrous on the world stage as cultures become increasingly reliant on each other without understanding one another.
Faith should always be prominent. It is a driving force toward action and great change. Faith is flexible. It adapts to changes in society, climate, and science fluidly. Faith can bring people together. Understanding of Faith can help someone gain wisdom and the ability to look beyond their immediate surroundings. Without Faith a person can lose optimism, become heavy with helplessness, and easily be overwhelmed. But, when you manipulate that Faith into a religion you lose strength in flexibility and you create strength in conformity. A denial of constant cultural and scientific shifting makes Religion insignificant.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Orwellian
Orwell wrote of three nation-states in nineteen eighty-four. I haven’t read it—though it’s on my bookshelf in ready—, but from all impressions to date this doesn’t appear to be, in any way, a good thing; except maybe for the two percent of the population in the inner party. As the U.S. is the only super power by almost all estimates—except those of the U.S., which like to put China above its means in order to create polarity—so the social structure must be different. It may not be better than the Orwellian dystopia, but at least different. And then I realized that even though Orwell’s number may have been off, we’re closer to a single-digit tally of super-states than we probably should be.
These are all hypothetical because I’m optimistic nations will choose sovereignty over conglomeration, but there seem to be some alliances that will stand stronger than others. When the U.S. became the sole super power almost sixty years ago, it had the potential of being a diplomatic powerhouse. We didn’t go that route, and consequently are the catalyst to what could be five politically, economically, and militarily linked super-states.
Latin America would be the most important as far as proximity. These nations have different ideals and goals, but many have a distaste for U.S. policies. With a leader like Chávez in Venezuela, who is passionate, vocal, and determined, there’s no telling how these nations could fall together. Most of these countries have a lot of American influence, some have had governments created or destroyed by covert actions or political backing of the U.S. and still others just have the same bad taste in their mouths that most of the world has when mentioning U.S. policy. If an event with multinational repercussions were to fall on them, it may only take a small nudge to push them together in a makeshift alliance against the U.S. Or maybe just an alliance to protect their resources and politics from U.S. control.
In my opinion China, India, the Koreas, and the Philippines would, at least geographically have a strong link. China’s thirst for natural resources will grow in the next decades and a pipeline through Pakistan or India to the oil in Iraq and Iran would be extremely advantageous. Until Jong-il’s demise, North Korea will likely be blocked out of any alliance. It would be the most populous super-state. The countries are incredibly independent, but also seem to have an affinity for diplomacy that the U.S. and parts of the E.U. lack. Even with policy differences, they, especially China and India, have many ties to the U.S. that, if broken, could knock their economy off balance. This is probably the conglomerate with the least potential of happening without a long series of events and policy shifts forcing it into existence.
Because of the destruction of Iraq, a middle-eastern super state may be closer than it would have been. Saddam was an evil leader, but he tolerated Israel and despised Iran. With him out of the equation it’s too easy for Syria and Iran to increase their influence in the region geographically between them. Iran has incentive to lay pipeline through Pakistan or Turkey in order to get their oil to China and Russia, the two larger, and oil thirsty, powers to their east. They’ve already been grouped together in U.S. rhetoric. Afghanistan is ripe for influence because of U.S. military campaigns as well. There are cultural differences between these nations that would cause the alliance to be tentative, but as the region with the largest oil reserves and the largest cultural divide with the west, it would still be relatively strong if they were pushed to work together more closely.
The European Union already exists and, though somewhat weak, groups many nations in similar policies. They already have a mutual currency. They are probably the most culturally diverse super-state from appearances, but their histories intertwine and their overall concerns seem to be fairly similar. It encompasses twenty-seven countries and has a combined gross domestic product of fourteen trillion U.S. dollars and even have it’s own elected government.
Africa seems to be it’s own conglomeration already, but not one that will compete on the world stage. Instead it appears to be a giant land mass for the other super-states to strip as many resources from as possible. There are a few global players that come up as wild cards. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Japan could be placed with many different alliances depending on their political climate at the time. Their diplomatic ties today seem solid enough, but could shift easily.
The main super-state I’m concerned with though is my own. Or our own. Or however you’d like to describe the super-state that shares my continental real estate. This would be the regional super-state of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. with satellite countries like Israel and Australia being heavily involved. Until Australia destroys itself with horrible environmental policies and Israel is destroyed by the more powerful middle eastern super-state, that is.
Without public debate, or even knowledge, government officials from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., have been meeting to expand NAFTA. They established what is now dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] and will essentially strengthen the borders to the east and west while dissolving the borders between the three nations. While the name has the connotation of a Utopian ideal, it is counteracted by a seat for NACC members, but no invitations given to social groups or parliamentary groups from any of the three countries. Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. corporations are drooling over the potential profits this could birth, but the left from Mexico and Canada, and the right of the U.S. are making protest. The implementation of these policies is arguably a complete end to national sovereignty for all three, and would likely be exponentially more profitable for the U.S. while Mexico and Canada’s resources are exploited.
As I said above, I haven’t read nineteen eighty-four, but I don’t think Orwell had this in mind as a social model to strive for. In reality this is far-fetched. There aren’t enough factors in play to force independent states together. But what would happen if we run out of water? Or the atmosphere turns against us? Or sea water rises and floods major metropolitan areas? Or global droughts cause a drop in food provisions below what can feed even a small percentage of the population? Or there is a massive species extinction that destroys whole ecosystems?
The chances of any of those things jumps significantly without environmental reform. Is it too late to fight the current toward global catastrophe? Will the battle for natural resources force nations to combine their strength in a Voltron-esque fashion to secure a future? Who knows, but it sounds like an amazing book.
These are all hypothetical because I’m optimistic nations will choose sovereignty over conglomeration, but there seem to be some alliances that will stand stronger than others. When the U.S. became the sole super power almost sixty years ago, it had the potential of being a diplomatic powerhouse. We didn’t go that route, and consequently are the catalyst to what could be five politically, economically, and militarily linked super-states.
Latin America would be the most important as far as proximity. These nations have different ideals and goals, but many have a distaste for U.S. policies. With a leader like Chávez in Venezuela, who is passionate, vocal, and determined, there’s no telling how these nations could fall together. Most of these countries have a lot of American influence, some have had governments created or destroyed by covert actions or political backing of the U.S. and still others just have the same bad taste in their mouths that most of the world has when mentioning U.S. policy. If an event with multinational repercussions were to fall on them, it may only take a small nudge to push them together in a makeshift alliance against the U.S. Or maybe just an alliance to protect their resources and politics from U.S. control.
In my opinion China, India, the Koreas, and the Philippines would, at least geographically have a strong link. China’s thirst for natural resources will grow in the next decades and a pipeline through Pakistan or India to the oil in Iraq and Iran would be extremely advantageous. Until Jong-il’s demise, North Korea will likely be blocked out of any alliance. It would be the most populous super-state. The countries are incredibly independent, but also seem to have an affinity for diplomacy that the U.S. and parts of the E.U. lack. Even with policy differences, they, especially China and India, have many ties to the U.S. that, if broken, could knock their economy off balance. This is probably the conglomerate with the least potential of happening without a long series of events and policy shifts forcing it into existence.
Because of the destruction of Iraq, a middle-eastern super state may be closer than it would have been. Saddam was an evil leader, but he tolerated Israel and despised Iran. With him out of the equation it’s too easy for Syria and Iran to increase their influence in the region geographically between them. Iran has incentive to lay pipeline through Pakistan or Turkey in order to get their oil to China and Russia, the two larger, and oil thirsty, powers to their east. They’ve already been grouped together in U.S. rhetoric. Afghanistan is ripe for influence because of U.S. military campaigns as well. There are cultural differences between these nations that would cause the alliance to be tentative, but as the region with the largest oil reserves and the largest cultural divide with the west, it would still be relatively strong if they were pushed to work together more closely.
The European Union already exists and, though somewhat weak, groups many nations in similar policies. They already have a mutual currency. They are probably the most culturally diverse super-state from appearances, but their histories intertwine and their overall concerns seem to be fairly similar. It encompasses twenty-seven countries and has a combined gross domestic product of fourteen trillion U.S. dollars and even have it’s own elected government.
Africa seems to be it’s own conglomeration already, but not one that will compete on the world stage. Instead it appears to be a giant land mass for the other super-states to strip as many resources from as possible. There are a few global players that come up as wild cards. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Japan could be placed with many different alliances depending on their political climate at the time. Their diplomatic ties today seem solid enough, but could shift easily.
The main super-state I’m concerned with though is my own. Or our own. Or however you’d like to describe the super-state that shares my continental real estate. This would be the regional super-state of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. with satellite countries like Israel and Australia being heavily involved. Until Australia destroys itself with horrible environmental policies and Israel is destroyed by the more powerful middle eastern super-state, that is.
Without public debate, or even knowledge, government officials from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., have been meeting to expand NAFTA. They established what is now dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] and will essentially strengthen the borders to the east and west while dissolving the borders between the three nations. While the name has the connotation of a Utopian ideal, it is counteracted by a seat for NACC members, but no invitations given to social groups or parliamentary groups from any of the three countries. Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. corporations are drooling over the potential profits this could birth, but the left from Mexico and Canada, and the right of the U.S. are making protest. The implementation of these policies is arguably a complete end to national sovereignty for all three, and would likely be exponentially more profitable for the U.S. while Mexico and Canada’s resources are exploited.
As I said above, I haven’t read nineteen eighty-four, but I don’t think Orwell had this in mind as a social model to strive for. In reality this is far-fetched. There aren’t enough factors in play to force independent states together. But what would happen if we run out of water? Or the atmosphere turns against us? Or sea water rises and floods major metropolitan areas? Or global droughts cause a drop in food provisions below what can feed even a small percentage of the population? Or there is a massive species extinction that destroys whole ecosystems?
The chances of any of those things jumps significantly without environmental reform. Is it too late to fight the current toward global catastrophe? Will the battle for natural resources force nations to combine their strength in a Voltron-esque fashion to secure a future? Who knows, but it sounds like an amazing book.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
pieces
There are many movies about it, but the most recent is probably the Wachowski brothers’ V for Vendetta. They paint the picture of an oppressive government that eases it’s way into a totalitarian regime while the masses stand by unaware. Typically there is a horrible tragedy that sparks an increase in governmental controls and a decrease in a citizen’s liberties. The tragedy is sometimes caused by the government or other times allowed to happen. In the case of Vendetta an outbreak is caused by a government experiment that goes awry. The liberties are given up in most cases for the greater good. The films usually begin after the oppression has begun or after it’s in a stage where the powerful are all interconnected and greedy for more power. This is where the hero, or group of heroes, steps in to release the metaphoric shackles and free the masses from government abuses. The films are usually quite moving because it symbolizes the destitute of middle management, or low-wage labor, or overbearing parents, or a feeling of helplessness or isolation within a fast-paced society. They tend to be science-fiction oriented movies.
I found it odd the other day how easily these films can reflect reality. We’re living now in what could be seen as an exposition to a film in this genre. These films always involve advanced surveillance systems, power-hungry and boisterous leaders, and a general submission of the population. But that can’t happen here right? There are checks and balances and the government doesn’t have that kind of power. They don’t have the technology from the movies. Enemy of the State was just a movie, moron. That’s what you’re thinking eh? Well this is all hypothetical, because I’m blissfully ignorant on most matters beyond pop culture, but try and follow along. Whether you see parallels or not it will make an awesome movie. Contact me with an email if you’re looking to elaborate or direct.
First you have the underground swelling of an exclusive group with ruthless recruiting tactics. It’s not from a fringe cult, which would be easy to dismiss, but rather from the inside of a prominent religion. Preying on the isolated, troubled, or deeply religious, they flood a recruit with affection and attention, while simultaneously isolating them from their outside world. They make promises that alleviate the fundamental stresses of being human, like the pain of loss or the fear of death. Their numbers are growing. They are the loudest of the religious right. Even with their ignorance of logical thought and their assumptions of a militant Islam enemy, they appeal to a large group of the lower class looking for answers. This group has influential leaders who can make their voices heard easily. Their ranks include or are directly associated with high ranking officials and corporate heads. There are many that may not share all of their beliefs, but agree that a moral shift has taken place that needs to be repaired.
Then there are the consumer specific marketing strategies that are coming into popularity. We use RFID chips in dogs, fish, and anything else we want to identify and track. There are now chips installed in the keys to Mini Coopers that transmit to billboards, which trigger a personalized message to display. There are new shopping carts in development that have an integrated screen. This screen displays advertisements and works as a cart-level checkout. The advertisements are specific to the area of the store you’re in. The carts can be tracked throughout the isles, as well as keep track of how long you’re near a certain item. Why would a consumer need this? They don’t. Marketers do, and that’s why they’re pushing for it’s popularity.
It has never been easier to reach a specific consumer. Add to that the flooding of a consumer’s visual life with advertising and it’s a lethal combination that can easily manufacture a need. In the few marketing oriented classes I took on course for my degree I was fed the number three thousand. That’s the number of bits of advertising that the average person sees each day. Most analysts are now putting that number closer to five thousand. It seems like a big number until you factor in any time on the Internet, time watching television, and the growing medium of guerrilla marketing. That’s five thousand messages, in any myriad of ways, that can influence someone to turn a want into a need. The size and placement of advertising is always changing. What if these same marketing strategies were used to relay a subtle xenophobic message?
While on the Internet a person’s information is tracked, sorted, and stored. What pages a person goes to, what information they input, what information they look at, the structure of the sites they’re on, the documents they download, and how long they’re doing any of those is regularly sold to companies or the government. This is primarily used to create a picture of a consumer. Marketing companies soak it up like a dry sponge in a bucket of water. When you’re trying to sell a product that has almost no utility it is very important to reach a specific customer that is gullible enough to find it irresistible.
An example would be diamonds. They are the third hardest natural material and are a logical choice for industry. But somehow it became a fashionable and symbolic accessory to anniversaries and the most popular of women. It has no utility in the jewelry market beyond it’s durability. The industry is suspected of price manipulation, but in my opinion they’ve almost earned the right to make the price as high as they see fit. They are likely the industry that is most successful in creating a pseudo demand for their product.
The materialistic society was pushed to its breaking point six years ago. Not because the economy crashed or because there was a dramatic turnaround in consumer habits. Two planes, hijacked by terrorists, flew into the World Trade Center and within hours the two tours had collapsed. Almost three thousand predominantly innocent people perished. The morning is scorched into my memory. The world sympathized and our hunt for the persons responsible was justified. In the years since, we have yet to find the admitted mind behind the attack, have witnessed an unheard of increase in worldwide terrorism, and left a gigantic hole in the center of Manhattan.
Information has come to light that implies the administration knew of the threat. The main players in actually shared a bank and had mutual friends with the terrorist organization itself. The administration and many aspects of the government have become increasingly secretive. Companies associated with the administration received lucrative contracts. The Secretary of Defense was almost immediately determined to direct attention askew. Links to a different country were fabricated and embellished. With the country still dazed, they turned its attention to a different target with minimal effort.
Terror went from headline news to completely saturating the news after the attacks. Sacrifices were made by the public that were justified by the War Against Terror. Secret prisons remain outside the regulation of international law. Scandals of corruption, wire-tapping, political intimidation, and other abuses of power have run rampant. It has become unpatriotic to question the government. The United States, already one of the most racist countries in the industrialized world in my opinion, took racial profiling to a new level. Brown men and women are harassed or ridiculed daily, if not reported, for mundane behavior that’s witnessed by a skewed perspective.
The media has for the most part ignored any backlash to the imperialistic tendencies of our nation. Because of this ignorance, we are left baffled that someone or a group of people would want to attack us. The media has persisted in its shallow coverage. It is easily swayed by expertly used language from the administration and pounces on unimportant social issues like a cat toward a flashlight beam on a couch. When the administration wants to pass legislation that will obliterate a basic human right they light a fire under gay marriage or abortion and the media changes course like a moth. The media gives equal coverage, if not more coverage, to celebrity news of no merit or social importance instead of asking real questions that could spark actual change.
In a country where the government is built on a foundation of checks and balances, there is very little of either taking place. A bill was passed within six months, without being read by most, that effectively gave the President immense power. He has only vetoed two bills because a Republican congress bowed to his every whim and passed favorable legislation. The administration brought the country into a war under false pretenses and has yet to admit as such. They have flaunted their ignorance as if it were a velvet cape or a gem-studded crown.
The President now has more powers over the National Guard to send them to domestic locations on his command. He has the power to deem someone an enemy of the state, which essentially strips them of any fundamental human rights. He can choose to hold someone indefinitely without charge. He can request a persons Internet statistics, library records, or cell call history. He can essentially declare war on his own accord. He can track someone using cell phone records, RFIDs, automobile GPS, video surveillance, or by tailing him the old fashioned way. He can even get recorded conversations from the telephone companies through the FBI until they overturn that legislation.
But why would he want to abuse these powers? He’s the commander guy and knows what he’s doing. To question him is ridiculous. And why would we have to worry about him having these powers? It’s not like he’ll use them to create an oppressive regime. That shit only happens in the movies.
I found it odd the other day how easily these films can reflect reality. We’re living now in what could be seen as an exposition to a film in this genre. These films always involve advanced surveillance systems, power-hungry and boisterous leaders, and a general submission of the population. But that can’t happen here right? There are checks and balances and the government doesn’t have that kind of power. They don’t have the technology from the movies. Enemy of the State was just a movie, moron. That’s what you’re thinking eh? Well this is all hypothetical, because I’m blissfully ignorant on most matters beyond pop culture, but try and follow along. Whether you see parallels or not it will make an awesome movie. Contact me with an email if you’re looking to elaborate or direct.
First you have the underground swelling of an exclusive group with ruthless recruiting tactics. It’s not from a fringe cult, which would be easy to dismiss, but rather from the inside of a prominent religion. Preying on the isolated, troubled, or deeply religious, they flood a recruit with affection and attention, while simultaneously isolating them from their outside world. They make promises that alleviate the fundamental stresses of being human, like the pain of loss or the fear of death. Their numbers are growing. They are the loudest of the religious right. Even with their ignorance of logical thought and their assumptions of a militant Islam enemy, they appeal to a large group of the lower class looking for answers. This group has influential leaders who can make their voices heard easily. Their ranks include or are directly associated with high ranking officials and corporate heads. There are many that may not share all of their beliefs, but agree that a moral shift has taken place that needs to be repaired.
Then there are the consumer specific marketing strategies that are coming into popularity. We use RFID chips in dogs, fish, and anything else we want to identify and track. There are now chips installed in the keys to Mini Coopers that transmit to billboards, which trigger a personalized message to display. There are new shopping carts in development that have an integrated screen. This screen displays advertisements and works as a cart-level checkout. The advertisements are specific to the area of the store you’re in. The carts can be tracked throughout the isles, as well as keep track of how long you’re near a certain item. Why would a consumer need this? They don’t. Marketers do, and that’s why they’re pushing for it’s popularity.
It has never been easier to reach a specific consumer. Add to that the flooding of a consumer’s visual life with advertising and it’s a lethal combination that can easily manufacture a need. In the few marketing oriented classes I took on course for my degree I was fed the number three thousand. That’s the number of bits of advertising that the average person sees each day. Most analysts are now putting that number closer to five thousand. It seems like a big number until you factor in any time on the Internet, time watching television, and the growing medium of guerrilla marketing. That’s five thousand messages, in any myriad of ways, that can influence someone to turn a want into a need. The size and placement of advertising is always changing. What if these same marketing strategies were used to relay a subtle xenophobic message?
While on the Internet a person’s information is tracked, sorted, and stored. What pages a person goes to, what information they input, what information they look at, the structure of the sites they’re on, the documents they download, and how long they’re doing any of those is regularly sold to companies or the government. This is primarily used to create a picture of a consumer. Marketing companies soak it up like a dry sponge in a bucket of water. When you’re trying to sell a product that has almost no utility it is very important to reach a specific customer that is gullible enough to find it irresistible.
An example would be diamonds. They are the third hardest natural material and are a logical choice for industry. But somehow it became a fashionable and symbolic accessory to anniversaries and the most popular of women. It has no utility in the jewelry market beyond it’s durability. The industry is suspected of price manipulation, but in my opinion they’ve almost earned the right to make the price as high as they see fit. They are likely the industry that is most successful in creating a pseudo demand for their product.
The materialistic society was pushed to its breaking point six years ago. Not because the economy crashed or because there was a dramatic turnaround in consumer habits. Two planes, hijacked by terrorists, flew into the World Trade Center and within hours the two tours had collapsed. Almost three thousand predominantly innocent people perished. The morning is scorched into my memory. The world sympathized and our hunt for the persons responsible was justified. In the years since, we have yet to find the admitted mind behind the attack, have witnessed an unheard of increase in worldwide terrorism, and left a gigantic hole in the center of Manhattan.
Information has come to light that implies the administration knew of the threat. The main players in actually shared a bank and had mutual friends with the terrorist organization itself. The administration and many aspects of the government have become increasingly secretive. Companies associated with the administration received lucrative contracts. The Secretary of Defense was almost immediately determined to direct attention askew. Links to a different country were fabricated and embellished. With the country still dazed, they turned its attention to a different target with minimal effort.
Terror went from headline news to completely saturating the news after the attacks. Sacrifices were made by the public that were justified by the War Against Terror. Secret prisons remain outside the regulation of international law. Scandals of corruption, wire-tapping, political intimidation, and other abuses of power have run rampant. It has become unpatriotic to question the government. The United States, already one of the most racist countries in the industrialized world in my opinion, took racial profiling to a new level. Brown men and women are harassed or ridiculed daily, if not reported, for mundane behavior that’s witnessed by a skewed perspective.
The media has for the most part ignored any backlash to the imperialistic tendencies of our nation. Because of this ignorance, we are left baffled that someone or a group of people would want to attack us. The media has persisted in its shallow coverage. It is easily swayed by expertly used language from the administration and pounces on unimportant social issues like a cat toward a flashlight beam on a couch. When the administration wants to pass legislation that will obliterate a basic human right they light a fire under gay marriage or abortion and the media changes course like a moth. The media gives equal coverage, if not more coverage, to celebrity news of no merit or social importance instead of asking real questions that could spark actual change.
In a country where the government is built on a foundation of checks and balances, there is very little of either taking place. A bill was passed within six months, without being read by most, that effectively gave the President immense power. He has only vetoed two bills because a Republican congress bowed to his every whim and passed favorable legislation. The administration brought the country into a war under false pretenses and has yet to admit as such. They have flaunted their ignorance as if it were a velvet cape or a gem-studded crown.
The President now has more powers over the National Guard to send them to domestic locations on his command. He has the power to deem someone an enemy of the state, which essentially strips them of any fundamental human rights. He can choose to hold someone indefinitely without charge. He can request a persons Internet statistics, library records, or cell call history. He can essentially declare war on his own accord. He can track someone using cell phone records, RFIDs, automobile GPS, video surveillance, or by tailing him the old fashioned way. He can even get recorded conversations from the telephone companies through the FBI until they overturn that legislation.
But why would he want to abuse these powers? He’s the commander guy and knows what he’s doing. To question him is ridiculous. And why would we have to worry about him having these powers? It’s not like he’ll use them to create an oppressive regime. That shit only happens in the movies.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
score
I was told recently that your credit score is an important number. I agree on a certain level, but to refer to it as important gives credence to the arbitrary and manufactured. The belief that a number has any more importance than the color of your eyes generates an unrealistic ideal set. In the short time one walks this dying planet, should it be a series of numbers that defines him? Are we being reduced to the statistic columns we fall into in massive databases? What are the odds a bank teller at your regular stop knows your name before punching in your account number or reading your transaction slip? Numbers like the credit score were created from mathematical formulas to determine the most profitable candidates with as little effort or ambiguity as possible.
Colleges reduce applicants to a series of well-defined, prioritized numbers. First it was exclusive to those that could afford it. As that number grew it became based on a grade point average so that students could be categorized and sorted. It became apparent that high school and college are completely dissimilar. A GPA does not provide any sense of how a student will perform, succeed, and most importantly, return the investment to the university. The Scholastic Aptitude Test was created to better analyze a students academic worth. When this test was exposed as favoring the upper classes, a new test was developed called the American College Test. This test is used primarily in the south and midwest of the US because it more accurately assesses a students financial worth without the underlying classism. In these regions there is very little class differential so the scores are more individual and have a stronger association to the student.
Once a college has accepted a potential student they are assigned a number. This number is now an easy way to lump any scores, assessments, or behavioral categorization to that student without the added stress on employees to know his or her name directly. This means an employee force numbering the same as one from the mid-fifties can handle an exponentially higher work load. This works in much the same way as a social security or driver's license number does for the government. Costs are lower because these organizations are then able to hire employees with less skill.
The GPA, SAT and ACT scores, and diplomas are then used by some employers to determine the value of hiring certain applicants. Other professions, and most positions that are beyond entry-level, then use a series of references and previous employment to do the same. If an applicant met the standards of a good school and worked for a recognizable company he is more valuable than one that went to an unknown school and worked for a small company because he has proven to be economically viable. Very little thought is put toward the attitude, social skills, or general abilities of the applicant until after a series of inquiries or interviews. The person who went to a small school for financial reasons or because of a smaller faculty-student ratio and then worked at a small company to gain a better depth of experience in their field is a better candidate, but sometimes overlooked.
A number defines a small fraction of a person's worth, but is easier to determine than credibility, integrity, trustworthiness, and responsibility. A person's character has little relevance to their financial, academic, or occupational value. It is unreasonable to associate the assigned numbers in prison to a credit score or an account number. Unfortunately, it is not unrealistic. To a bank a person may be a series of account numbers and a mortgage. To the government he is a driver's license, a social security number, and a set of W-2 forms on annual tax returns. To a college he is a student ID, an email account, a GPA, and an ACT or SAT score. To an insurance company he is an account number and a series of claims. To a credit card company he is an account number and a credit score.
This is why these numbers are important. They are arbitrarily chosen, but standardized across a mass population. They make the choices of lenders and officials easier. They fit into guidelines of policy. Without them they are forced to hire more employees who are then forced to manage an impossible workload. Without them statistics and analysis and categorization are near impossible and almost worthless. Without them a background-check is a series of subjective claims and testimonials. Without them a person is impossible to quantify.
I don't have a credit card. The thought has crossed my mind recently to get one, but currently seems unnecessary. I have three debit cards, and two of those are check cards that work in every credit card machine. Last year was a great year and I didn't feel any pressure to get a credit card or to restrict myself all that much. I earned roughly fourteen thousand dollars. According to the Census Bureau and Wikipedia, I was three hundred fifty thousand pennies away from a "condition in which a person is deprived of, and or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life." I didn't know what I had earned until my tax returns came due. I know people who live comfortably making one-and-a-half times that and I know people struggling who make twice that. I have seen great people sucked into massive debt and watched materially-gluttonous people earn hundreds in reward benefits.
Credit cards prey on the struggling. Students just arriving at college are bombarded by free enrollments. The credit companies are thriving in a country of the fiscally irresponsible. They market hard to give their product a manufactured necessity. They promote a card's convenience, it's accessibility, and it's flexibility. Their profits soar as the average amount saved for Americans runs in the red. Their profits don't rely on responsible spenders who pay in full at the end of each month, but rather, are reliant on the majority who see the minimum balance as a way of keeping money in their pocket. The ability to hold off payment morphes from something to be used in emergencies to a necessary evil.
The number created from an obscure formula now assigns value to each person. This number determines if he will get a loan, a car, or a house. This number is accessed by any company looking to assess him without meeting him. This number reduces an entire lifetime of mistakes, successes, and choices to a statistic. This number erases his drug addiction, his quest to find himself, and any other life choice made beyond the scope of numerical summation. This number is one in a growing list of numbers that eliminate the humanity of interaction.
A man can change over the course of days or in an instant. He can witness tragedy or reach bottom and make major changes toward a different life. A man can transition quickly from one stage of his life to another. A number is static or changes slowly. A man can go into debt because he takes a risk on a business that is in direct competition with a corporate juggernaut. A man can lose his family, job, and assets in a hurricane and then struggles from check-to-check to survive. A man can start out life as an adventurous twenty-year-old with no steady income and a thirst for the next best thing that drives his credit debt beyond a manageable level. A score on a test remains static no matter how much he learns after taking it. A score that takes weighted analysis of a payment record, control of debt, signs of responsibility, unused credit cards, and other factors from decades ago is slow to change.
This is why a credit score is important. A credit score can take decades to regain a reasonable level. Even with re-aging you're not ensured an increased score. Experían rates me above fifty-one percent of consumers with a score of seven hundred twenty-six. What does that mean? Does it mean I'm a responsible consumer? Does it mean I should look into buying a house? Does it mean the banks will be fighting over me? How much will that number increase if I enroll in a credit card and start buying things erratically while paying in full monthly? What sort of interest rates am I getting with that score and how do they differ from someone below six hundred? Does that score mean I'm more valuable than half of consumers?
Or does it mean that an outside agency took a series of statistics, plugged them into a weighted formula, and created a number between three hundred thirty and eight hundred thirty that is now used by every major crediting organization to define my debt potential?
Colleges reduce applicants to a series of well-defined, prioritized numbers. First it was exclusive to those that could afford it. As that number grew it became based on a grade point average so that students could be categorized and sorted. It became apparent that high school and college are completely dissimilar. A GPA does not provide any sense of how a student will perform, succeed, and most importantly, return the investment to the university. The Scholastic Aptitude Test was created to better analyze a students academic worth. When this test was exposed as favoring the upper classes, a new test was developed called the American College Test. This test is used primarily in the south and midwest of the US because it more accurately assesses a students financial worth without the underlying classism. In these regions there is very little class differential so the scores are more individual and have a stronger association to the student.
Once a college has accepted a potential student they are assigned a number. This number is now an easy way to lump any scores, assessments, or behavioral categorization to that student without the added stress on employees to know his or her name directly. This means an employee force numbering the same as one from the mid-fifties can handle an exponentially higher work load. This works in much the same way as a social security or driver's license number does for the government. Costs are lower because these organizations are then able to hire employees with less skill.
The GPA, SAT and ACT scores, and diplomas are then used by some employers to determine the value of hiring certain applicants. Other professions, and most positions that are beyond entry-level, then use a series of references and previous employment to do the same. If an applicant met the standards of a good school and worked for a recognizable company he is more valuable than one that went to an unknown school and worked for a small company because he has proven to be economically viable. Very little thought is put toward the attitude, social skills, or general abilities of the applicant until after a series of inquiries or interviews. The person who went to a small school for financial reasons or because of a smaller faculty-student ratio and then worked at a small company to gain a better depth of experience in their field is a better candidate, but sometimes overlooked.
A number defines a small fraction of a person's worth, but is easier to determine than credibility, integrity, trustworthiness, and responsibility. A person's character has little relevance to their financial, academic, or occupational value. It is unreasonable to associate the assigned numbers in prison to a credit score or an account number. Unfortunately, it is not unrealistic. To a bank a person may be a series of account numbers and a mortgage. To the government he is a driver's license, a social security number, and a set of W-2 forms on annual tax returns. To a college he is a student ID, an email account, a GPA, and an ACT or SAT score. To an insurance company he is an account number and a series of claims. To a credit card company he is an account number and a credit score.
This is why these numbers are important. They are arbitrarily chosen, but standardized across a mass population. They make the choices of lenders and officials easier. They fit into guidelines of policy. Without them they are forced to hire more employees who are then forced to manage an impossible workload. Without them statistics and analysis and categorization are near impossible and almost worthless. Without them a background-check is a series of subjective claims and testimonials. Without them a person is impossible to quantify.
I don't have a credit card. The thought has crossed my mind recently to get one, but currently seems unnecessary. I have three debit cards, and two of those are check cards that work in every credit card machine. Last year was a great year and I didn't feel any pressure to get a credit card or to restrict myself all that much. I earned roughly fourteen thousand dollars. According to the Census Bureau and Wikipedia, I was three hundred fifty thousand pennies away from a "condition in which a person is deprived of, and or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life." I didn't know what I had earned until my tax returns came due. I know people who live comfortably making one-and-a-half times that and I know people struggling who make twice that. I have seen great people sucked into massive debt and watched materially-gluttonous people earn hundreds in reward benefits.
Credit cards prey on the struggling. Students just arriving at college are bombarded by free enrollments. The credit companies are thriving in a country of the fiscally irresponsible. They market hard to give their product a manufactured necessity. They promote a card's convenience, it's accessibility, and it's flexibility. Their profits soar as the average amount saved for Americans runs in the red. Their profits don't rely on responsible spenders who pay in full at the end of each month, but rather, are reliant on the majority who see the minimum balance as a way of keeping money in their pocket. The ability to hold off payment morphes from something to be used in emergencies to a necessary evil.
The number created from an obscure formula now assigns value to each person. This number determines if he will get a loan, a car, or a house. This number is accessed by any company looking to assess him without meeting him. This number reduces an entire lifetime of mistakes, successes, and choices to a statistic. This number erases his drug addiction, his quest to find himself, and any other life choice made beyond the scope of numerical summation. This number is one in a growing list of numbers that eliminate the humanity of interaction.
A man can change over the course of days or in an instant. He can witness tragedy or reach bottom and make major changes toward a different life. A man can transition quickly from one stage of his life to another. A number is static or changes slowly. A man can go into debt because he takes a risk on a business that is in direct competition with a corporate juggernaut. A man can lose his family, job, and assets in a hurricane and then struggles from check-to-check to survive. A man can start out life as an adventurous twenty-year-old with no steady income and a thirst for the next best thing that drives his credit debt beyond a manageable level. A score on a test remains static no matter how much he learns after taking it. A score that takes weighted analysis of a payment record, control of debt, signs of responsibility, unused credit cards, and other factors from decades ago is slow to change.
This is why a credit score is important. A credit score can take decades to regain a reasonable level. Even with re-aging you're not ensured an increased score. Experían rates me above fifty-one percent of consumers with a score of seven hundred twenty-six. What does that mean? Does it mean I'm a responsible consumer? Does it mean I should look into buying a house? Does it mean the banks will be fighting over me? How much will that number increase if I enroll in a credit card and start buying things erratically while paying in full monthly? What sort of interest rates am I getting with that score and how do they differ from someone below six hundred? Does that score mean I'm more valuable than half of consumers?
Or does it mean that an outside agency took a series of statistics, plugged them into a weighted formula, and created a number between three hundred thirty and eight hundred thirty that is now used by every major crediting organization to define my debt potential?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)