Slashdot Mirror
Technology And The Fast Food Nation
Technology, as futurists like George Orwell and Arthur Clarke have been predicting for decades, will be the battleground on which the fight against corporatism is played out.
The United States has become a corporate republic, with the takeover of cyberspace one of that republic's primary goals. Corporate domination of the real world no longer seems possible unless companies like Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner bring the virtual one under control. From sweetheart regulatory legislation for media companies and telcoms to the Children's Internet Protection Act to Carnivore and the DMCA, they're working on it. Small entrepeneurs are falling like flies, just as little diners, family eateries, and small farms and meatpackers have fallen before McDonald's and Burger King.
In fact, technology and fast food, profoundly intertwined, serve as useful metaphors for the unintended consequences that accompany scientific advances.
Fast food is, in many ways, the story of contemporary America -- its work and health, its homogenization. Fast food is central to urban and suburban sprawl and to the rise of malls as retailing forces. Fast food has created a generation of new, mostly lousy jobs, cemented the divisions between rich and poor, triggered an epidemic of obesity, and sparked resentment of America's so-called cultural imperialism abroad. It's the stepchild of post-war progress in farming, slaughtering and packing, refrigeration and transportation.
For a preview of the unintended ways in which technology shapes the new world -- ways nobody wants to think or talk much about -- the fast food industry is a good (and sobering) case study. Fast food practices are already shaping tech industries, too, from computing to software to bio-tech.
A case study is exactly what Eric Schlosser provides in his new book Fast Food Nation. In the 1970s, he reminds us, political activists were already warning about the McDonaldization of America in much the same way that hackers, programmers and open source advocates are sounding the alarm about the Microsoft-ing of the Net. Those activists sensed that the emerging fast food business threatened independent companies and presaged a food economy dominated by giant corporations.
Beyond that, fast food franchises obliterated a sense of geographical and cultural differences among different regions of the United States. The appeal of fast food -- that people would know just what to expect no matter where they bought their Whoppers or Taco Bell burritos -- was also one of its most devastating consequences.
And there were plenty of others. The industry was one of the first to use technology -- especially advances in genetics -- to set the ground rules for the corporate republic, whose media, culture and economy are increasingly dominated by McDonaldesque notions about uniformity, scale and work. The fast food biz re-conceived the high-tech, manual-labor factory; it has always relied on poorly-paid workers doing regimented, robot-like work.
It has, naturally, attracted a disproportionate number of immigrant, poor and minority workers who have little real chance of advancement, and whose work is so rote and mechanized they have no need for high wages, further training or the opportunities to acquire meaningful new skills. This corporatized industry has, with the help of an equally corporatized media, portrayed itself as a great boon to the underclass, hiring people nobody else would employ.
The fast food industry also perfected, even nationalized, the notion of false courtesy -- those forced mumbled greetings and thanks delivered with all of the sincerity of a telemarketer -- that echoes to this day throughout the tech support and customer service universe.
The burger, pizza and burrito chains' vast purchasing power, writes Schlosser, and their demand for an uncompromisingly uniform product, have triggered fundamental changes in farming and how cattle are raised, slaughtered and processed into burgers. These changes have made meatpacking -- once a highly skilled, well-paid trade -- into the most dangerous job in the U.S., performed by legions of poor, transient immigrants whose rapidly rising rate of injuries attract little publicity or government attention. The same meat industry practices, reports Schlosser, have facilitated the introduction of deadly pathogens, such as E. col 0157:H7, into America's hamburgers, one of the foods most aggressively marketed to kids.
Schlosser describes how the "natural flavor" of most fast foods -- what consumers crave when they order their burgers and fries -- are liquids manufactured in flavor companies along the New Jersey Turnpike and in the Rust Belt.
The American "flavor industry" now has annual revenues of about $1.4 billion, reports Schlosser. Until the l950s, flavor additives were used mainly in baked goods, candies and sodas. But the invention of gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers -- technologies that could detect volatile gases at low levels -- radically increased the number of flavors that could be synthesized. Within a decade, the American flavor industry was creating the taste of products from Hamburger Helper to Pop Tarts.
The evolution of the fast food industry shows us not only how powerful and ill-considered technology is as a force in American life, but offers some chilling previews of where the Net, the Web, the computing industry and tech culture may be headed. The lessons of fast food have been learned all too well, and deployed enthusiastically in the so-called new global economy (computer chips are also made in far-away factories. These jobs pay more than average wages in some countries, but are still lousy jobs generally making pennies. Assembly and packaging jobs pay even less.)
Like the people who established burger chains, the Net's founders arose from a ferociously individualistic culture, advances in technology generally provided by diverse and idiosyncratic subcultures from hackers and geeks to researchers and entrepeneurs.
But an industry launched by iconoclasts with bad haircuts in garages and basements has become a global one based on rooting out individual creativity and promoting uniformity.
The Net is already being overwhelmed by mass-marketed sex, entertainment and retailing entities. And the tech industry is already notorious for creating thousands of low-paying, unrewarding dead-end jobs. It's promoting American notions of culture all over the world -- just wait until the ethos that brought you natural flavor and McDonald's gets hold of AI research and the Human Genome project and starts marketing perfect, sweet-tempered babies to an unsuspecting world.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warned about the unthinking application of technology all the way back in 1803. Technology made the fast food industry possible, and without any real national discussion and consideration, retailing, health, work and the ability of individuals to operate farms or small businesses was altered for good. As Eric Schlosser thoughtfully points out in his book, there was nothing pre-ordained about the corporatization of food and culture.
From the airline industry to computer companies, American corporations have always worked to survive under the Darwinian laws of the marketplace by eliminating or absorbing their rivals -- the heart of the Microsoft strategy, in fact.
Some tend to see this corporatization as something apart from civics or public policy, but it isn't. These companies ought to be accountable -- taxpayers helped create them. Some of the strongest growth areas of the American economy -- the computer, software, aerospace and satellite industries -- have been inspired by or subsidized by the federal government. The Net, the heart of the so-called new economy, began of course as the ARPANET, the military communications network funded by Congress in the late l970s.
Free markets are good for economies, and in many cases, for the people who work in them. They can promote creativity, innovation, prosperity, choice and individualism, more than other political and economic systems. But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market -- a balance already tilting off center in almost the entire range of tech industries, and on the Net and Web.
The relentless corporatization of retailing, farming, publishing and entertainment, to name only a few, have swung the balance much too far, at least in the United States. Corporations are now the primary contributors to the American election system. They fund the overwhelming majority of lobbyists who prey on Washington. They block regulation that would promote competition, offer the public more choices in areas like Internet access, and fend off governmental and other supervision. They promote conformity and uniformity. Since corporations have acquired virtually all of the popular media, they are rarely criticized or challenged.
Writes Schlosser: "An economic system promising freedom has too often become a means of denying it, and the narrow dictates of the market gain precedence over more important democratic values."
This ought to sound familiar. This same economic system -- promising security, morality, freedom, protection for artists and the owners of intellectual property -- is using technology to transform the Net with the same zeal that hamburger chains used to decimate family restaurants. The story of fast food is turning out to be our story too.
The McDonald's City Improvement. Increases your relationships with all other civilizations who've built this improvement in at least one of their cities by 100%.
The Real Problem... from L on Sun Jan 28 11:44:38 2001 Now, let's not kid ourselves here. I work at McDonald's, and yes, it is not a career choice. I'm still in high school, and (surprise surprise) McD's is the only place around that accepts part-time young people in my small town. I'm a shift manager there. I will NOT be working there past high school. McDonald's does NOT care about people, their health, the environment, or their workers. They care about making money. Our franchise supervisor is proof to that. The only thing that comes out of her mouth is any and everything about profit. "We need more... Why aren't sales up... Why aren't you cutting hours..." etc. Yeah, sometimes she'll feed in a line of crap about making the customer have a good experience, but it all relates back to money. The more money the restaurant makes, the higher her paycheck is. But what the hell, right? That's her job. She's doing what she needs to make money. Just like I do, and just like the workers do. McDonald's is a bad presence... health wise, environmentally, ethically, and for the fact that it crushes smaller food industries with its huge corporate assets. Now the real problem here in the good old U.S. of A is how stupid Americans are. It's to be expected that in a capitalist society that corporations try to grow, to dominate the market place, and to make money at virtually any cost. So how is this fixed? It should be fixed through the public. Though, in this fat-loving society, I doubt it will happen. My personal experiences at our restaurant speak for themselves. Now you have to understand that if a McDonald's (even in a small town) is near a major highway, it is always busy, there are always customers, etc. On a good lunch hour (12-1) you can pull in $1500 or more. That may not seem like a lot, but when you're operating on minimal staff and with average transactions amounting about $6 per, it's a lot. The point I'm driving at is that Americans are DISGUSTING. The obviousness of it comes in the customer complaints. A customer will complain about sitting in a drive-thru line for three minutes.... 3 MINUTES! Now think about how short three minutes really is. I've had people scream and yell about waiting that long. And the kicker is, they don't even realize why they're waiting. Now, logically, if you see a line of cars through a drive-thru line, numbering about 10 cars, and another 5 before the speaker, you should probably realize that you're not getting "fast food" You're waiting for the 15 people ahead of you (half of which are vans full of screaming kids) to get their five value meals and six happy meals super-sized. Do customers realize this? No. And then, expecting to get superfast service from overworked, underpaid, underappreciated employees, they want a flawless meal. Now when you're pushing 200 transactions an hour with only three people taking orders and three in the kitchen, you're not getting a five star meal, no matter which way you slice it. Expect to get a cheeseburger where there is grease on the wrapper, the cheese isn't exactly on the bun, and the meat is saturated with fat because the employee doesn't have the time to clean off the grill between cooking because as soo n as you make the fat families 12 99 cent doublecheeseburgers, you have to put cook more meat to make the impatient lawyer's double quarter pounder with cheese. One thing McDonald's is good for is letting its employees see the true nature of America today. I've come, through my employment at McDonald's, to see people in general as a big line of cows nudging their way to the trough. "Mooo..." is what I here when lunch hits and overweight, heart attack risk, slobbering patrons herd to our restaurant. McDonald's only succeeds (and especially in the U.S.) because of the publics willingness and revolting eagerness to stuff their faces with red meat and processed french fries... throw in anything that's on sale because they don't want to pass up some extra fat for a lower price. Strangly enough, it was after I got a job at McD's, that I decided to never eat the food again... not because our food is stored wrong, undercooked, old, etc. (If I wanted something fresh, I could just make it myself), but because the astronomical business that McDonald's gets is a testament to the huge health flaw in the United States... Americans need to revert to old times when it comes to eating habits. For God's sake people... go home, cook a meal for your kids, eat a balanced dinner, bring a damn lunch from home with a piece of fruit, and have some milk instead of a 42 ounce Coke. WHO NEEDS THAT MUCH SODA?!?! I'm not supporting McDonald's, far from it. One thing I can say for the corporation, though, is that it is smarter than the public as a whole. At least they're making money from the population's junkfood craze... the public is wasting it... and their health as well.
At least, that's the conclusion one could draw from your logic. McDonalds leads to world peace? Horseshit.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
I don't either. But I think that about sums it up: the truth is, capitalism is exploitative, cold, heartless, emotionless, unhuman, selfish, greedy, uncaring, often harmful, all of the above! Unfortunately it's also a damn sight better than anything else anyone's come up with.
People want to control other people. Capitalists do this by giving people what they want. Evil capitalists do this by telling people what they want and then giving it to them. Bad capitalists find out what people want and then suggest their product has that when it actually doesn't.
But very few capitalists force people to accept exactly what they don't want (at least in terms of products and services).
I suggest we prosecute the bad capitalists and let the evil capitalists go. Because the most evil of evil capitalists is a walk in the park compared to the most evil of evil politicians.
No no- a representative republic is NOT majority rule. It tries to force a synthesis of ideas and is especially crafted to resist the evils of faction. Read Federalist Paper #10, okay? Democracy is a nice word but it's not what we in the USA do, in theory or in practice: that's because it's been done throughout history and it always crashes- 'bread and circuses', get it?
Watch out for network effects. Network effects means, "In the absense of any outside influence, the biggest options will squish the smallest options and make the total situation blatantly sub-optimal." Applies to a lot of things, but it sure as hell applies to Wal-Mart and McDonalds. It's necessary to hobble the giants a bit, they can well afford it- and otherwise you're just intentionally settling for an inferior competitive situation. And who wants to settle for an inferior competitive situation? Do you not _like_ competition?
Troll is a fairly strong term for it- I guess someone was having a bad day and got more annoyed than usual at the foolishness :) really, in 2001 that's a very odd opinion to hold. Maybe if we get rid of Congress too and let the RIAA and MPAA write laws directly, and get rid of the police and let the RIAA and MPAA furnish their own cops, our liberties will be improved ;) ya think?
If you think the loss of rainforest land to cattlefarming is "fear-mongering" rather than reality, you have a much better imagination than any "eco-profiteer" I've read.
The bottom line is that concentration of power is potentially bad, whether it's corporate or governmental. I'd like to see as little concentration of power as possible. Given a choice between assigning power to an elected, representative government that can be held accountable by its citizens and assigning power to an unelected corporation with no accountability beyond its shareholders and no obligation to consider the interests of those its actions may effect, the government is clearly the lesser of two evils.
At least, that's clear to me--but I'm a crazy bleeding-heart liberal, I guess.
"The future is dynamic" is great on a bumper sticker, but you're effectively claiming that what we do in our present doesn't affect the future. Tonight's homework assignment: "The Dust Bowl." Extra credit points: why is the Southwestern United States chiefly desert? (Hint: buffalo and cattle graze differently, something European settlers didn't know in their present.)
From an engineering standpoint, this is simple: what happens if we listen to "the crazy greens" and they're wrong? A lot of industries lose money in the short term, while countries and corporations are forced to learn better farming and conservation practices. If we listen to the sane, rational corporations and they're wrong, the world gets a lot less livable.
Maybe convenience is worth both the risk and the lack of long-term progress in your eyes, but not in mine.
And last but not least, if I represent "the orthodoxy," I guess that explains why there are so many more Honda Insights on the road than SUVs, and why our new proposed national energy plan focuses so much on alternative energy sources and wildlife preservation. :-)
It may be what _people_ want, but it's definitely not what _I_ want.
Of course, thanks to the wonders of capitalism, what _I_ want isn't important if it goes against what _people_ want.
It doesn't matter that _I_ still frequent that mom & pop grocer with the great meat. It doesn't matter that _I_ buy quality tools that will last a lifetime. If _people_ don't do these things, _I_ lose out.
Things swing towards mediocrity. Because it's good enough for your neighbors, it's good enough for you. That's the lesson here. It doesn't matter what the individual wants or desires - it's what the MASSES want that wins.
A person can be smart, polite, and well informed. People are dumb, rude, and pretty much stupid.
Since _people_ are the driving force here, not the individual, we get what dumb, rude, stupid people want.
And it's harder and harder to find alternatives. Money isn't given out to start business that are doomed to fail. Businesses that cater to a minority have a higher chance of failure than those that cater to the majority. Want to start a business similar to the mom & pop grocer's with the great meat? Good luck finding capital. Good luck attracting customers. Good luck keeping a profit when you're forced to charge higher prices because your margins aren't as large as those of the national supermarket down the street.
::sigh::
Are things different outside of the US? How about Europe?
I think it stems slightly less from the food we eat and slightly more from the fact that we're so spread out and sub-urbanized that no one walks or rides a bike any more. We sit and drive EVERYWHERE because we have to. I'll wager there's less obeisity in cities then there is in the 'burbs, but that's unsubstantiated spec'lation at this point.
**>>BELCH
Because there are those out there that think that taxing the middle and upper class is a more acceptable way to feed the poor than actually letting them work.
That said, I think that government should stop McDonald's from placing consumers and potential employees at gunpoint, forcing them to eat (or work) there. Oh wait, that's not right...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
There are a number of us who would rather not have these kind of military interventions either. The amount we spend on policing the world is only matched by the amount we spend bribing it with 'relief'. Both are at taxpayer expense.
If we could have friendly trade with our neighbors, but largely kept our noses out of other countries' business, things would be much better.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
I don't know why more people don't get annoyed at that kind of paternalistic garbage.
This kind of attitude 'keeps people down' far more than offering minimum wage jobs ever has. If you keep telling someone that they have no chance to advance, to succeed, and that they'll never get anywhere without handouts, they'll start believing it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
The Falklands War almost broke the observation,
but McDonalds didn't come to Argentina until
shortly after the war.
Serbia, however, did have a McD's in Belgrade.
It was looted on day 2 of the US air campaign.
Two bucks for a Big Mac, Fries and Coke? I don't believe it.
'round here (BC, Canada), I'm pretty sure you'd be looking more at six bucks. I'm guessing, because I haven't actually eaten McDonald's hamburgers since I got past the kiddy stage of life.
Anyway, six bucks seems to be the going rate for a Wendy's chicken thing with fries and soft drink.
Which means I could also:
* get a couple slices of Uncle Dave's pizza. Real cheese, real meat, real dough. Good stuff.
* get a pasta meal at a pub, beer would be extra.
* get a good sushi meal.
* buy a TV dinner that's surely better than fast food. (I don't think I've ever eaten a TV dinner!)
* buy a salad-in-a-bag, some roasted chicken, and a bottle of water at the local Safeway.
All of which are better than McDonalds, by a very long shot...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
While you make some good points, I don't believe that the tension between capitalism's ideal and implementation is of the same nature as the dissonance between communism's ideal and its implementation.
Bear in mind, Communism as Marx conceived it was a utopia by concensus, where everyone agrees a priori to play by the rule of "from each according to ability, to each according to need". As long as those who play the game are willing to cheat that rule (or take advantage of it), Marxism is unrealizable, and must be replaced with some sort of imposed rationing and distribution scheme.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is by its nature adaptable to what rules the players are and are not willing to abide by. Greed and selfishness are allowed to be part of the equation only to the extent that they are compatible with profitability - if the consumer side will not tolerate a supplier that does not act with goodwill towards community and customer, and this distaste is strong enough for said consumer to either seek alternatives or forego a product entirely (deferred or vetoed gratification is essential to making a capitalist system work, thus a "consumerist" mentality may be its achilles heel), then there is no viable position for the greedy supplier, and likewise for a supplier doing business with greedy consumers (the net includes some good examples of this - "how much stuff do we need to give away to keep a customer coming back?")
An argument could be made that regulations placed upon suppliers (or consumers) according to the will of the people (or the consent of the people in the case of a Republic) is totally consistent with this model - provided people understand that by enshrining certain requirements in law, they may destroy the ability of providers or consumers to function profitably, and they must then be willing to abide by the consequences (see, for example, the California power crisis).
The "free" market of capitalism is perhaps the most sustainable component of of a "liberal" (liberty) society, precisely because it includes at least the potential for a self-corrective force; free speech isn't truly free unless it allows for trolls, but to succeed in the marketplace you need to find people willing to pay for the wares you're peddling. (Freedom of the press falls somewhere in between; the 1st amendment does not, for example, guarantee affordable access to a printing press!)
Just in case you haven't noticed, you can almost exactly correlate countries that start wars with countries that are poor and desperate. Iraq is an excellent example; they saw easy pickings in Kuwait and figured invading would solve their economic problems in one stroke. North Korea is always threatening the South with similar things. Being interested in war nowadays is a sign of weakness, not strength.
The question to ask about McDonald's is what they replaced: Often something much worse, such as the restaurant selling Mystery Food where they don't clean the grill. McDonald's created minimum standards more effective than any government fiat.
With so many better options available nowadays, even in fast food, I'm really not sure why McDonald's is still in business. My ex girlfriend offers a clue: She hates the company, loves their fries - and insisted I pick some up when she had fry cravings.
So I guess there is some merit to the place, despite its status as a cultural whipping boy.
Of course I can't stand the food personally, but, well, that's why we have a free market.
D
----
Curious; let me know your results.
Oddly enough, the ex is a vegetarian, gets faintly nauseous when any form of meat is mentioned, but still goes gaga over the fries - even though she knows about the beef essence part.
D
----
OK, so I followed your link and I see that "corporatism" is politics made and enforced by business. Isn't that what we're seeing, though? Take the DMCA. Who enacted this crap? Business. They caried it through our political system, so it's not a *direct* corporatism, but the law was still enacted by businesses for the benefit of businesses the way that I see it. If it sounds like a duck...
Seriously, I think Katz is correct to use the term "corporatism".
I am so turned off when I think of steak and hamburgers now, that I can barely order and wolf down a Big Mac or prime rib any more.
Then why don't you become a vegetarian? It's easier than you think and it gets easier every day. And vegetarians do eat more than just salads. You can find veggie-friendly food at practically any restaurant. VegSource.com is a good resource for beginning vegetarians.
cpeterso
No, he's just a hypocrite and a bigoted columnist who rambles on endlessly in a forum that frankly cares nothing for him.
BilldaCat
I beg to differ...
Hitler was elected. Milosevic was Elected. All US presidents have been elected. Democracies do go to was, at least the sham political systems that we call democracies.
In the last election I votes in, the party I voted for got 12% of the popular vote and 0% of the elected officials. The next party got 30% of the popular vote and 4% of the elected officials, the remaining party got 55% of the popular vote and 96% of the elected officials.
Even if you fixed that, it's still a party system where you can't get an independant into power, and if you did, they wouldn't have any responsibilities or power.
And then, it's a "representative democracy", meaning that I have to hope someone runs who represents my views. If not, I could end up completely unrepresented even if the person I voted for got in.
Then top this off with the fact that in a vote to declare war, it's not just the politicians who actually risk being sent off to fight who get to vote.
Democracies are anything but, and a populace intolerant of war doesn't stop any politician from voting for the draft and sending the completely unprepresented classes off to war.
If we say that 'democracies don't go to war' it's because we conveniently only look at rich countries, without realizing that the real reason they didn't go to war is because they don't think anyone else has anything worth taking. (When they do, like the US going to protect the oil supply) they're more than willing to spend low-class soldiers securing their financial future.
of course teens are getting greedy. How else can they pay for the DVDs, CDs, Cell phones, everquest, and dammit, all that McDonald's they eat!?!
JonKatz gets a lot of criticism for his articles, but I think this is a very good one.
However, I see one difference in the metaphor between the restaurant industry and the Internet. In the restaurant world, it takes a lot of money and an incredible amount of hard work to start and maintain a restaurant, and even then, most restaurants fail. With the advent of megacorporations, individual stores could even operate at a loss in order to more effectively shut out competition. I don't know if this actually happens, but I wouldn't be surprised.
In any event, on the Internet, I still think there is more of any opportunity for the little guy to succeed. Maybe you won't see a couple of college kids becoming overnight billionaires anymore, but unlike the restaurant world, where real estate and customers are finite, on the Internet, real estate is essentially infinite and "customers" can come from literally all over the world. Now I won't minimize the homogenization of online content, much like what's happened to commercial radio in the last 20 years, but it's still easy to create an online community dedicated to anything you could possibly want, and freed from geographic restrictions, any interest, no matter how obscure, can attract a community of like-minded individuals to share their common interest. I don't think the Walmart-ization of the Internet will ever squeeze those communities out, even if they are never exposed to vast masses who are force-fed a diet of ads for britneyspears.com or whatever.
So, while there are many parallels between the brick-and-mortar world and the online-world, we need to remember that the parallels are never perfect and I still think the 'net will adapt and grow in ways we haven't even thought of yet.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The book shows capitalism at its best--with the rise of individuals with revolutionary ideas on food service--and corporate culture at its worst--with the companies formed by these individuals growing into huge conglomerates which care little for their customers or employees and disregard regulation and legislation by essentially buying government access.
It's not all bad news, and some of it is a bit alarmist, but the overall impact of the book shouldn't be forgotten. The investigation could easily have been of technology industries, clothing and apparal, the health industry, or a number of other industries. (There are parallels between the fast food industry and the Tobacco industry of The Insider)
Fast Food Nation is highly recommended for anybody interested in turn-of-the century corporate America, and anybody who is concerned with what they are eating.
Katz' commentary is essentially a book review, but doesn't do the book justice. (If this is a review, why does he bury first mention of the book in the seventh graph? Note to Katz: work with an editor.)
I've heard a few times about this corporate domination subject... here's a summary of some of the issues. Oh, yeah, that's from 1881; there have been some more recent events.
I don't think that's necessarily true -- for example, I'm doing three things in parallel: full-time school, 20 hrs of part-time work, and about 15 hours of fencing training a week. Then I go home and start homework, projects, etc.
Which means that I'm driving a heck of a lot.
I'm well aware of the money I can save (or at least, quality I can get for the same money) by cooking, but my time is a much more important commodity than the money I would save -- since going home and preparing food would mean that I am late to [practice|work|class].
Whereas the fast food is on my path and can be greedily consumed en route. I bet that logic applies to many people....
darius
You forgot about his $.50 can of Coke. And a steak prepared in a toaster oven can be quite tasty indeed - it's really not so different from an oven.
The morality of the market? I assume that's Morality According to Katz. Because, of course, WE are only the masses. Who are WE to freely decide on anything? Katz knows best, just ask him.
This is EXACTLY the same as when the evil supervillian Jesse Helms says something is immoral and needs to be stopped. You're either free or you're a subject. Only the tyrant changes.
(Of course, the supervilliany of Jesse Helms is largely an invention of the press, but that's beside the point.)
I wonder if Jon Katz ever gets tired of himself?
Here's the problem with this: The short term benefits are real. The long-term effects you mention are largely imaginary and based on a fear-mongering campaign by the eco-profiteers.
And BTW, I don't really like McDonalds or big corporations. But they're being falsely used as bogeymen by people who want you to sign away your freedom in exchange for "protection".
If they opened the perfect restaurant -- not too big, but not too small either -- quirky enough, but not too quirky -- and the food was all cheap, but expensive enough so you know you're getting good food -- and if they were convient everywhere I travel, but not _everywhere_ -- and if everything else was just right, I'd eat there.
But, see, this is a fantasy. No restaurant will ever meet the standard. McDonalds is the _compromise_ we ended up with. It is a reality, with all the normal daily disappointment. Sad, but not tragic. And not evil.
I can't believe this got modded up to a five.
Neither can I :)
Hey, I know it's part of the orthodoxy to believe this stuff. But there are 2 sides to the story.
I know the loss of rainforest land is real. But is it a real problem? From whose perspective?
What if I don't believe in the orthodox-green notion of a fragile world teetering on the edge of destruction? Then what's the problem?
What if I don't believe in the estimates that the rain forest will all be gone in 6 months (or 2 years, or 5 years, or 18 years, or whatever the newest scare is supposed to be)? Those estimates are wrong, and fundamentally silly because the future is dynamic.
What if I don't believe in the supposed silver-bullet cure-for-all diseases drug that's about to be trampled by a nasty bulldozer (driven by an evil man who wants to feed his family)?
What if the real situation is that some (a lot, but not too much) forested land is being cut to produce food for people? What's the problem then? Isn't this at least a little more likely than the eco-doomsday scenarios we've all heard about?
Anyway, there are too many unanswered questions for a dispassionate observer to conclude McDonalds is evil. Now if I already hated them, or if I thought I'd get into the Elite Compassion Club, or if there was money in it for me, those questions might matter a little less.
Hope you get modded up.
I don't believe there is a problem from any reasonable perspective. So the conclusion is that the deforestation concern is not a concern after all. Better?
Sorry about the format. Orthodoxy must be challenged delicately in order to be effective in persuasion.
I would rather my Bush tax cut go towards funding renewable energy sources, education, and other worthy conservation causes
You're probably getting a $300 check. Send it to them.
"The future is dynamic" is great on a bumper sticker, but you're effectively claiming that what we do in our present doesn't affect the future.
Actually, I was saying exactly the opposite. The future can't be projected on a linear curve because things that happen in the future affect things that happen later in the future.
Example: We can never "run out" of fossil fuels because, as they become more scarce, their cost increases, leading to slower and slower usage, and ultimately to near zero usage with fossil fuels still in the ground.
From an engineering standpoint, this is simple: what happens if we listen to "the crazy greens" and they're wrong?
To even start, you'd have to eliminate many, many freedoms and subject citizens to the control of an elite class. This is a harm that cannot be repaired.
And last but not least, if I represent "the orthodoxy," I guess that explains why there are so many more Honda Insights on the road than SUVs
You misunderstand. Being part of the orthodox-green movement is about thinking and believing what you're supposed to, regardless of the actual truth. You're supposed to venerate the environmental leaders, decry the environmental bogeymen, and fear the apocalyptic prophesies. Actual "actions" are rare, and tend towards the symbolic.
No one is forced to eat there, do business there, or work there, but they're somehow super oppressive and evil.
And we envy their money and we want to get the government or lawyers to steal it and give it to us.
And we envy their "power" and we want them to be hurt so they have less power.
And we want the government to be super-powerful to protect us from the corporate evil, but it'll never occur to us that the government's power might be used against us. Maybe if we give it more power, that will stop.
Gee, what a smart, happy bunch we are.
Technology made the fast food industry possible, and without any real national discussion and consideration, retailing, health, work and the ability of individuals to operate farms or small businesses was altered for good.
Let's veer off topic a bit here. I don't think a "national discussion" on the topic would've been realistic. As long as products are produced in a way that isn't illegal, there is no obligation for a company to consider sociological consequences.
My question is: what are the ethical responsibilities of those creating the technologies? I'd wager that a big chunk of the Slashdot population is in the business of creating technology in some sense, whether they're software developers or engineers or what have you. What responsibility do we have for the impact of the technology we create? I'm not talking about immediate health risks that exposure to radiation or things like that. I'm talking about long-term sociological effects.
I'm not blaming the guy who developed the McDonalds french fry machine for the McDonaldization of society. But I am suggesting that somebody's got to consider these consequences.
Should we technologists bear responsibility for our actions? We cannot use the scientist's excuse of "science for science's sake". Technology is purely utilitarian. What responsibilities do we have in developping technologies to ensure that we don't do harm to society by the development?
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
"Corporations can try and take our rights away, but we have the courts to fight them. "
We lost in MPAA v. Corley.
"When the government takes our rights away we can't even beat them in the courts as they have guns to back them up. "
We won in Tinker v. Des Moines.
Any questions?
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Read this, and the comments, and then look at this article and its comments. The privacy article is, in some ways, a subset of the arguments in this one.
Best Slashdot Co
"is inevitably the path that every society will eventually take."
That galls me. Why are you so sure of this? Just because the west has gone down this road means that this is the direction all civilization must inevitably take? What hubris. Is this the inevitable path that farmers in South America or India, and fisherman in Southeast Asia need to take? I don't get it. Through amazing and complex coincidences and circumstances we have come to where we are...I don't see how this is necessarily the One True Way. What short collective memories we have.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"Third World nations that have adopted Communism grossly underperform those that are capitalist"
People who don't play by the rules of the game that those in control of the game have invented don't do as well. What is your definition of "underperform"? If USSR won the cold war, we might just be saying that "capitalist economies grossly underperform those that are communist".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Or how about a geeky analogy: Microsoft claims that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, it doesn't have the applications or compatibility with Microsoft formats, and Slashdotters complain that that is because Microsoft has a monopoly and network effect which it can use to put the burden of compatibility on the underdog. What if Linux came out before Windows? We might all be saying "Microsoft isn't ready for the desktop".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Um, so. Didn't your mother tell you that too much of *anything* is a bad thing? VA Linux is hardly even a blip on the radar or corporate significance. What matters are the giant media conglomerations that decide what information is the most marketable. What matters are giant biotechnology, chemical, agribusiness corporations whose every move shows up in the food we eat, and the environment around us. What matters is giant pharmaceutical companies who hold patents on the genomes of entire ethnicities, and can control whether millions of people live or die each day. Perhaps you are comfortable living in a world where everything you see, eat, touch, and think is colored or even dictated by a handful of extremely powerful faceless corporations, but I'm not. Corporate power (like any other power) needs to be in check. Just because you can cite "good" examples of corporations doesn't mitigate this fact, and just because it turns out people have to *work* for corporations to put bread on their table doesn't make them hypocrites.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
So then, you're defining performance as human rights? That is somewhat ironic seeing as we just got kicked off the UN human rights commission and we're fuming like a petulant little boy. We too have a bit of dirty history that we don't talk much about in the history books.
Those who win the wars write history and define the rules of the game for others. We won, so the rules are capitalistic rules...which of course are making it very difficult for non-capitalist countries to compete in the global economy (whether or not they violate human rights). Capitalism may be the "best system yet" simply because we've economically outcompeted everything else. I'm not convinced that what makes the most wealth is necessarily equal to what's best. There have been plenty of damn fine civilizations in history based on systems other than capitalism and democracy.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
My, aren't we a bit techy?
#1) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
And go find whatever other links you want. There are several reasons why we were kicked off, including our position on land mines and AIDS drugs.
#2) Lessee...um, Mayan, Incan, most any indigenous American civilization (oh no, the Aztecs sacrificed people, cringe, cringe), Chinese, most indigineous civilizations accross the globe, um, Persia, some of the European civilizations like the Celts. India did have a pretty amazing civilization, but you're right, the caste system was a shame, so that probably bars it. Each had their share of bad points, but it's not as if modern countries don't also.
#3) Oops sorry, I guess all my arguments are invalid because I didn't use the jargon you wanted me too. How about: "I'm not convinced that what allows the most accumulation of wealth is necessarily equal to what's best".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Situationist
Adbusters
CorpWatch
AllYourBrand
etc.:
Independent Media Center
Metropolitic.net
You May Be An Anarchist And Not Even Know It (I too thought the "anarchy movement" was a load of crap from bored aggressive adolescents (they really spoil it for everybody don't they?) until reading this and realizing there really is a legitimate coherent philosophy behind it)
Mother Jones
In These Times
Poliglut
Protest.net (yes, sometimes there are actually legitimate reasons to protest)
PigDog journal
Unabomer Manifesto (he may have been labeled a wacko, but read it - he's not stupid and he does sorta have a point.)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Thanks for backing me up - I figured a lot of grilling purists would rake me over the coals for that - hell, I felt a little queasy (as in "this is wrong, God will smite me for my heresy") when I first tried it, but I was in an apartment, which made grilling not-an-option.
Take yer steak, and spend another minute rubbing it down with pepper, salt, and some sage. The layer of spices on the outside of the steak seems to help hold the moisture. You can also brush lightly with olive oil before applying the rub. (An investment of $10.00 in a hand-operated pepper grinder can really pay off here - IMHO the generic stuff in your pepper shaker is pretty flavorless compared to any equally-generic "look at the pretty colors" multi-peppercorn blend).
All that said, I still prefer steak grilled the way God intended. But the toaster-oven method (broil, yes, but don't overcook it!) works well enough in a pinch. Then again, I like my steaks medium-rare to medium, so I'm not sure if it would work as well if you like it brown-all-the-way-through. And I'm lucky in that I can get a nice thick (1.5" to 2") cut of steak, so drying-out isn't really a problem.
On to the more interesting (and in many cases, valid) objections:
Soneone else said:
> That said both McDonalds and Microsoft make a product that works as advertised and actually is capable of fulfilling most of peoples expectations. The product just does the job and so people will buy it because they don't want to deal with it on thier own. I don't think McDonalds breeds stupid and uncaring people, I think that stupid and uncaring people bread McDonalds and they are free to do that.
I think this poster put it better than I did. There's nothing wrong with McD's, it's just that there are alternatives if you look around. If it weren't for people willing to forego these potentially-superior alternatives for the sake of perceived convenience (which applies just as well for MSFT vs. Linux), neither organization would stay in business.
But my mind still boggles when I hear people say that they go to McDonald's because they can't afford a steak dinner...
And that's the depressing part. Because if you really look at it, fast food is neither convenient nor cheap.
Big Mac, Fries, and a Coke. About $2.00. Plus maybe a 10-minute drive each way - call it $1.00 for gas and time. And the joy of standing in line waiting for your order, sitting in an annoying fast-food-restaurant seat, etc.
Potato: $0.25, and that's a huge potato. New York Strip: $7.00 a pound at my local butcher. Take one and cut it in half. Coke: $0.50/can, bought in bulk.
Total cost: $4.00 for an 8-oz NY Strip loin, baked potato, and Coke.
Total time: 5 minutes to defrost the steak in the microwave, then 15 minutes on the baking/grill-rack in a toaster oven at 350-400F, while the potato gets nuked in parallel for 10 minutes.
For fifty cents more, you can have a goddamn steak in the same time it takes to go to McDonald's.
McDonald's stays in business for the same reason Microsoft does: Market presence and a[n ad campaign designed to ensure the continued existence of a] customer base that's wholly-ignorant of the existence of alternatives.
Most corporations seem to have figured out that so long as they have the appropriate politicians in their pockets [...]
Indeed. It's a sad state of affairs when a company's success hinges not on providing a better product or service, but on whether the company is effective at influencing lawmakers and regulators to tilt the playing field in their favor. Realistically though, many companies would be foolish to not have a lobbying presence, given the power that politicians and regulators have to make or break entire industries.
My opinion is that all this makes a strong case for reducing the power that politicians have over the economy. If they don't have the ability to hand out favors that give one industry an advantage over another, there won't be companies and industry groups lining up at the feeding trough.
--
JonKatz's latest collectivist essay brings up the usual plethora of half-truths, hidden assumptions and pleasant sounding nonsense.
... will be the battleground on which the fight against corporatism is played out.
Some questions for Mr. Katz per his latest dissertation:
1. You write: Technology, as futurists like George Orwell
Where did Orwell write of the evils of corporatism? Much of his work associated the primary evil with the state, which is your proposed savior your writings. Doesn't Orwell instead argue the opposite perspective?
2. The United States has become a corporate republic...
Really? With a federal government that is at the largest percentage of GNP ever? Or did you mean to write that the US was founded to support individuals and corporate entities but is no longer?
with the takeover of cyberspace one of that republic's primary goals
As defined and substantiated where? By the former liberal administration (who is the doer of no wrong in your writings) giving the green light to NSI and Verisign dominance? Ever look at whose Senate re-elections and presidential runs SAIC significantly funded?
3. Fast food is central to urban and suburban sprawl and to the rise of malls as retailing forces...
Cart before the horse problem. Your model would indicate that McDonalds and other fast food entities moved to empty fields, and by their presence, created housing developments around them per this inaccurate sprawl model.
Better (and significantly substantiated) models show sprawl directly corrolated with white urban flight and a perceived ethic system clash between work ethic-focused european whites and welfare-system nonwhites (e.g. fleeing crime and perceived value difference with a counter ethic model propped up by liberal dependency programs).
Interestingly, McDonalds and other fast food entities have numerous outlets in urban locations. Shouldn't this encourage sprawl too? The theory sounds nice, but is fundamentally flawed.
4. Fast food has created a generation of new, mostly lousy jobs
Fast food has created a generation of ENTRY LEVEL jobs, employing large amounts of unskilled labor. While it'd be nice to pretend that every unskilled high school kid could be paid $150,000 a year at Katz's law firm, I'd seriously doubt the firm would hire them.
Katz, where do you wish unskilled kids to be employed in your imaginary system? Will you hire them at attorney living wages? Why not?
5. cemented the divisions between rich and poor
How? Absent substantiation (typical), where is this found? I visit a suburban McDonalds and see rich and poor alike. Same with small town McDonalds. Same with urban McDonalds. What it has cemented is a collection of consumers who wish to find consistant food of known experiential quanties.
Look at the explosion of catagory killers - essentially the "Super Sizing" of the McDonalds model. Why has Walmart, Best Buy, Chilis, Barnes & Nobel, Lowes, Home Depots, etc, dominated? Because consumers can identify the brand regardless of location and associate it with a certain expection of quality and performance.
This obviously works both ways - have a crummy experience at one Kmart and you'll probably avoid all Kmarts.
6. It's the stepchild of post-war progress in farming, slaughtering and packing, refrigeration and transportation.
There's the comment of a preppy snot who's never been to the country. Want to know why family farms have died and everything from hogs to soybeans have scaled to such large extremes? Look at commodity prices. The only way you can survive now is on scale. Your government created this monster through subsidies, combined with the unnatural centralization of economic power in cities (again, due in many parts to collectivist redistribution of money from the taxpayer base to the wards of the welfare state).
(Side note: There's a reason what you people call flyover space is now known as "red space" - i.e. voting in many cases over 80-90% for Bush. People who grow crops know that all the wishes and intents in the world don't make the crop grow. Hard work, actions, and man's reason puts food on the table.)
Granted, centralization of production in urban areas during the industrial era had its toll too.
7. political activists were already warning about the McDonaldization of America in much the same way that hackers, programmers and open source advocates are sounding the alarm about the Microsoft-ing of the Net. Those activists sensed that the emerging fast food business threatened independent companies and presaged a food economy dominated by giant corporations
And all of this was accomplished through the choices made by individual consumers. Unless you can point to a federal directive ordering consumers to buy Microsoft products and ban competitors, there's no conspiracy other than individual preference.
The same goes for McDonalds and any other chain or category killer.
The fundamental assumption you make but fail to explain is that your solution must require removing this individual choice.
In order to deny people from choosing McDonalds, someone (i.e. the government) must prevent individual determination. How do you wish to go about this in a democratic society, Mr. Katz? (Obviously, you don't, but somehow can't find the courage to clearly explain your support of tyranny).
8. The industry was one of the first to use technology -- especially advances in genetics --
I'll strongly agree that GMO experimentation is troublesome and worrisome. Interestingly, much of this experimentation was initiated under federal research funding (e.g. USDA). Absent standards for what is and isn't acceptable (i.e. the normal role of government), and with tacit government support for GMO, are you surprised that individual interest has evolved along these lines?
9. attracted a disproportionate number of immigrant, poor and minority workers...
Spoken like a true class warrior, who'd rather see unemployed and starving immigrants rather than working and upward bound ones. After all, who's handing out the goods to the unemployed, vs. who's working and discovering how much social security, taxes and such steal from their paycheck?
who have little real chance of advancement
Why is it an employer's job to advance a worker absent a change in qualifications? If I've hired you to flip burgers because you have the qualifications (have pulse, bathe, show up for work on time, follow instructions), then why should I make you a manager absent any other changes in your qualifications?
Again, Katz, you're slopping over some serious assumptions. If promotion is independent of a worker's qualification for the position, let's quit wasting time and hire everyone as six-figure trial attorneys. (Actually, most uneducated immigrants would probably do better than your run of the mill trial attorney, due to their possession of morals and ethics).
10. The fast food industry also perfected, even nationalized, the notion of false courtesy --
And the alternative is.... ?
"Yea, this is Burger King. What the hell did you expect, asshole. You gonna order today? No, you can't have it your way!"
Let's see that operation last a week. Katz, as odd as it seems that you'd be surprised by this (and be hunting for corporate conspiracies as to why McDonalds is nice to its customers), what else to you suggest?
OVERALL
- You don't want individuals to have the freedom to choose McDonalds. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
- You don't want McDonalds being nice to its patrons. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
- You don't want product innovation, consistant and identifiable quality. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
Why is it I see a line at an unnamed Soviet store where rude government workers yell at me to take what they're selling today or leave?
Thankfully, the success of fast food, category killers and such are living proof that people like you are parasites living on borrowed time. The net and the rise of intelligent individualism marks the end of your kind.
*scoove*
Produce or die.
Exactly what do you think the Nato countries were doing with all their bombers and attack choppers and ground troops?
:-)
That wasn't a war. It was a peace action, brought to you in part by the fine folks at NATO.
Anyway, wars aren't cool anymore (unless they've been filmed by Disney). Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.
Maybe that's why the "no warring nations with McDonalds" model holds true?
*scoove*
Nice points, except you missed two:
/like/ cooking (as I do), that's an entirerly different matter.
- labor: how much do you cost an hour? Take your average IT professional in the midwest making $40K to $60K annually. Factor a half hour of cooking and post-eating cleanup (not including the time you walked thru the grocery, drove there and back, etc. to get the stuff - I'll figure you did that with the other groceries and have no cost additional), and you've added anywhere between $10 and $15 to your cost.
Now, if you
- convenience: Do you run home to the kitchen for lunch, or swing by the McDonalds near the office? More time savings and the food is ready within the one-hour lunch break timeframe most of us have. Plus, how many friends want to go to your house and eat stuff out of your fridge? Mine trust McDonalds more:-)
I agree tho that if you don't mind the hassel, eating home is a much better deal.
*scoove*
Fair criticism.
Salon and other publications have talked about the rise in libertarianism in recent years. In spite of the Limbaugh complaints about rotten schools (yea, he's interesting sometimes but he's of a definite different branch in the tree), literacy in the US continues to improve, college attendence, though possibly dropping off a bit right now, is much higher than ever before.
You can argue that any and all of these have no corrolation with intelligence or individualism. But looking at individual expression as a barometer - regardless of the accuracy or 'correctness' of that expression - would indicate that we're in a stage of self-expression and individualism never before seen.
Acceptance of broader sexual preferences, body art, etc. all seem to corrolate with increased individualism. Increased intelligence...? Hard to match, other than referencing literacy and other factors.
In fact, there may be an argument that individualism is slightly out of whack due to a near total disregard in the urban areas for community ethics. Ask someone in my neighborhood to turn down a house-shaking subwoofer-to-the-max car stereo and you'll be taking your life into your own hands (from personal experience).
Fair call - hope that might provide some substance!
*scoove*
how about using some of that new-fangled hypertext
Sounds fair! Here are some solutions that would work, unlike the destruction of individual choice approach Katz advocates:
- Eat Locally - Make a goal for yourself. 10%? 25%? more? Try it for a month and see if you can hack it. It's not easy, but certainly worthwhile.
- Promote natural genetic diversity and redundancy in your garden - Centralized buying from major wholesalers like Lamb-Weston promotes at most two or three genetic varieties in potatos, one in soybeans, etc. Garden with the varieties that have been forgotten.
- Buy local foods - visit the local weekly farmer's market. Find area local foods organizations. Get better produce, picked ripe by family farms in your area.
- Consume simplier, healthier beverages - Know how much waste water and byproduct is created through double-stage fermentation (i.e. making beer)? Drink a better beverage - locally produced hard cider! (An added advantage is that most locally produced cider uses a major variety of apples - mostly kinds you'd never find at the supermarket - and promotes additional natural genetic diversity).
Unlike Katz's Soviet vision, the above can and does work, as long as you're not too stupid or lazy.
*scoove*
When will you guys give up? The commies will outlive the sun, I swear it. Ok Nader Boy, #1 the US was booted off the human rights commission because of the countries that are on it like Sudan (thriving slave trade), Cuba (totalitarian dictatorship), and China (have more that one kid you either pay a fine or get an abortion). These guys are sick of the UN passing human rights resolutions that interfere with their closed market regiems. #2 Nader Boy, please enlighten us with your examples of "damn fine" civilizations that were based on systems other than capitalism and democracy. Would that be Imperial Rome (1/3rd population slaves), or ancient egypt (not bad if you are pharoe), or maybe medivial India (you are born into your caste and 1/5th of the population are untouchable). #3 Nader Boy, Wealth is the moving of an asset from a lower value to a higher one. You are confusing the accumulation of wealth with weath itself. I suggest you read some economics 101 before you run off to your Green gatherings.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Don't even bother with this idiot; his personal page quotes Che Guevero and Ralph Nader for God's sake.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Captialism is going to kick my ass if I dont get some more work done today, but what the heck.
#1. Ted Turner and CNN aren't the best source for information on this matter given his ties to the UN. Anyway, if land mines, AIDS drugs and the death penalty are criteria for getting booted off, do you find it strange that a sanctioned slave trade (sudan), 20 year manditory inprisonment for cooperating with any foreign press agency (Cuba), and forced abortions (china) are are criteria for being on the commission?
#2 Are you suggesting that we model our economy after the economies of these civillizations many of whom are fuedal and hereditary.
#3. Ah Ok. I agree with you. Accumulation of wealth is not nessessarily important. The creation of wealth is paramount. Wealth is civilization. I can program because wealth makes it possible for me not to have to hunt. Wealth is specialization. The creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I want to comment on the McD's reference.
I went to two McD's and one KFC. Both were packed. I asked an employee how much she made and if working for McD's was considered a good job, and she said enthusiastically YES.
Most waitresses in China (i was in beijing) are so poor that they need to rent a room above the restaurant or a cot on the floor of the restaurant to live. Call it indentured servitude to a restaurant.
A job at McD's is hard to come by because it pays well, is clean, and the managers are well trained and won't abuse you. Suprisingly, for a waitress, a job at McD's or any other american fast food place is considered a good job.
Upfront: Serving up the McDictionary -- "McDonalds has restaurants in 120 different countries and serves a whopping 29 million people a day. But here's something you may not have known: They also own 131 different words and phrases--including such surprises as 'Black History Makers of tomorrow' and 'Healthy Growing Up.' They've trademarked them so no one else can use them."
How to Download YouTube Videos
Free markets are good for economies, and in many cases, for the people who work in them. They can promote creativity, innovation, prosperity, choice and individualism, more than other political and economic systems. But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market -- a balance already tilting off center in almost the entire range of tech industries, and on the Net and Web.
I don't think there is conclusive evidence that free markets make the world better. Certainly by themselves they don't. They're just an abstract. In the current world order, they just open up poorer nations to extreme exploitation. This is what the protesters in Seattle were against.
I don't think Katz really understands that the problems with corporations are really problems with capitalism. It's cold, emotionless, unhuman nature. In thoery it should work great, just like Marxist Communism. When implemented, however, the selfishness, greed, and other human shortcomings really end up harming society.
With capitalism we take away our own destiny and put it in the hands of an abstract notion of economic growth. I don't have a solution, of course, just some ideas. There seems to be a large number of people starting to agree with me. Not on this level for most, but more like the things they don't like about their daily life. Maybe just the fact that their local ballpark was renamed MegaCorp field.
Katz also overrates the importance of the internet. It really is just a tool. MegaCorp can supress the majority of the population the way it does in every other media form: if the majority of the population doesn't know where to find "the truth", nothing will change. Sure the internet is basically impossible to censor, which gives me hope, but look at all the copyright control ideas being thrown around. It brings us closer to centralized control, which is what the government and your local MegaCorp would love.
There is a huge amount of information on the net about the increasing corporatization of America. From the WTO protests (and presidential primary demonstrations), to activism around Biotechnology, copyright extensions, trademark and trade secrets litigation, patents on software, and on DNA.
I think that this will be the predominant political issue in the coming decade or two (and I think John McCain's showing in the republican presidential primary was in large part an effect of his stance on campaign finance reform, which is closely tied to all of these issues.)
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
And what do you have against hypocrisy, pray tell? :)
Seriously though, just because you see them as incompatible doesn't mean that they are. Of course to be compatible you have to be able to make a value judgement, which I know is terribly out of vogue these days. These days we send out doctors to heal the wounded in war torn regions and end up giving aid and comfort to the militia, thereby allowing them to prolong their reign of terror... because we don't want to seem hypocritical.
Bullshit.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
wow, that was MUCH better than katz's lame post. maybe this kid should be slashdot's USA topic editor... =)
Yes, there is a McDonald's in Yugoslavia, so this is no longer true.
But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market...
Sure, but all sorts of folks are trying to bring morality to the Internet, and usually Katz writes stuff ripping on them.
"This is a nice sound bite but that's all it is. Censorship of ideas is bad. Regulating the markets for material things is unrelated. The only connection is that the free market for large Telecomms has resulted in a limited number of pro-corporate ideas being presented. More regulation of large corporations could result in a freer market of ideas, completely consistent goals."
Censorship *is* a form of regulating a free market.
Are you folks so hopelessly naive that you think you can give all of this power to the state to do things like go after fast food and Wal Mart without it inevitably devolving to censorship?'
This is the problem with Katz. He sits there and thinks "I want the world to be this way, and the government should have the power to make it so." Of course it is the hallmark of all censors and control freaks that they only want to go after the "really bad" stuff. It's only [pornography, McDonald's, insert subject to be demonized here] that nice people like Katz and Focus on the Family want to contol (only our evil enemies would want to control and limit people's access to that other good stuff we like).
"mandating filters" is NOT democracy. It IS an abuse of individual rights
Mandating filter is most certanily democratic. Large numbers of democratically elected politicians voted for it. In fact a majority of politicians regularly vote for the most noxious and anti-freedom issues.
Your error is assuming that democracy=individual rights. Democracy is merely a method of choosing political leaders and has very little to do with the defense of individual rights.
All Katz wants to do is give even more power to those who want mandatory filters. In fact Katz is one of those people, he just wants them to censor and control *other* things than the Internet. Classic hypocrisy among censors. Your copy of Hustler is pornography, but my Bible is not. The government should keep its hands off of ISPs, but it should go after McDonald's.
Complete hypocrisy.
This doesn't demonstrate *my* democratic views, and I'm sure if you held it up to a national vote where both sides clearly educated the populace, these measures would go down. "Democratic" means the people speak.
We don't have national referendums in the United States, so this is a pointless aside. And what is "clearly educated"? I assume you mean little more than "until they agreed with me."
Actually, large majorities of Americans favor any number of restrictions on speech. Just look at the huge support for an amendment banning flag burning. I suspect a law mandating filters would easily survive a national referendum if one were held.
The really annoying thing about Katz is his rank hypocrisy.
On the one hand, Katz constanly whines about corporations and advocates this very communitarian-oriented "we have to subject technology to democratic control" nonsense.
But on the other hand, the second anyone actually exerts such democratic control -- say by mandating filters for public library and school access -- he's suddenly *shocked* at this blatant abuse of individual rights.
You can't have it both ways, Jon. You can't rail against an out of control market and then turn around and complain when somebody follows through on your suggestions and attempts to get the market under control.
China is poised to become the 21st century super power and they are communist, not capitalist. Communism is a third world philosophy, not a western one.
This made absolutely no sense. Nazi Germany was a non-capitalist world power as was Imperial Japan. Third World nations that have adopted Communism grossly underperform those that are capitalist (where would you want to live -- South Korea or North Korea?)
McDonalds tried to squash some Green Peace protesters in London about 10 years ago by harasing them for libel in the British courts. The only problem for McD's was despite their battery of highly paid lawyers, the protestors proved McDonalds "promote an unhealthy diet, ruin the environment, hostile to trade unions and exploited children and workers." http://archive.nandotimes.com/newsroom/ntn/world/0 61597/world1_27636.html
This is a better link, than above http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html It covers the whole saga. Including the unhand way McD's PI worked (sleeping with the enemy, agent provocotors, breaking and entering)
The truth is, though, a "Fast Food Society" is the path of least resistance, and is inevitably the path that every society will eventually take. We talk about innovation, invention, and utility, but then when we receive it we long for the Good Old Days when we hand to start our computers with hand-cranks.
Rubbish.
Got Rhinos?
The rise of fast food and all the things that go with it (and it works for your metaphor as well) is not the root of the problem. The problem is that Americans and most of western culture want instant gratification. The rise of fast food and the way that corporations handle media, over the Internet or radio or TV is a direct result of it. Americans don't care where their media or food comes from as long as they can have it yesterday they are satisfied. Until our culture rediscovers the value of time and doesn't try to live so quickly we will have people and corporations and fast food resturants there to give it to them.
On a side note I would like to say that America and its culture is not a badly off as the far left (jon katz) and the far right would have us all believe. I dare anyone who thinks it is to move to Africa and live with the people there (not the tourist traps, the people) and then complain about how bad America is.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
I think your right now that I think about it :) thanks
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
However, I own every piece of gear in that studio outright. Yeah, occassionally (sp?) I've made some purchases on credit -- when a rare synth was for sale most recently ... BUT i'm carying no CC debt, no car payments (because I drive a crappy 90 honda I bought outright:) and my monthly expenses are only housing / gasoline / food / cell phone (needed for work).
What I mean to say by all this is that, living beyond ones means is a recipe for poverty.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I live in a well to do part of a small town in california -- I drive past the "title 9" (goverment subsidised) housing all the time, and I see *BETTER CARS* parked outside the title 9 then I do in my own neighborhood (sp?) where the lowest household income is well over 100g/y.
I think we need to institute financial education in all 3 elementary, grade school and highschool -- and I also think theres forces out there that *DON'T WANT* consumers to understand financing (Banks, Credit Card Companies, auto-dealerships ... you can walk into best buy any day of the week and get 5000$ credit on a best buy card)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
So most Americans who read Slashdot can understand Katz's theme that corporations now dominate most US institutions and appear to be on their way to extending this dominance for the forseeable future. Many, if not most, American Slashdotters also agree with this theme.
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, Slashdot's readership is not a very big portion of the American public. A few hundred thousand readers (I don't know the actual figures, this is a seat-of-my-pants guess) out of 281 million Americans is, by itself, not enough to change the way the US works. Continuing to bitch and moan amongst ourselves isn't going to dent the "Corporate Republic." What we need to do is find some way of educating the public at-large about our concerns. Until we can get "soccer moms," AOL users, and other larger segments of the American public to understand our concerns, the Corporate Republic will continue to grow since thats the way most Americans want things to be. They don't mind driving 20 miles to a 250,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart since Wal-Mart offers prices that no one on Main Street can dream of offering. If people didn't like companies like Wal-Mart, then there would be no way that Wal-Mart could have taken in $200 billion last year. If the mainstream public were convinced of the dangers of having a few huge corporations running around unchecked by the federal goverment, then maybe people would think twice about supporting them.
All the time new articles appear about privacy breaches, new "features" Microsoft is including in Windows XP to extract every possible penny from the American public, and other such horror stories. Most of them are pointless because they are directed at an audience already aware of the situation. I think there needs to be some discussion about how can we make other people aware of these problems. When I talk to many people about Microsoft's antitrust problems, the uneducated ones often say "What's wrong with that? I've never had any problem with Windows." I really don't know how to convince my family and non-geek friends that issues like the "Corporate Republic" need to be taken seriously by the entire population. Once they are understood by the public at-large, Congress will take notice. Finally the issue of privacy seems to be taken seriously on Capitol Hill, as many Americans have started to understand the issues involved in restricting the spread of information about themselves. Whether useful legislation will result is unclear, but at least it's a start in regards to understanding privacy. If the majority of people stood up to Congress and said "We want competition in the telecom sector" and "Here's where you can stick UCITA", Congress will at least strongly consider these issues if not passing legislation to address them.
Until we can get the public to say these things to Congress and to stop giving money to the corporations that we geeks don't like, then we're out of luck. There aren't going to be any easy solutions to this problem, but I think it's time we started discussing it.
Examples:
This is a devastating consequence? The fact that you can get McDonald's everywhere? Shudder! The blood's running in the street. What exactly does this have to do with "corporatism," anyway? I can get Chinese food everywhere, despite the notable absence of any national Chinese food chains.Seriously, Katz, are you saying we need laws to preserve regional cuisine? Is that what you want?
Ummm...no. Katz seems to have skipped all those history classes. McDonald's was the first to try to do this in the service industry, but manufacturing and agriculture had been doing this for more than a century before McDonald's. So people who work for McDonald's do so for life? Sorry, not in my experience. Again, Katz, what exactly is the problem you're trying to identify, and what solution do you propose? Do you want to ban the timers on the fry machines so workers will need more skill? Gee, meat packing is dangerous. Let's see, we learned that back in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle." Has it become more dangerous lately? No. Are there more germs in meat now? No, it's safer than ever. Which is the safest place to eat: (1) a random home kitchen, (2) a small mom-and-pop restaurant, or (3) a restaraunt run by a large corporation? Which has the lowest incidence of food poisoning, Katz? Do you dare tell the truth?You don't -- you let evolution take care of that. Stupid and selfish people on the whole are less likely to survive, though they may have other dominant traits that help them. For example, if you are smart and selfish, you may still get by quite well. We may not like selfishness, but it is one of those things that helps individuals survive. Selfishness doesn't help the species as a whole survive, and most of us tend to dislike selfish people, while realizing that selfishness is universal, only that some people exhibit it more so than others (or it could be argued that smart people who are selfish don't appear selfish - that's why they are smart)
What's the solution? Awareness and activism, I'd say. If you are more aware of things like those mentioned in the book (an excellent book, by the way, and there's a short article that was based on the book at the Atlantic Monthly which can give you a good idea about the book).
Which is to say, at the very least, we are doing the right thing by having discussions here, and Jon Katz, for all the overreaching arguments he make, is actually providing public service by bringing up topics such as these for debate.
Some of the people do have some point, and as it is with everything, it's always a double-edged sword. What is often the best thing about something is also probably the worst. Expecting the homogeneity that McDonald's offers worldwide to bring familiarity and feeling of "home" for Americans is great for Americans who want that - and to some degree, I do find comfort in that. However, it is also scary how far and deep McDonald's reach is. Nothing against the McDonald's people - I'm sure they all mean well - but in the quest to increase the bottom-line for shareholder value, McDonald's must do everything it can to maintain it's popularity and stranglehold on the fast food consumerism - and they do it at the same level that Disney does - they start with the kids. It's at the same time comforting and insidious. They do everything they could to make their image kid-friendly. But they have also raised generation after generation of loyal McDonald's and Disney adherents, who expect to see their corporate iconic parent's influence everywhere. The corporations become the "security blanket" of generation after generation of kids. If not for the wake-up calls of people who challenge the popular view, we'd be, as one of the +5 posters say, in the age of the puppet kings.
This is not to say that McDonald's people or Disney's people are evil - the corporate entity is the one in question - and the corporate entity's consciouness is driven by an economic ego (or was that superego? Damn! I could never remember) to fulfill its economic desires that is expressed by the shareholder collective.
I think that the book merely brings up a good manifestation of corporatism and the reactions of many of the Slashdot reader shows that to a large degree, they have succeeded in their mass brain-washing of generations of kids.
That said, I still like going to McDonalds, even if I know that their foods are completely flavored by chemical factories in New Jersey and their french fries contain beef tallow extracts - sometimes, you just can't help it - their fries ARE good.
McDonalds (and to a lesser extent Microsoft) preys on peoples dislike of certain tasks. This is a dislike that was already there before the existance of McDonalds as an alternative. Just ask most people in a fast food place why they are eating there and a fairly regular answer is that they could not be bothered to cook. (I think thats a more common answer at a pizza place but still) I don't blame the coorporation for using this weakness in people to make money, but the solution has to come from the people not the coorporation, if we want our country to be free anyways.
That said both McDonalds and Microsoft make a product that works as advertised and actually is capable of fulfilling most of peoples expectations. The product just does the job and so people will buy it because they don't want to deal with it on thier own. I don't think McDonalds breeds stupid and uncaring people, I think that stupid and uncaring people bread McDonalds and they are free to do that.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Typo, but anyway...
:-)
So it they're that important, how about they merge? I can just see "McDonalds-Douglas" in operation now - Big Mac meal with a side-order of F15 Fries.
Grab.
Katz sezs: These changes have made meatpacking -- once a highly skilled, well-paid trade -- into the most dangerous job in the U.S. ...
Ever heard of a little book called The Jungle?
You know, I don't want to jump on any anti-Katz bandwagon, but this illustrates his worst propensities: grandiose generalizations with no backup. Look, if your column is only available on the web, dammit, how about using some of that new-fangled hypertext to provide us with a link or two? There are two differences between journalism and unsupported opinion: the first relies on facts, and the second is worthless.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I sometimes wonder if some type of regulation could "force" corporations to consider the customer before the shareholders.
That's the worst of corporate America -- putting the needs of the shareholders ahead of the customer. This naturally leads to poor quality for the end user.
Contrast this with the mom-n-pop outfits...in a community, if a company treats a customer poorly, that customer tells friends and business falters. The shop owner must serve the customers and keep them happy.
Corporations are remote entities...difficult to sue. The internet is a huge problem for them, a musician can look on the web for something like "Rambozo Inc. Sucks" and find all the people who got screwed by Rambozo. Now they can gang together and possibly do some damage?
That's the ideal side. Reality will probably end up being something much more hideous...I do believe the world is entering a severe dystopian cycle, courtesy of the US corporations.
The vegans are probably the only glimmer of hope? They reject McDonalds and riot at globalization meetings. Tear it up people, somehow we've got to get some sanity back into the world.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The commentary says the fast food industry widens the distance between poor and rich. It says that the jobs created prevent people from advancing. Come on. The people who work at McDonalds are lucky to have a job. They either speak little English, or just got parole release. They are being rehabilitated into society and working hard for a living. This would be no different if we did not have fast food. There will ALWAYS be low wage jobs - construction, most manufacturing, agriculture, mining etc. In other words, as long as people are living and consuming there will be jobs that teach little portable skill with little hope for rapid advancement.
One thing I've never understood about the anti-corporate movement is their belief that greater oversight by government is the solution to the power of corporations. Yet in the next breath they state that corporations control the political process through the power of their campaign contributions. If corporations control government, isn't increasing the power of government the last thing you want to do?
For example, Microsoft is often cited as an example of the unhealthy power of corporations when the case for greater government involvement is made. However, no one is forced to use Microsoft's products (thank god). My computers at home are all linux machines with Star Office and my computers at work are all Macs. On the other hand, due to government regulation I am forced to buy power from the polluting coal burning plants of my assigned power company. If I had a choice I would buy power from cleaner sources. However, the power companies have used their influence (campaign contributions) to prevent me from having this choice.
The answer is for government to remain neutral. To provide a level playing field for commercial enterprises but to resist direct interference. Large corporations have many advantages, but one big disadvantage is their inertia. If smaller companies are allowed to compete directly with corporations without the chilling effect of government regulations, they will provide an effective check on corporate power.
Physics, Cosmology and
Does anyone have examples of industries that have not tended towards large companies. The only ones (in the UK) that I can think of are Farming and Fishing, and they are being pressured by the economic powers of the large retailers
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Technology, as futurists like George Orwell and Arthur Clarke have been predicting for decades, will be the battleground on which the fight against corporatism is played out.
1. Orwell was not a 'futurist.' He wrote exactly one science-fictiony novel, which seems to be the only thing of his anyone has ever read.
2. I dare anyone to show how technology is a theme in Orwell's works, particularly with regards to "corporatism."
3. Orwell hasn't been doing anything for decades. He died of tuberculosis in 1950, at the age of forty-six.
Sigh. I suppose I shouldn't expect anything from someone who can't even look up when Frankenstein was written.
And by the way, if you've read and enjoyed 1984 and Animal Farm, I recommend "Down and Out in Paris and London," which chronicles Orwell's life as a pauper in said cities in the '20s. If you just have time for a quickie, read his short stories, "A Hanging," or "Shooting an Elephant." (available on line, consult your local search engine.) For all the allusions to "Orwell's prophetic visions of socialist dystopias," we would do well to remember two things, that Orwell was an avowed socialist who wrote about the evils of dogmatic thinking and totalitarian governments, and that he was a master of the English language, someone from whom Katz could learn a lot.
--
share and enjoy
crazy, an article you wrote that I actually didn't hate. although you're still way too heavy on the thesaurus (iconoclast? i have to use a dictionary to read your articles sometimes, chill with the large vocabulary, it's annoying)
anyhow, i hope now you see why so many view America as all that is evil and wrong. true, the USofA was founded primarily on the belief that every man should be free, but we have long since moved far away from the original priniciples. humans flock toward consistency and uniformity and routine for some reason. order vs chaos, right? there's quite a difference between order and turning the world's population into mindless zombies.
corporations suck. the corporate world sucks. and the US government is much worse than these corporations because the US is a world power. you have your policies and your orders and your laws. everything has to be clean cut, by the book, like the rules say. that's a load of crap. uniformity will be the human race's downfall. you will be assimilated. resistance is futile.
i'm really not quite sure if technology is to blame for the massive corporatization of just about everything. technology is capable of replacing manual labor and this is where we start having problems. human lives are now competing with machines and machines really don't care how you treat them. it seems corporations believe humans don't care either. it's really rather sad when you look back and see how greed is destroying the human race. greed is a horrible, horrible thing, especially when money is involved. money is a horrible thing as well.
anyhow, i've gone on and on about the dangers of conformity. i have so much i'd love to talk and write about, but i don't want to be downright boring. i do hope that my country will not fall to its own mistakes, but instead learn from them and become the great nation it once was. i still stand for the principles this nation was originally founded on.
i sincerely doubt that the population will take the corporate cockshafting from american corporatism or the US government much longer. you say you want a revolution?
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Beyond that, fast food franchises obliterated a sense of geographical and cultural differences among different regions of the United States. The appeal of fast food -- that people would know just what to expect no matter where they bought their Whoppers or Taco Bell burritos -- was also one of its most devastating consequences.
So what's the problem with that? It's obvious more people want it this way than the old way, so get off your academic high horse.
Joe average consumer doesn't give a damn about your local cultural differences when he's passing through. He wants to eat, and he'd prefer to have something he knows he likes and doesn't accidentally eat something made out of worms or dog.
NO CARRIER
When the Columbine Fiasco happened, he put into words what a lot of us geeks who had it rough were feeling at the time, I think everyone would agree on that.
But it's crap like this that just pisses me off. You're preaching to the converted, Jon. Instead of telling us what we already know in the most long winded fashion possible, get your stuff put in a magazine that EVERYONE reads, like, 'Time', 'NewsWeek', etc. Because at this point, you are annoying the s**t outta everyone on here, by not having a point about the same stuff you've been ranting about for 2 years. Reading your writing at this point is like watching a boring Nascar race. Where everyone is watching, but only to see the big 58-car pileup that we know should be coming. But it never does.
Don't get me wrong, Katz is a good writer, and has the ability to string things together very well, which I'll attest can be difficult sometimes. But I think it's time to take some constructive criticism from the readers you are trying to impress.
Flame away, boys!
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein in 1803, I doubt she wrote anything back then - since she was only six years old in 1803. She was born in 1797 and wrote Frankenstein around 1816. It was published in 1818. You can read more about her life at http://www.kimwoodbridge.com/maryshel/life.shtml. The full text of the book can be found here.
-----
You said it.
I'm not into this anti-corporate nonsense like a lot of the crowd here, but maybe we're all very lucky that not all of the corporations are lobbying for the same stuff. I mean, there are still opposing interests among the corporate world, right? Be thankful those corporate nasties aren't all fighting for the same thing!
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
The NY Times had an excellent article on the subject a few months ago as part of thier 'Race In America' series but i couldn't find it.
Here are some other articles on the subject:
- Packinghouse workers returned to the jungle
- The Heartland's Raw Deal
PS: i am vegan.fear is the mind killer
I find this remark somewhat disgusting. The only thing the presence of a McDonalds shows, is the degree of Americanisation, not the degree of civilization. Saying that all Americans see these words as synonyms is a crude generalisation, but I do sense a ground of truth in there. Megalomania? America being the Old Rome or Greece of our era? Maybe. I must admit that the latitude of the cultural influence of America on Europe and other more or less homogenous groups provides opportunities too. But please, guys, do not forget your roots. Greetings from the Heart of Europe.
"."
Welp, I can't argue against those facts about communism, but can you deny that the excesses of captialism contributed to the appeal of Marxism in the same way that, oh, I dunno, Occidental Petroleum contributed to the local appeal of Mohammar Khadafy? I don't argue the concept of capitalism or its philosophy, as you state, it is probably a good econmoic model when applied morally.
So here we have a distinction: whither moral capitalism? In light of this page, one has to wonder to just what extreme a good capitalist is willing to contort himself to keep himself deluded as to his moral certainty.
Here's a quote from the article See the USA in Your SUV:
The environmentalists respond that nature is intrinsically valuable, not for anything it does or can do but simply because it is.
...
Clean air and water benefit people. But if the moderate environmentalists really wanted people to benefit, then they would support the SUV.
That's where I get a little lost. One must have a firm foundation in logic and be themselves grounded in reality, I would think, to claim a moral basis for capitalism. I tend to think that the lure of lucre can sometimes make one wish that black is white. I simply refuse to do that, in the same way that I would think that hanging chads expressed voter intent even if I would have voted for GW, the guy who ruled that hand counting is the proper way to resolve a disputed election tally. heh, sorry... didn't mean to bring that all up agin...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
I am sure you are not implying that McDonald's fosters peace, but it may be true that a certain degree of homogeneity among nations correlates well to both a lessening of tensions and corporate development along the same lines, i.e., toward the pinnacle of fast food, Mickey D's.
There is much to be said about the growth of a middle class who are averse to conflict, and it is not in a corporations' interest to have its motherland go to war, unless that corp is, say, Lockheed - Martin.
The plain fact of the matter is (and this has been touched on in arguments about why and why not the GPL is communist), we are experiencing continued growth of the Capitalist Manifesto, which has tendencies of which we are all only too familiar. It is my opinion, after reading Das Kapital, that it is the excesses of capitalism of the turn of the century during the early Industrial Revolution that is responsible for the proper climate for the rise of Marxism as an economic model. Concomitant to that rising in Eastern Europe, government here put strong controls on a growing national scourge; outlawing child labor, workhouses, Monopolies such as Standard Oil, and allowing for the creation of the AFL - CIO and similar Labor Unions. The result of all this is the ascendancy of the middle class, which is the one thing that Communists did not count on.
But now that the government is becoming secured for the interests of capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed) once again, witness the ascendancy of corporations once again, to the detriment of the Human Spirit.
Capitalists are not Nationalist, nor are they Humanist. They have but one creed, and are willing to rationalize whatever behaviour they engage in to improve profits. This rationalization destroys all else. The lesson of Frankenstein was the arrogance of a man who, in the pursuit of his single-minded purpose, forgot about God as he became engrossed in his Godly powers.
But we only learn this lesson through our mistakes, apparently, since we are doomed to repeat history unless some of the greedy (i.e., the lawmakers and protectors of our Liberties) wake up. Capitalists should never be trusted to manage themselves, but that is what is happening today. And there is nothing the average citizen can trust, except perhaps God himself.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Is it just me, or are other people slightly sickened when they think about what all happens to red meat?
I am so turned off when I think of steak and hamburgers now, that I can barely order and wolf down a Big Mac or prime rib any more.
In other news, E. Coli just broke out again, this time in Old Folk's Homes. Seems that This strand is a drug-resistant strain!
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
"Corporations are now the primary contributors to the American election system. They fund the overwhelming majority of lobbyists who prey on Washington."
Corporations do lobby for their interests in Washington (for example, insurance companies are fighting like hell to stop W from repealing the estate tax), but corporations are really small potatoes compared to many rival PAC's, such as the trial lawyers, the National Education Association, the Christian Coalition, the Rainbow Coalition, NARAL, the AFL-CIO, etc.
When a lobbyist from Ford Motors calls, a Senator will take the message, but when a lobbyist from a core PAC for that Senator's party calls, that Senator picks up the phone.
As a side note, did the tone of this particular Katz column remind anybody else of the Unibomber Manifesto?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Really? I would have thought it was the excesses of the Csar or Russia, and the excesses British & French Colonialism in the East.
Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
However, most communist states came about the same way Napoleon's short-lived empire came about, as a violent reaction to oppressive dictators.
capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed)
As a capitalist, I should point out that capitalism is inherently moral. For several reasons:
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It has evolved over the past 60 years. The New Deal was just one small part of it.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species.
Why? What is so special about this particular species, that I should put advancing it ahead of all else? If mankind's domination of the world is someday dwarfed by AI robots or highly-evolved turtles, how would that be intrinsically bad?
I would replace "conceived" with "implemented."
Ah yes. The "real communism hasn't been tried yet" position. It comes up every time, because every single attempt at communism to date has resulted in depsotic nightmares. Pure capitalsism has not been tried either, but from what I have seen, the closer a society is to it, the better off they are. (See Hong Kong before the recent change of power, or the United States.)
The Great Depression can be traced, in large part, to government cock-ups. The free market banks prevented a similar crash in the 1890's. If you are a bank mogul, a depression is bad for business, and you will spend a lot of resources to prevent one.
The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits
That may be the idea... but the truth is different. If everyone must benifit equally, then the reward for hard labor, dramatic risk, and clever invention is the same as the reward for doing nothing. The producers of the society become slaves, like the horse in "Animal Farm", while those with less to offer share in the rewards of their efforts. What makes this particularilly shameful is that people living in such a system stop working hard, stop taking risks, and stop innovating, because there is no incentive to do so.
The result of "equal" redistribution of wealth will always be equally and fairly shared poverty and despair.
Communism is fundamentally unfair to those who produce more, and that is the evil of it.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
That does not mean that McDonald's causes peace, nor does it mean that peace causes McDonald's. If either argument was being made, your criticism would be correct.
However, the argument here is that nations which are prosperous enough to support a customer base for McDonald's tend to not go to war with one another.
If this was based on a single incident, (i.e., "we have observed one war, and McDonald's was not in both countries"), then it would indeed be a post hoc fallacy. However, when you observe a trend (i.e., "of the many wars we have observed, a disproportionate number, in fact nearly all of them, were fought between nations where one or both had no McDonald's), you can establish a thesis.
Nearly all human knowledge, including pretty much everything that Sagan taught about, came from observing trends and drawing conclusions based on those trends. It's how we learn stuff.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
An econ professor of mine summed this up rather neatly: "It seldom makes good business sense to bomb your customers."
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Most corporations seem to have figured out that so long as they have the appropriate politicians in their pockets, that being king or president or prime minister is not where it is at. For one thing, you have all of those pesky people demanding something from you. There is no rest for the wicked in the world of politics.
so they stay out of politics, and enter it only to protect themselves. Then they get to have their fancy cars and jets and boats, and minions groveling at their feet. This only works well for the really big companies, but for them that is Good Enough(tm)
You worry about you favorite pet peeve, distro war, or whatever.
While all around you the age of the puppet kings is approaching. Some say it is here already.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Market presence and a[n ad campaign designed to ensure the continued existence of a] customer base that's wholly-ignorant of the existence of alternatives
exactly. Keep in mind that the Carpet-Bombing methods of franchises like Starbucks will run a loss, canabalize their OWN stores in order to achieve ubiquity - until all choices are removed. They can sustain losses because they are funded well enough to just obliterate everyone else.... this used to be called preditory marketing or dumping.. now its an acceptable corporate strategy.
Agreed - unfortunatley most people (here's my elitism) are not capable of understanding. They dont realize they are being manipulated by their televisions. That they REALLY REALLY want %whatevertheyhavebeenshownontelevison% is not a worthwhile goal. Additionally, like you said, they dont understand finances. They run up massive debt and end up wage slaves... but they sure drive 'nice*' cars.
*they also dont realize that there is no value in cars outside of transportation - but they are so frail intellectually that they are easily told otherwise - hence your $50,000 BMW in the driveway of a factoryslave.
"hackers, programmers and open source advocates are sounding the alarm about the Microsoft-ing of the Net."
Why is it that Linux is considered to have a numerical edge on M$ products when someone is actually talking about webservers.....yet it suddenly becomes oppressed when someone wants to call in the banners?
As societies get richer and middle classes grow, the willingness of ordinary people to become cannon fodder declines rapidly. Mock McDonald's if you like, but in many countries it is very much considered a sign of prosperity (clean restrooms!) and popular among the emerging middle class.
I prefer the longer-standing principle that democracies don't go to war against one another. But you have to admit that, for all of its repressive behavior, Yugo was fairly democratic - Milosevic was elected, and now Kostunica is.
As for Fast Food Nation, I can't be bothered to read it, because it's clearly written with the attitude that it's somehow wrong to have a Big Mac. Don't like McDonald's? Eat somewhere else! Then quit bitching about other people's choices.
sulli
RTFJ.
Come on, Katz/Schlossinger, this is such laughable crap. Go to El Paso, then Seattle, then New York, then Chicago, and eat at the local restaurants. Note that the food is totally different. Note how you can't get decent Tex-Mex in NY, or decent coffee in El Paso, or decent bagels in Seattle. Note how the deep dish pizza in Chigago != the thin crust pizza in NY. Note further the thousands upon thousands of non-fast-food restaurants that people eat at every day.
Then, having discovered this basic fact of life, re-examine your thesis. Surprise! No monoculture. Apply to internet: diversity will persist. Thank you for playing.
sulli
RTFJ.
Go on a road trip with kids (or be a kid on a road trip yourself) and you'll sing the praises of McDonald's for life.
sulli
RTFJ.
All I got from this particular essay is:
Unfortunately, he forgot to offer any constructive solutions, making the entire thing little more than a misdirected troll.
People have been warning of MacDonaldization before the 70s. A noteable example is John Steinbeck in "Travels with Charley" which is from the 60s (I think).
There, the standardization and loss of culture was attributed mainly to nationally syndicated radio and TV shows, which probably provide an even better analogy to the Net.
Not confused enough? http://translate.google.com/translate?u=www.slashdot.jp&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en
Jesus, Jon, what has McDonald's ever done to you? :)
Honestly, fast food chains have come under an inordinate amount of PR flak from the tree-hugging eco-warrior contingent because they combine two of their greatest bogiemen - globalisation and meat. By attacking fast food chains they don't have to do such much running around, which means they can get their social security money from the Government.
But while McDonald's may not live up to the greenies' standards, who does? Many of them fail this test I'd imagine. But for such a large company, McDonald's does realise that popular opinion is all important, and it makes a lot of effort to maintain a reputation as a "good guy".
Which means clearing up litter around their shops, donating money to various goodwill groups and acting according to what their customers want - if there's even a hint of a food scare they'll react before the Government even starts to get its act together.
Basically, McDonald's has become the fall guy for the corporate world. The attacks on it would be far better placed on other companies which don't share McDonald's ethical policies, but instead act as they damn well please.
We wage serfs know this well. Pay the same corporations for whom you work for the lifestyle stuff, and you're in the same mess as miners in the 1920's- working harder and keeping less. With mega mergers everywhere, the world itself is becoming a company town.
But does the problem lie in corporate behavior or our own willingness to buy the lifestyle they sell?
[That's an honest question, folks- not a rhetorical one]
(
In other news: Jerry Bruckheimer's Next Epic)
- Rising cases of obesity
- Increased gun-related crime
- Lower education standards
- Greater apathy among citizens
- Ever-growing divide between upper and lower classes
If you're going to plug Americanization, you'd better damn well take the bad with the good.From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
....this a few years back, before we bombed Belgrade. Even though that exception pretty clearly wipes out the rule (after all, there are lots of Mickey D's in China, and we may find ourselves at war with them someday)...
Uhh, who is this "we" you speak of?
If by "we" you mean the United States government acting on its own volition (with the prodding of a few profit-hungry hawks) to commit an act of aggression against Serbia, then you speak for that government and yourself ONLY.
You do not speak for me, nor should you presume to do so.
Why does this forum look and feel more and more like 1938 Nuremburg?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
For my money, I'll still go to the local joints where I'm actually waited on and can choose real food.
In news this morning I hear that France's Alcatel is expected to tender an offer of $38 billion for Lose-cent. Interesting how some of the large multi-national corps are being picked up by companies in other countries. US exports hamburgers, sneakers, flavored-carbonated-sugar-water, fried chicken, and cultural values(tinted with puritanism) and sells off one of the oldest technology research companies.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's the secret sauce that subverts the mind and makes you lethargic. The sauce makes you less inclined to go to war with another person, unless they have stolen your last Big Mac.
Gentlemen! There will be no fighting in the War Room! -- Dr. Strangelove
And now to the facts of the matter. While I can't argue the validity of most of what was said, I seriously doubt that fast food can be blamed for the breakdown of regional cultural diversity within the united states, or the re-introduction of a class seperation within the country. I have to admit though, it does make for an interesting metaphor...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Y'know, I feel kinda stupid pointing this out, but there is exactly one reason why fast food is at the epedemic level Katz keeps telling us it is.
People buy it.
Scream all you want about how mom 'n' pop's Greasy Spoon Cafe just closed down, or how 2/3 of the US population is now approaching dangerous levels of obesity, or how these companies are spreading overseas (and *gasp* succeeding!), but they've become so powerful because lots and lots of people buy their product.
Fast food is cheap, fast, (debatably) tasty, easy to access, and the same no matter where you go. For some completely inexplicable reason, people seem to like this, and subsequently keep pouring cash into McDonald's coffers for their 10-minute Big Mac Extra Value Meal lunch.
So now that fast food restaurants have proven their popularity (and that they're not going away anytime soon,) it's the fault of the corporation that society is going down the tubes (at least in Katz's head?) I dare you, Jon, to consider that the root of this problem may just be the millions of Americans who regularly and voluntarily patronize fast food restaurants instead of independant restaurants.
If the fast food corporations have become a giant, international, all-consuming monster, it's because millions of ordinary people keep happily flinging their money into the mouth of the beast.
Joe Q. Slashdotter is to blame; he goes out, buys CDs/DVDs, eats fast food, watches cable/sattelite TV, buys the fastest residential broadband connection he can, and owns the latest cell phone on the market. Then, once at work, he's crying all the way to the submit button about the crimes against humanity committed by the MPAA, RIAA, TW/AOL, McDonalds, the telcoms, and pretty much anything with an international headquarters.
Why not do your next earth-shattering exposé on the nauseating hypocracy of the average Slashdot reader, Jon?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I bumped into a copy of this book last night. It looked excellent, although it seemed to focus more on the actual disgusting reality behind the counter of fast food joints rather than the social and cultural concerns
I highly recommend "The McDonaldization of America" and "Expressing America: The Credit Card Society," both by George Ritzer.
Also, "The Electronic Sweatshop: How Computers Are Transforming the Office of the Future into the Factory of the Past" by Barbara Garson (1988, Simon and Schuster) has an *excellent* chapter on what it is like to work at McDonalds and brings these concepts to take on office situations and electronic surveillance. Dated, but good.
Does yugoslavia still exist??
Its politicians we should still be wary of. Corporations can try and take our rights away, but we have the courts to fight them. When the government takes our rights away we can't even beat them in the courts as they have guns to back them up.
Corporations are as manipulated by politicians as politicians are by corporations. By and far, its politicians who are the worst of the two. Corporations don't take your money at gunpoint and spend it where you could care less. They can take your money and give it to some schmoe who doesn't want to work because he doesn't have to. A corporation can't do that.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
He discusses the main reason why this occurs and that is you wouldn't kill your business partner.
It's actually a really good book about the globalization of corporations and what he sees as a counter-force of the globalization of individuals and activism. Globalization puts General Motors in Mexico as well as environmental and work standards. Nike has China make it shoes, but universities won't buy slave labor made equipment. The same forces that drive McDonalds to Japan, puts Thai food in your town.
Good call. This is an argument that I've had with the anti-WTO/NAFTA/Globalization folks for some time now. Multinational corporations are shaping up to be the most powerful entities on earth, true. It's also true that there is absolutely no controls on these fantastically powerful corporations. I'll even grant you that many governments are or will be in the pockets of these corporations. However, there's one important fact that's impossible to argue with, and that's that dead people make poor consumers.
Real world example: Say that I'm Steve Case, running AOL/Time Warner/Turner/Etc. I've just gained a foothold in China and I'm looking forward to selling my crappy product to a new market of over a billion people, making untold billions of dollars. What do you think my stance on war with China is going to be? The moment that the Bush administration starts talking about taking military action against China, I'm going to be on the phone to remind him of my large campaign contribution and ask him to back off.
Admittedly, Multinationals are responsible for some heinous shit. Shell Oil has mercenaries in Africa clearing out villages to make way for oil pipelines. Globalization is not without its problems. However, if McDonald's in China means that I don't have to worry about San Francisco becoming a smoldering crater, then I'm all for it.
This
"But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market -- a balance already tilting off center in almost the entire range of tech industries, and on the Net and Web"
I think his point was that Laissez Faire (SIC?) capitalism / Free Markets don't always work.
Balance is essential in all aspects of life. You know the saying... All things in Moderation.
Like anything else in life, when taken to extremes and imbalanced, free trade can lead to unforseen, often negative consequences. This is neither uniqute to the Fast food industry, nor the Net.
If there's a castle floating upside down in the sky, then there's a castle floating upside down in the sky.
Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
I could be wrong here - and please correct me if I am - but wasn't the current farm policy first begun as a response to the Depression, so that all the farmers would not have so much surplus driving prices down and themselves out of business? And somehow I don't think "incremental" really describes the Depression or the New Deal.
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species. However, in order to keep the species going through the hard years, when we didn't have the capability to fuck the Earth like we do now, we had "ourselves" placed above "everyone" in our priorities. This is simple survival of the fittest, but isn't it time we moved beyond that and stopped being selfish? That you started thinking about the future and not your future?
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
One key quibble with this one: I would replace "conceived" with "implemented." You know what they say about fact and theory..
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself have absolutely no care for a)morality, and b)the future past the time it affects you. We all share responsibility for what happens down the road (with the people who will live then), and it's blind of us not to see it. The saying "nature or nurture" applies to cultures, too: What environment created it? (us). How does it live? (by our children, X generations down the road).
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
No shit. Capitalists are always talking about providing "incentives" for this or that - if you're so concerned about morality, why the fuck aren't there any "incentives" for it built into your economic system?
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
Don't judge poor implementations of a concept for the real thing. The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits, not just those quick enough to drop their morals and abuse their fellow beings (and descendants) to get rich now. I think socialism is a workable system - if only people can get past their selfish nature and work together for everyone's good.
Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
Katz apparently thinks he has coined this term "corporatism" to refer to rampant pro-business policies. However, the word "corporatism" is already used widely to mean something very different. Katz, I implore you, come up with a new word, to avoid confusion. It's as if I decided suddenly to start using the word "socialism" to refer to the social hierarchy that makes some people popular and others unpopular.
From the latin: "it happened after so it was caused by". A fairly common and fallacious argument, confusing cause and effect.
Methinks you should read about Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
cryptochrome---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
It is very convenient for us frightened citizens to have the evil specter of Big Brother looking at us from a book instead of from the reality.
The problem is that 1984 is not entirely a work of fiction. With a few organizational and technological tunings, 1984 is very well chosen, for a date. Right in the middle of the Reagan/Tatcher era, the propaganda/public relations machine pumping more and more bullshit through the TV tubes...
And that's only in occident. Consider the time in which the book was made (50s?).. In Russia, in that time, the book was only far-fetched on the technological side. Not on the political, social or philosophical side. Coming back to our century, we realize that the world didn't really change. Us geeks are just on the good side of the machine. (face it).
I don't think enough people have read 1984. I stopped reading it recently because I found it profoundly depressing. The parallels that I am able to fit into modern life are just too disturbing. The morning exercise (!), the hate sessions (one word: hockey), the telescreen.
The only thing that may be "comforting" in our world vs. 1984 is the way the telescreen works, ie. it can't spy on you. But that's another problem. Since it now works only in *one way*, the human before the tube just becomes a feeded brain to pack with propaganda. The TV screen is no democratic media that allows discussion, it is a massive distributor of tasteless unimaginative nonsense. It can't provoke debate because there's nothing to debate about. And that's how corporate media wants it.
IMO, George Orwell was a journalist. Not a sci-fi writer.
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
Anyway, for about three days I was really glad my toilet and my sink are right next to each other.
Being a big fan of Adbusters and their clan, I have to say that seeing this story on Slashdot makes me feel a trillion times better than reading its likeness in Adbusters. Adbusters, besides being a whup-ass, well-put-together mag, is a full-steam-ahead revolutionary organization. They already have the numbers, they're already convinced, and they're already fighting. All of that is nice, but to see them talking openly about issues like this is (duh) commonplace. It's when those issues pop up in widely-circulated, not-primarily-revolutionary media like Slashdot that there seems to be a little hope, and the little revolutionaries like me get the warm-fuzzies. Whatever anybody thinks of Jon Katz, he gets my solemn kudos for tackling an issue that a) means something and b)needs tackling. Go Jon!
As far as (c)BigMedia(tm) goes, you won't believe me if I try to just tell you their track record for refusing to allow Adbusters, and others, to publish anything resembling a non-corporate point of view (including a lot of surprising issues). Just take your most sickening estimate and triple it. Suffice to say, you won't see this story on ABC or in Time magazine, nor would you, I bet, if Madonna'd co-written it with the Dalai Lama (no offence to Jon).
Hit their site for the whole gruesome shebang, or if you don't like good graphics (*snerk*) take my Reality Test, and see if They've Affected Your Brain Yet!
(No) Peace (Without Justice),
S.T.
adbusters is one of the most interesting anti-corporate sites that i've seen - i'm just wondering how long before there's a magazine that's the technological version of the same thing... hey, there probably already is.
anyway, visit adbusters - i'm sure you'll find it interesting or funny or both.
i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.
i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.
i was 1 2 4 foe i 3 it not 4 5 did grow
So, fast food may be used by some as a metaphor for what is wrong with western civilization. However, a few years ago I read an interesting fact:
No two nations with McDonalds on their territory have ever gone to war with each other.
This may be a coincidence (and it may no longer be true ... is there a McDonalds in Yugoslavia?), but there were analysts in the article I read who suggested that the presence of a McDonalds in a nation indicated a certain level of national development, democracy, and sophistication, with an educated middle class, who patronize the McDonalds, and who are intolerant of war.
An interesting thought. International trade has its problems, but frequently it brings peace.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
It is not his definition.
" underperform" was defined by millions of people who voluntarily (and sometimes risking their lives) decided to escape from USSR and other Communism practicing countries.
People vote with their feet. Communism overwhelmingly lost that vote.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
No, it is not about human rights.
Most of the refugees from Soviet dominated countries escaped because they recognized the lack of any economical future ( specially as compared to western world.)
They refused to live in Communism because it would be a shity life. Simple as that.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.