Then came the savings and loan scandal, and I realized that quite probably more of my tax dollars go to people making more than me than to people making less than me.
Quite true, especially once you realize that (according to the GAO) less than 2% of the national budget goes to welfare. People tend to think it's much greater than that because they think it includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Well, as one Washington Post reported aptly put out, where are these "welfare queens" that Reagan loved to point a finger at? True, some people collect two or three welfare checks through forgery, but that money is a pittance compared to Social Security checks (not debating the value of SS - since you're getting back what you paid in the first place (well, sort of (a whole 'nother debate topic, really))).
WIC (Women with Infants & Children) food stamps equal about 66 cents per person per meal per day (tho it may be up to 86 cents now, haven't checked). When was the last time you could get a meal for 66 cents, or even 86 cents? Can you live like a queen off of that?
Slashdot is full of well-educated people that are completely ignorant of the real world. (not you, dpilot, just in general)
It's just some wacky idea that liberals have pulled out of their asses.
Damn straight, and that's what's keeping those "wacky liberals" from becoming true radicals (I am not afraid of that word!) and fight for some real change, not petty reforms.
"...that exact specification (the Constitution, for the slow) does not give the United States federal government the authority, responsibility, or duty to so much as address social equity."
Of course! The Constitution (and the Declaration of Independance) was written solely in the best interests of the landed gentry. Sprinkle in some petty claims to popular consent, like "We the people" and a Bill of Rights (still vaporware, as far as I can tell) and *voila*, legitimacy!
But seriously, the economic stratification that we see is more attributable to capitalism as a system than some conspiring group of capitalists. The success of capitalism is based on scarcity (actual or artificial scarcity) and rewarding those in control of the supply-side. The failure of commmunism is the lack of abundance (again, actual or artificial). Since it's easier to make something scarce than abundant, capitalism wins. People lose.
I'm not making an argument for either political system, just the economics of distribution, is all. Mixed-mode economies like those in Scandinavian countries seem to do very well.
It makes sense that corporations (the only real manifestation of capitalism--not people) will back a candidate that will benefit their interests the most. All political change is rooted in economics -- I believe that someday people might realize that the stupid, petty trinkets (SUV's, cableTV) they get for slaving away for the corporations' benefit are pretty unfulfilling and will rise up and demand more. Then again, I think people are pretty damn happy with their stupid trinkets.
From The Article:Genetically modified crops can be hardier, tastier, and more nutritious.
Hardier, yes. Tastier? Who can tell. More nutritious? Not likely. More profitable? Absolutely.
The real danger from Franken foods is not that they'll brew up some disasterous toxic chemical (though it could happen, as there is no extensive testing guidlines for the stuff) but that they allow agribusiness corps to control way too much. Stocks of corn (cattle feed and sweetener) can be engineered to be effectively sterile, forcing farmers to buy seed from the source corporation (patented and licensed DNA, baby!). As certain sterile breeds start to dominate the market, it becomes more and more easy for a single virus, bacteria, or insect (or climate change) to effectively wipe out all the crops (an argument FOR biodiversity).
Well said, and to further that point I will gamble that the reason that Hollywood and the Music Industry is "dumbed down" is the corporate desiring-production machine.
When violence and sex is represented in Hollywood, it is done in a way that both homogenizes and sanitizes it. Homogenous in that these acts are perpetrated so predictably: with the same faces, the same bodies, the same explosions, the same "bad guys", the same dilemnas. The Beauty Myth is perpetrated this way, and also the myth of police and government spending all their time and money hunting down bizarre, psychopathic rapist/killers and international "evil" terrorists.
Ever notice that 90% of all action-dramas on TV are essentially cop shows (anything from Walker, Texas Ranger to NY Undercover/Blue to any of those shows on WB or UPN)? And of course all these cops are portrayed as heroes! In real life, (overgeneralization coming up) when has a cop ever done anything other than show up too late or arrest someone for doing something that doesn't threaten anyone? And how many people do you know have perfect skin and perfectly crafted bodies? Yet that's all we seem to be looking for...
I'm sure nobody believes all that crap that cop shows produce (even Law & Order has it's share of popular misconceptions) but it doesn't alleviate the unconscious belief that policing and more surveillence will lead to a better society. The whole "getting tough on crime" baloney is just a campaing slogan meaning, "pass more arbitrary laws against petty offences based on racial stereotypes" -- all based in the popular misconception that deterrants hinder crime (just ask any sociologist).
Okay, I think I've gone off on a wild tangent here, so I'll stop to read more posts...
Take a few clueless chaps who have the ego and audacity to think that *they* have the one true path, give 'em readily-available information about, say, primitive explosives design, and they can do a fair bit of damage to themselves and those around them. Grandiousity and an exaggerated sense of self-importance can lead to silly, bloody plans -- regardless of source, be it ideology or simply a desire for fame.
- True but they will obtain information for these plans through other routes if the internet is not available - the internet does not create their foolishness. ". If anything, the legendary "Anarchist Cookbook" is a deliberate trap designed to kill anyone who tries out it's recipies. Terrorist bombings are nothing new and I haven't seen any data that suggests that the internet has increased the amount of terrorist bombings worldwide. Columbine should be forgotten because like all empty political rhetoric, it has become a popular anecdote, which in turn becomes the oxymoron"anecdotal evidence" -- not evidence at all, but merely a data point in the whole mess of incidences.
Ever watch a 14-yr-old trying to defend Marxist theory online? It'd be hilarious if it weren't sad due to the lack of situational awareness that demonstrates. Lack of experience can hamper judgement, apparently.
It's sad watching anyone trying to defend Marxist theory, especially if they've swallowed all that Bolshevik/Trotskyist shite about the "dicatotorship of the proletariat" and all those other thought-terminating cliche's. Like the Bible, Marxism is outdated, ill-conceived (self-contradictory), and hopelessly authoritarian. However, I am far more sympathetic to a 14 year old trying to defend any political ideology than a 14 year old babbling about Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
To absolve the medium completely, with fun documents like a short guide to explosives easily found (that doc revealed via Google), is a bit disingenuous.
I'm certainly not absolving the the 'net of everything -- but I'm not going to make a moral judgement on it either; the 'net is an inherently amoral (neither immoral nor moral) entity. To say the net is responsible for certain examples of humanity's shortcomings is the same argument people make for banning books -- the suppression of ideas deemed "dangerous". Censorship is the ultimate expression of an insecure society. Media is a reflection of society, not the other way around.
I agree entirely. If anything it is the utter backward-ness of our educational system that makes people into bitter, apathetic, drug-abusing, and self-loathing people. We need to explore educational alternatives to the current oppressive, compulsory, rigid, standards-enforcing paradigm and diversify so that students aren't forced to either conform to the rigid psychotopology of our prison/factory/school system or lsoe out.
One of the reasons that that the Zapatista movement survived and didn't just disappear like so many small Latin American uprisings was that they publicized their struggle on the Internet (just do a search on Google for 'em). Through the 'net they reached out to a lot of students and bands like Rage Against the Machine caught on to it as well. With all the international attention the PRI gov't couldn't just go in an with a few death squads and murder the lot of 'em (like they do in Peru).
A lot of revolutionary struggles and progressive organizations have the internet to thank for their momentum and communication network. The Seattle WTO protest would not have been possible (or would have been a lot smaller) if it weren't for the communication tools that the net allows. www.indymedia.org follows just about all of these events with streaming media, photos, and up-to-the-second reports from the scene, with none of the hideous right-wing, pro-capitalist, self-censorship of the large newspapers and networks.
www.ainfos.ca - the A-Info's mailing list is a primarily anarchist news resource from around the globe that I'm sure Bush wouldn't want high-schoolers reading -- they might actually find something that speaks to them in those radical publications and communique's that sparks some zeal for (*gasp*) change. Perhaps it'll "turn their hearts dark" and they'll dress in black (not the Trenchcoat Mafia but for an anarchist Black Bloc action).
It's no wonder politicians fear the Internet because now the status quo no longer has a monopoly on mass communication and thus "dangerous" ideas can be spread easily. This is why they defend e-commerce and the commercialization of the net and propagate the myth of widespread "kiddie porn".
I have a more practical idea--though actually it's the way my company works. All of our cube walls are only 3 feet high - about halfway up the height of a monitor sitting on your desk. The lighting isn't your standard halogen-tube shit; they're actually thin strips of haogen tupes interspersed with incandescent bulbs so there's a soft lighting feel. The low walls also ensure that natural light from the windows reaches everybody and that people can see each other all the time.
I would say only 1 in 30 people in my office are stressed out, even though our clients are money managers who scream at us on the phone all the time.
Oh, and the $800 Herman-Miller super-adjustable chairs also help.
I think what distinguishes one game from another is really "concept". There's nothing like a totally novel approach. That's why The Sims are so popular right now (sorry, no Linux version) - but isn't it just a dollhouse taken to the next step? It certainly looks that way to me. What about FPS games? Isn't that just the same as when you played with toy guns as a kid (or paintball as an adult kid)?
The only difference I see is that instead of using your imagination to supply the terrorists and interpersonal relationships, you're letting the software do it for you. I think the same has been said of television - that it acts as a substitute imagination rather than stimulates.
That's not to say that all media does that, but certainly the mass-produced, sequel-milking, eye-candy-filled television shows and video games have that effect.
I would point at history to demonstrate that whenever a new form of media comes out, it takes quite a while for it to start producing art. The printing press, photography, and film have all had a "trial period" before people started to use those mediums for art. Film has progressed relatively quickly in that regard, but how much art is there on television? Sure, Dark Angel might be a "neat show", but can you really call that action-thriller bullshit stimulating and provocative? What new ideas does it introduce? Even the bastion of high-brow programming, the PBS documentary, has been dumbed-down to pointless shows about guns & wars (History Channel), shock-value gore-fests (The Learning Channel), and completely unchallenging and basic trivia (Discovery Channel).
Anyway, in regard to games the same thing is happening (has been happening all along): somone takes some sort of fictional situation and creates a simulation so you can "immerse" yourself (as another/.er put it) in this fictional situation with graphics, sound, and...well, graphics and sound--instead of either using your imagination or actualizing the situation. This all has the effect of limiting the scope of our imagination and/or fixating our expectations . Just think of how the pr0n idustry has shaped male expectations of how women should act in bed (how many women do you know actually like to have guys ejaculate on their faces?).
The consequence is, of course, that we become more and more reliant on the next game or next TV show for our dose of escape, but eventually the shit's just not gonna do it for us anymore and look, here comes bland ol' boring reality right back at ya, with the car payments, the acne, the commute, the gov't, the consequences...
"your skills leave you with a ton of employment options"
I concur. Not only that, most of us techies are such "hot items" that companies don't want us to go so badly, you don't have to put up with any bullshit.
I've seen office situations where the management is a bunch of technically inept petty fascists and I don't see why people are just so damn afraid of their bosses because if anything, those guys are just pathetic. The only guy in our office that tried to be intimidating I brushed off and called him by his first name until he realized that those sort of tactics don't work with me. And if I ever get seriously threatened with being fired, I'm outta there (I usually leave before that even comes close to happening).
However, I've never been fired, because I make myself too damn useful to the company to get rid of (and I've worked in a few different one's too) and I don't feed bullshit to anybody. If my boss has a stupid idea, I go right ahead and shoot it down like it ought to be.
I hereby submit my patent for the SHFAPSS - The Social Hierarchy Financial Aggregation and Proletariat Suppression System.
Stipulative Definitions: [1] - "Ownership" shall be defined as being in control of an object or idea and all transgressions upon that monopoly of control is to be considered punishable by imprisonment and/or physical pain. [2] - "Profit" is to be defined as the surplus gained from a transaction in which one party receives more equivalent material goods for the transaction. Though the other party may incur an overall loss from the transaction, the SHFAPSS will ensure that there is absolutely no choice whatsoever other than to simply minimize their net loss. [3] - "Interest" is the added return, or profit that a lending or crediting agency receives for absolutely no work at all - it shall be their right to charge "interest" merely for the use of property that they own. [4] - "Proletariat" - Non-propertied people that can be coerced into exchanging labor and service for barely enough material wealth to cover the cost of interest on their debts.
Operational Method: [1] - SHFAPSS maintains social hierarchy (the population ranked by property-ownership) and aggregates wealth and power towards the top of the structure by reinforcing the cultural imperative to own goods and creating a "market" whereas all individuals are competeting for maximum ownership [of goods], either by profiting off of one another or by obtaining natural resources (see footnote). [2] - Aggregation occurs as a result of proletariat class misconception of system as benevolent; fostering of individualism and paranoia will result in increased competition to proide labor and service, thus driving up possibilities for propertied institutions to extract profit. [3] - Though the system is ultimately a negative-sum game (since interest on lending is taken even though no increase in material goods occurs) the effect of having more debt than credit actually accelerates the effect of aggregation as participants become more desperate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hincentivized to re-pay debt so that increased borrowing (to increase personal ownership) occurs. [4] - Since wealth is concentrated into the hands of a very few (the propertied class), this product can be marketed along it's blanket-statement, macroeconomic indicators which ignore such discrepanices between sub-groups.
Terms of Use:
[1] - Property Owners wishing to use this system must alienate themselves so much from the actual modus operendi that they fail to see their gain as a systemic inevitablility, but more as a personal achievement/victory and a direct result of hard work and/or cleverness on their part.
[2] - Proletariats wishing to use this system must also blame all hardships on some sort of personal shortcoming (not circumstance) and be willing to work like a dog for little or even negative compensation until death^H^H^H^H^Htermination (at which point debts can be passed on to immediate family so that efficient profit extraction can continue).
[3] - We also need to be allowed to cover every conceivable surface and fill every possible space with advertisments. [4] - We also need governments to adopt this system and enforce it with platoons of cops.
footnote: "natural resources" - as long as there are some left to obtain, process, and sell, the total amount of debt will not out-pace the total amount of credit (or at least the interest payments). If this should occur, the SHFAPSS would greatly benefit from a sustained, world-wide military conflict.
I move into a new flat in Chicago. I sign up with Ameritech(aaack!) for local service. I tell them I want my Long Distance provider to be Working Assets which leases their lines from MCI. Okay, everything sounds great, Ameritech gives the green light, thankyouaveaniceday.
Month later: phone bill. I tear into the envelope and my roomate nearly witnesses spontaneous human combustion. Grand total? $560 USD.
I call Ameritech, they say talk to your Long Distance provider ($480) about it. I talk to them and they say, hmm, looks like MCI never got back to us. I as, "So what does that mean?" They explain it this way:
Since they lease their long distance capacity from MCI, once I put in the request Working Assets sends a request to MCI to transfer my account to Working Assests. MCI sits on the notice for a month and wind up charging me the "casual rate" which is something like $2.14 the first minute and $0.54 each additional minute. Needless to say I had made a few long-distance calls in that first month.
Final outcome: Working Assets graciously credits me with difference in cost (almost $400) but I still have to pay off MCI, the cheeky sods. Those smarmy gits.
"Ma Bell, got the ill communication, Ma Bell, got the ill communication..."-Beastie Boys
However in the real world corporations have more rights than people - mostly through intimidation, deep pockets, and general lack of concern for the common human being.
Pursuant to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act ("DMCA"), other federal and state copyright laws, trademark
law, and other statutes, you are hereby notified that your actions
constitute infringement of Lucasfilm's rights.
...(snip)...
Pursuant to the DMCA, we have a good faith belief that any
items falling into the categories identified above infringe Lucasfilm's
copyrights and other intellectual property rights, and are not authorized by
Lucasfilm or its agents. I am authorized to act on Lucasfilm's behalf
regarding these matters. The information provided in this communication is
accurate to the best of my knowledge and is provided under penalty of
perjury.
Sincerely,
David J. Anderman
Associate Director of Business Affairs
DJA/lm
from:netenforcement@lucasfilm.com
Of all the...for Pete's...well don't that beat...(pauses for breath)...DMCA, I CURSE YOU!!
Seriously, though, the Net isn't a hotbed of political activity.
Ahh, don't be to sure about that. All of the recent political protests have been primarily organized using the 'Net. Just take a look at www.indymedia.org and you'll see what I mean. There are literally thousands and thousands of politically radical web-pages, email lists, and newsgroups. Some for organizing, some for just talk.
For one thing, the Zapatistas would not be around anymore if it weren't for the internet - they documented and publicized their struggle against the Mexican PRI in Chiapas on the net - whereas most of these small, radical guerilla groups are born and die in a week (anyone remember the Tupac Amaru?).
Human Rights groups doing research on oppressive governemnts encrypt their reports before crossing borders, since the discovery of sensitive, politically charged information would likely mean a swift execution/imprisonoment.
There are thousands of people using the net for political activity - it's just that the geeks are too focused on playing video games and cashing in on the e-cash cow to notice.
I think what you're mixing terms over is the difference between so-calleddemocracy and the abstraction that is "politics". To tell you the truth, poltics really haven't changed in a thousand years, it seems, but societies change all the time.
Maintaining the State is a social game, not really a political game. The US "democracy" is simply one way to play that game - where the goal is to legitimize the existence of the State. In our case, the US Gov't legitimizes itself by promising freedom, prosperity, and security. The illusion of meaningful elections is part of that "freedom", as in civil rights, sort of thing.
Modern States have 3 was to legitmize themselves (according to Giovanni Poggi, whom I happen to agree with): physical force - ie fear, intimidation, repression, as many African and South American oligarchies used to do. having a common enemy - the old Machiavellian principle of having someone to hate - ie the Cold War/Communism (and in Russia's case, Western Capitalism). quality of life - the promise of Universal Health care (long abandoned by Gore), guns in every home (Bush), no more SUV's (Nader), and so forth. Obviously, though Reagan was all about the Cold War cause, most of the US's legitizing power comes from the last, quality of life (and to a small extent the first).
Without [perceived] legitimacy the State can no longer exist (the people don't need it). What Jon is saying is that all the false promises and claims to improve quality of life that our political candidates expouse are largely ignored by the public because everybody knows that it's a sham.
However, if you subscrbe to a more Foucoult-ish interpretation of power, the idea is that modern States derive power from the ability to observe, classify, and track it's subjects (with the technology that exists today, it's not that hard). That being the case, the State has won and humanity is screwed (we're actually screwing ourselves) and thus who the fuck cares if Tweedledee or Tweedledum get elected?
Slashdot Mirror
Quite true, especially once you realize that (according to the GAO) less than 2% of the national budget goes to welfare. People tend to think it's much greater than that because they think it includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Well, as one Washington Post reported aptly put out, where are these "welfare queens" that Reagan loved to point a finger at? True, some people collect two or three welfare checks through forgery, but that money is a pittance compared to Social Security checks (not debating the value of SS - since you're getting back what you paid in the first place (well, sort of (a whole 'nother debate topic, really))).
WIC (Women with Infants & Children) food stamps equal about 66 cents per person per meal per day (tho it may be up to 86 cents now, haven't checked). When was the last time you could get a meal for 66 cents, or even 86 cents? Can you live like a queen off of that?
Slashdot is full of well-educated people that are completely ignorant of the real world. (not you, dpilot, just in general)
Damn straight, and that's what's keeping those "wacky liberals" from becoming true radicals (I am not afraid of that word!) and fight for some real change, not petty reforms.
Oooohhh! Scary thought....
Of course! The Constitution (and the Declaration of Independance) was written solely in the best interests of the landed gentry. Sprinkle in some petty claims to popular consent, like "We the people" and a Bill of Rights (still vaporware, as far as I can tell) and *voila*, legitimacy!
But seriously, the economic stratification that we see is more attributable to capitalism as a system than some conspiring group of capitalists. The success of capitalism is based on scarcity (actual or artificial scarcity) and rewarding those in control of the supply-side. The failure of commmunism is the lack of abundance (again, actual or artificial). Since it's easier to make something scarce than abundant, capitalism wins. People lose.
I'm not making an argument for either political system, just the economics of distribution, is all. Mixed-mode economies like those in Scandinavian countries seem to do very well.
It makes sense that corporations (the only real manifestation of capitalism--not people) will back a candidate that will benefit their interests the most. All political change is rooted in economics -- I believe that someday people might realize that the stupid, petty trinkets (SUV's, cableTV) they get for slaving away for the corporations' benefit are pretty unfulfilling and will rise up and demand more. Then again, I think people are pretty damn happy with their stupid trinkets.
Keep working like dogs, fools.
Of course I previewed that. Yep, I meant for the whole thing to be in italics.
What on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing - never was, never will be. Cite a news source and I will demonstrate their biases.
The only choice we have is in who's perspective we agree with the most. Every author is biased, because no human being is "objective".
You can probably tell my influences by the links in my sig.
Is it okay if I bring it back encased in carbonite?
Hardier, yes. Tastier? Who can tell. More nutritious? Not likely. More profitable? Absolutely.
The real danger from Franken foods is not that they'll brew up some disasterous toxic chemical (though it could happen, as there is no extensive testing guidlines for the stuff) but that they allow agribusiness corps to control way too much. Stocks of corn (cattle feed and sweetener) can be engineered to be effectively sterile, forcing farmers to buy seed from the source corporation (patented and licensed DNA, baby!). As certain sterile breeds start to dominate the market, it becomes more and more easy for a single virus, bacteria, or insect (or climate change) to effectively wipe out all the crops (an argument FOR biodiversity).
It's much easier to have a laser scanning out multiple 2D images onto a moving plane for the 3D.
When violence and sex is represented in Hollywood, it is done in a way that both homogenizes and sanitizes it. Homogenous in that these acts are perpetrated so predictably: with the same faces, the same bodies, the same explosions, the same "bad guys", the same dilemnas. The Beauty Myth is perpetrated this way, and also the myth of police and government spending all their time and money hunting down bizarre, psychopathic rapist/killers and international "evil" terrorists.
Ever notice that 90% of all action-dramas on TV are essentially cop shows (anything from Walker, Texas Ranger to NY Undercover/Blue to any of those shows on WB or UPN)? And of course all these cops are portrayed as heroes! In real life, (overgeneralization coming up) when has a cop ever done anything other than show up too late or arrest someone for doing something that doesn't threaten anyone? And how many people do you know have perfect skin and perfectly crafted bodies? Yet that's all we seem to be looking for...
I'm sure nobody believes all that crap that cop shows produce (even Law & Order has it's share of popular misconceptions) but it doesn't alleviate the unconscious belief that policing and more surveillence will lead to a better society. The whole "getting tough on crime" baloney is just a campaing slogan meaning, "pass more arbitrary laws against petty offences based on racial stereotypes" -- all based in the popular misconception that deterrants hinder crime (just ask any sociologist).
Okay, I think I've gone off on a wild tangent here, so I'll stop to read more posts...
- True but they will obtain information for these plans through other routes if the internet is not available - the internet does not create their foolishness. ". If anything, the legendary "Anarchist Cookbook" is a deliberate trap designed to kill anyone who tries out it's recipies. Terrorist bombings are nothing new and I haven't seen any data that suggests that the internet has increased the amount of terrorist bombings worldwide. Columbine should be forgotten because like all empty political rhetoric, it has become a popular anecdote, which in turn becomes the oxymoron "anecdotal evidence" -- not evidence at all, but merely a data point in the whole mess of incidences.
Ever watch a 14-yr-old trying to defend Marxist theory online? It'd be hilarious if it weren't sad due to the lack of situational awareness that demonstrates. Lack of experience can hamper judgement, apparently.
It's sad watching anyone trying to defend Marxist theory, especially if they've swallowed all that Bolshevik/Trotskyist shite about the "dicatotorship of the proletariat" and all those other thought-terminating cliche's. Like the Bible, Marxism is outdated, ill-conceived (self-contradictory), and hopelessly authoritarian. However, I am far more sympathetic to a 14 year old trying to defend any political ideology than a 14 year old babbling about Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
To absolve the medium completely, with fun documents like a short guide to explosives easily found (that doc revealed via Google), is a bit disingenuous.
I'm certainly not absolving the the 'net of everything -- but I'm not going to make a moral judgement on it either; the 'net is an inherently amoral (neither immoral nor moral) entity. To say the net is responsible for certain examples of humanity's shortcomings is the same argument people make for banning books -- the suppression of ideas deemed "dangerous". Censorship is the ultimate expression of an insecure society. Media is a reflection of society, not the other way around.
Yeah, so don't waste your vote: Vote Nader.
Why can't we start our own schools?
A lot of revolutionary struggles and progressive organizations have the internet to thank for their momentum and communication network. The Seattle WTO protest would not have been possible (or would have been a lot smaller) if it weren't for the communication tools that the net allows. www.indymedia.org follows just about all of these events with streaming media, photos, and up-to-the-second reports from the scene, with none of the hideous right-wing, pro-capitalist, self-censorship of the large newspapers and networks.
www.ainfos.ca - the A-Info's mailing list is a primarily anarchist news resource from around the globe that I'm sure Bush wouldn't want high-schoolers reading -- they might actually find something that speaks to them in those radical publications and communique's that sparks some zeal for (*gasp*) change. Perhaps it'll "turn their hearts dark" and they'll dress in black (not the Trenchcoat Mafia but for an anarchist Black Bloc action).
It's no wonder politicians fear the Internet because now the status quo no longer has a monopoly on mass communication and thus "dangerous" ideas can be spread easily. This is why they defend e-commerce and the commercialization of the net and propagate the myth of widespread "kiddie porn".
I would say only 1 in 30 people in my office are stressed out, even though our clients are money managers who scream at us on the phone all the time.
Oh, and the $800 Herman-Miller super-adjustable chairs also help.
The only difference I see is that instead of using your imagination to supply the terrorists and interpersonal relationships, you're letting the software do it for you. I think the same has been said of television - that it acts as a substitute imagination rather than stimulates.
That's not to say that all media does that, but certainly the mass-produced, sequel-milking, eye-candy-filled television shows and video games have that effect.
I would point at history to demonstrate that whenever a new form of media comes out, it takes quite a while for it to start producing art. The printing press, photography, and film have all had a "trial period" before people started to use those mediums for art. Film has progressed relatively quickly in that regard, but how much art is there on television? Sure, Dark Angel might be a "neat show", but can you really call that action-thriller bullshit stimulating and provocative? What new ideas does it introduce? Even the bastion of high-brow programming, the PBS documentary, has been dumbed-down to pointless shows about guns & wars (History Channel), shock-value gore-fests (The Learning Channel), and completely unchallenging and basic trivia (Discovery Channel).
Anyway, in regard to games the same thing is happening (has been happening all along): somone takes some sort of fictional situation and creates a simulation so you can "immerse" yourself (as another /.er put it) in this fictional situation with graphics, sound, and...well, graphics and sound--instead of either using your imagination or actualizing the situation. This all has the effect of limiting the scope of our imagination and/or fixating our expectations . Just think of how the pr0n idustry has shaped male expectations of how women should act in bed (how many women do you know actually like to have guys ejaculate on their faces?).
The consequence is, of course, that we become more and more reliant on the next game or next TV show for our dose of escape, but eventually the shit's just not gonna do it for us anymore and look, here comes bland ol' boring reality right back at ya, with the car payments, the acne, the commute, the gov't, the consequences...
Oh, and Gore isn't all that great either.
Chicago Nader rally was sold out last Tuesday...*sigh*
I concur. Not only that, most of us techies are such "hot items" that companies don't want us to go so badly, you don't have to put up with any bullshit.
I've seen office situations where the management is a bunch of technically inept petty fascists and I don't see why people are just so damn afraid of their bosses because if anything, those guys are just pathetic. The only guy in our office that tried to be intimidating I brushed off and called him by his first name until he realized that those sort of tactics don't work with me. And if I ever get seriously threatened with being fired, I'm outta there (I usually leave before that even comes close to happening).
However, I've never been fired, because I make myself too damn useful to the company to get rid of (and I've worked in a few different one's too) and I don't feed bullshit to anybody. If my boss has a stupid idea, I go right ahead and shoot it down like it ought to be.
Yeah,too bad Milwaukee is about as exciting as a black hole.
Stipulative Definitions:
[1] - "Ownership" shall be defined as being in control of an object or idea and all transgressions upon that monopoly of control is to be considered punishable by imprisonment and/or physical pain.
[2] - "Profit" is to be defined as the surplus gained from a transaction in which one party receives more equivalent material goods for the transaction. Though the other party may incur an overall loss from the transaction, the SHFAPSS will ensure that there is absolutely no choice whatsoever other than to simply minimize their net loss.
[3] - "Interest" is the added return, or profit that a lending or crediting agency receives for absolutely no work at all - it shall be their right to charge "interest" merely for the use of property that they own.
[4] - "Proletariat" - Non-propertied people that can be coerced into exchanging labor and service for barely enough material wealth to cover the cost of interest on their debts.
Operational Method:
[1] - SHFAPSS maintains social hierarchy (the population ranked by property-ownership) and aggregates wealth and power towards the top of the structure by reinforcing the cultural imperative to own goods and creating a "market" whereas all individuals are competeting for maximum ownership [of goods], either by profiting off of one another or by obtaining natural resources (see footnote).
[2] - Aggregation occurs as a result of proletariat class misconception of system as benevolent; fostering of individualism and paranoia will result in increased competition to proide labor and service, thus driving up possibilities for propertied institutions to extract profit.
[3] - Though the system is ultimately a negative-sum game (since interest on lending is taken even though no increase in material goods occurs) the effect of having more debt than credit actually accelerates the effect of aggregation as participants become more desperate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hincentivized to re-pay debt so that increased borrowing (to increase personal ownership) occurs.
[4] - Since wealth is concentrated into the hands of a very few (the propertied class), this product can be marketed along it's blanket-statement, macroeconomic indicators which ignore such discrepanices between sub-groups.
Terms of Use: .
[1] - Property Owners wishing to use this system must alienate themselves so much from the actual modus operendi that they fail to see their gain as a systemic inevitablility, but more as a personal achievement/victory and a direct result of hard work and/or cleverness on their part.
[2] - Proletariats wishing to use this system must also blame all hardships on some sort of personal shortcoming (not circumstance) and be willing to work like a dog for little or even negative compensation until death^H^H^H^H^Htermination (at which point debts can be passed on to immediate family so that efficient profit extraction can continue).
[3] - We also need to be allowed to cover every conceivable surface and fill every possible space with advertisments
[4] - We also need governments to adopt this system and enforce it with platoons of cops.
footnote: "natural resources" - as long as there are some left to obtain, process, and sell, the total amount of debt will not out-pace the total amount of credit (or at least the interest payments). If this should occur, the SHFAPSS would greatly benefit from a sustained, world-wide military conflict.
I move into a new flat in Chicago. I sign up with Ameritech(aaack!) for local service. I tell them I want my Long Distance provider to be Working Assets which leases their lines from MCI. Okay, everything sounds great, Ameritech gives the green light, thankyouaveaniceday.
Month later: phone bill. I tear into the envelope and my roomate nearly witnesses spontaneous human combustion. Grand total? $560 USD.
I call Ameritech, they say talk to your Long Distance provider ($480) about it. I talk to them and they say, hmm, looks like MCI never got back to us. I as, "So what does that mean?" They explain it this way:
Since they lease their long distance capacity from MCI, once I put in the request Working Assets sends a request to MCI to transfer my account to Working Assests. MCI sits on the notice for a month and wind up charging me the "casual rate" which is something like $2.14 the first minute and $0.54 each additional minute. Needless to say I had made a few long-distance calls in that first month.
Final outcome: Working Assets graciously credits me with difference in cost (almost $400) but I still have to pay off MCI, the cheeky sods. Those smarmy gits.
"Ma Bell, got the ill communication, Ma Bell, got the ill communication..."-Beastie Boys
However in the real world corporations have more rights than people - mostly through intimidation, deep pockets, and general lack of concern for the common human being.
- Pursuant to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act ("DMCA"), other federal and state copyright laws, trademark
law, and other statutes, you are hereby notified that your actions
constitute infringement of Lucasfilm's rights.
Of all the...for Pete's...well don't that beat...(pauses for breath)...DMCA, I CURSE YOU!!...(snip)...
Pursuant to the DMCA, we have a good faith belief that any items falling into the categories identified above infringe Lucasfilm's copyrights and other intellectual property rights, and are not authorized by Lucasfilm or its agents. I am authorized to act on Lucasfilm's behalf regarding these matters. The information provided in this communication is accurate to the best of my knowledge and is provided under penalty of perjury. Sincerely,
David J. Anderman Associate Director of Business Affairs
DJA/lm
from:netenforcement@lucasfilm.com
- Seriously, though, the Net isn't a hotbed of political activity.
Ahh, don't be to sure about that. All of the recent political protests have been primarily organized using the 'Net. Just take a look at www.indymedia.org and you'll see what I mean. There are literally thousands and thousands of politically radical web-pages, email lists, and newsgroups. Some for organizing, some for just talkFor one thing, the Zapatistas would not be around anymore if it weren't for the internet - they documented and publicized their struggle against the Mexican PRI in Chiapas on the net - whereas most of these small, radical guerilla groups are born and die in a week (anyone remember the Tupac Amaru?).
Human Rights groups doing research on oppressive governemnts encrypt their reports before crossing borders, since the discovery of sensitive, politically charged information would likely mean a swift execution/imprisonoment.
There are thousands of people using the net for political activity - it's just that the geeks are too focused on playing video games and cashing in on the e-cash cow to notice.
Maintaining the State is a social game, not really a political game. The US "democracy" is simply one way to play that game - where the goal is to legitimize the existence of the State. In our case, the US Gov't legitimizes itself by promising freedom, prosperity, and security. The illusion of meaningful elections is part of that "freedom", as in civil rights, sort of thing.
Modern States have 3 was to legitmize themselves (according to Giovanni Poggi, whom I happen to agree with):
physical force - ie fear, intimidation, repression, as many African and South American oligarchies used to do.
having a common enemy - the old Machiavellian principle of having someone to hate - ie the Cold War/Communism (and in Russia's case, Western Capitalism).
quality of life - the promise of Universal Health care (long abandoned by Gore), guns in every home (Bush), no more SUV's (Nader), and so forth. Obviously, though Reagan was all about the Cold War cause, most of the US's legitizing power comes from the last, quality of life (and to a small extent the first).
Without [perceived] legitimacy the State can no longer exist (the people don't need it). What Jon is saying is that all the false promises and claims to improve quality of life that our political candidates expouse are largely ignored by the public because everybody knows that it's a sham.
However, if you subscrbe to a more Foucoult-ish interpretation of power, the idea is that modern States derive power from the ability to observe, classify, and track it's subjects (with the technology that exists today, it's not that hard). That being the case, the State has won and humanity is screwed (we're actually screwing ourselves) and thus who the fuck cares if Tweedledee or Tweedledum get elected?
I'm still gonna vote Nader.