Monday, September 04, 2006
Blue Collar Riches
I was listening to something on NPR, some time ago, where they
were talking about the highest paid blue collar jobs in the
country. They were talking about the crane operators that load
ocean going ships. Those folks make over $80,000 per year.
That is a lot of money; nothing to sneeze at, but people right here
in Kansas City make that, and then some; driving trash-trucks.
The reason I bring this up is because of a conversation I had,
earlier today, with one of my aquaintances at work. We both drive
front-load trash trucks. Front-loaders have arms and forks on the
front end of the truck which fit into the sleeves on the sides of
special trash cans that are lifted over the top of the cab and
dumped into a hopper on the top of the truck.
We were speaking ill of our supervisor who is on an extended
vacation. My aquaintance's particular issue is that he was being
paid a few pennies less per yard than drivers who don't drive any
more miles than he does. (We are paid by the cubic yard, the
more yards you haul, the more money you make.)
At our company there is a two-tier system where some drivers
make a bit more if their route begins outside of a twenty mile
radius from the domicile, which he claims his does.
With the number of yards he hauls, at the lower rate, his route
pays him just over $1144 per week. That's $59,488 per year, for
about 50 hours per week. (I know that that is less than $80,000
per year, but I'm working my way to that.) This is very good
money, and I told him so. At the higher rate his route would pay
him $1320 per week, $68,400 per year, which would be even
better, of course. A difference of nearly $9,000 per year.
That's a big difference, but is it enough to be upset about? He
has an easy job that makes better than the national average for
what he does.
What upsets my buddy is not that he doesn't make good money;
he knows he does, because he's tried the same job in other parts
of the country and they pay a fraction of what he gets paid now
for the same job. His problem is that there are some drivers who
make in excess of $100,000 per year and have new trucks to drive.
Why do these other drivers make so much money? Know one
knows for sure. From the outside it seems completely arbitrary.
The company we work for is local, though I've been told it is the
ninth largest in the nation. That's a big company to be based in
a community who's population is only a tad over a million people.
I suspect it has to do with the supervisor we were both
complaining about. He makes drivers angry enough to quit, and,
to get them back, the owner calls and offers them outlandish
deals not to go to work somewhere else. I have contemplated
quitting for the sole purpose of recieving that call begging me
to come back, but I feel I would lose integrity by doing it
before I've reached a saturation point with my butt-hole boss.
I ended my conversation with my buddy by telling him to get in
touch with his inner-trashman; to be more zen-like, and count his
blessings, for he does have an easy job that pays well. Why get
bent out of shape? After all, the drivers who make all that
money will work sometimes seven days a week showing their
loyalty and that they are worth all that money.
Who would want that kind of head-ache?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Pondering the RIAA
smircthink
I was farting around on YouTube, looking at this and that, when I came across a video by one of my favorite bands. It was of a song I hadn't heard before. I thought I might like to have that new song on my iPod, and set about thinking of the best way to do this.
The solution is simple. I have a shareware application called Audacity I got from the web, which I set to record, then play the YouTube video, and it makes a 'wave' recording of it. Then I export the 'wave' as an MP3. Add it to my iTunes library and I'm done.
As I was beginning this process I felt a twinge of guilt. Not that I was breaking a law, but because I didn't wish to steal from one of my favorite groups. Though, that really isn't the case, because I may not have purchased the CD in the first place, depending how much radio play the song recieved. Why would I want to buy something that I could hear on several different radio stations, several times throughout the day?
It is a bit like the pre-crime concept in the Philip K. Dick story, Minority Report. If you imagine all the digital thievery going on every moment of every day on the web, there is no way that all those folks would have purchased all the music they are downloading.
That is why the RIAA has illegally bribed our government into enacting absolutely draconian laws to impose on twelve year girls and little old ladies: they see the money the are NOT raking in, whizzing around out there in cyber-space . . . this universe that they don't understand . . . and they want it, they want it all!
Corporate sponsors of the RIAA do not understand the world as it is. They understand production, product and profit margins. Make it, truck it and sell it. All they know is that you are getting what they are selling without going to a store to buy it. That's why they want to come into your house and look at what's on your hard-drive.
You notice I haven't mentioned the artists. It isn't that artists are not concerned about getting paid. They do want to get paid and most of them would like to be rich, but it is not the reason for their existence. It isn't the reason they became what they are. If they made no money, they would still do what they do.
What's my point? I ripped the audio from the video and put it on my iPod. I don't care if corporations shrivel up and die. If corporations die music won't disappear. Well, people like Britney Spears might not exist, but who would care?
An artist would practice his craft if he had to pay to do it. He would work fifty-five hour weeks driving a trash-truck just so he could make a video of himself playing a ukulele to upload onto YouTube.
The sad fact is corporations won't die. They are a disease that we are destined to live with forever. If they cannot find a way to make music profitable then they will move onto to something else. They are just lacking in imagination when they start pushing around the unwashed masses.
I was farting around on YouTube, looking at this and that, when I came across a video by one of my favorite bands. It was of a song I hadn't heard before. I thought I might like to have that new song on my iPod, and set about thinking of the best way to do this.
The solution is simple. I have a shareware application called Audacity I got from the web, which I set to record, then play the YouTube video, and it makes a 'wave' recording of it. Then I export the 'wave' as an MP3. Add it to my iTunes library and I'm done.
As I was beginning this process I felt a twinge of guilt. Not that I was breaking a law, but because I didn't wish to steal from one of my favorite groups. Though, that really isn't the case, because I may not have purchased the CD in the first place, depending how much radio play the song recieved. Why would I want to buy something that I could hear on several different radio stations, several times throughout the day?
It is a bit like the pre-crime concept in the Philip K. Dick story, Minority Report. If you imagine all the digital thievery going on every moment of every day on the web, there is no way that all those folks would have purchased all the music they are downloading.
That is why the RIAA has illegally bribed our government into enacting absolutely draconian laws to impose on twelve year girls and little old ladies: they see the money the are NOT raking in, whizzing around out there in cyber-space . . . this universe that they don't understand . . . and they want it, they want it all!
Corporate sponsors of the RIAA do not understand the world as it is. They understand production, product and profit margins. Make it, truck it and sell it. All they know is that you are getting what they are selling without going to a store to buy it. That's why they want to come into your house and look at what's on your hard-drive.
You notice I haven't mentioned the artists. It isn't that artists are not concerned about getting paid. They do want to get paid and most of them would like to be rich, but it is not the reason for their existence. It isn't the reason they became what they are. If they made no money, they would still do what they do.
What's my point? I ripped the audio from the video and put it on my iPod. I don't care if corporations shrivel up and die. If corporations die music won't disappear. Well, people like Britney Spears might not exist, but who would care?
An artist would practice his craft if he had to pay to do it. He would work fifty-five hour weeks driving a trash-truck just so he could make a video of himself playing a ukulele to upload onto YouTube.
The sad fact is corporations won't die. They are a disease that we are destined to live with forever. If they cannot find a way to make music profitable then they will move onto to something else. They are just lacking in imagination when they start pushing around the unwashed masses.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Poor little chicks!
According to NPR, the Dixie Chicks are finding it hard to make the living they once did, in that long ago before they claimed to be embarrassed that the President was also from Texas.
It was presented in this way: the concerts that they were putting on used to bring in over a million dollars on average; now they are only bringing in six hundred thousand dollars per show.
I’m a little mystified as to why NPR is so concerned over the Dixie Chicks’ loss of income. How many shows have they performed that brought in six hundred thousand dollars? When I compare what I make working a fifty-five hour week in a trash-truck to what they can make in a few hours on stage, I can honestly say that I’m not too sympathetic to their plight.
The first amendment protects the rights of anyone in America to say what they will about whatever they want (for the most part), but it does not guarantee you that your life will not change as a result. C’mon girls, put on your big girl panties and get a little perspective.
I support their right to be embarrassed about our president; I find myself embarrassed about the president all the time, but it isn’t as if the Dixie Chicks were thrown into a prison and forced to eat slop and sleep on urine soaked mattresses.
The Dixie Chicks are suffering in a truly American way: people are voting with their wallets, and not supporting them in the manner to which they’d become accustomed.
And like most whiney liberals they are not content with those Americans that are supporting them. They are even biting the hands that feed them by not associating themselves with the country music community any more.
For shame.
You know, I’m really disappointed in the reaction the Dixie Chicks have had to their self-inflicted notoriety. I mean, they came out of the gate like gangbusters with that defiant nude shot (take that America!) but now they’re just whining.
You know, I think a photo spread in Penthouse might just get their point across.
It was presented in this way: the concerts that they were putting on used to bring in over a million dollars on average; now they are only bringing in six hundred thousand dollars per show.
I’m a little mystified as to why NPR is so concerned over the Dixie Chicks’ loss of income. How many shows have they performed that brought in six hundred thousand dollars? When I compare what I make working a fifty-five hour week in a trash-truck to what they can make in a few hours on stage, I can honestly say that I’m not too sympathetic to their plight.
The first amendment protects the rights of anyone in America to say what they will about whatever they want (for the most part), but it does not guarantee you that your life will not change as a result. C’mon girls, put on your big girl panties and get a little perspective.
I support their right to be embarrassed about our president; I find myself embarrassed about the president all the time, but it isn’t as if the Dixie Chicks were thrown into a prison and forced to eat slop and sleep on urine soaked mattresses.
The Dixie Chicks are suffering in a truly American way: people are voting with their wallets, and not supporting them in the manner to which they’d become accustomed.
And like most whiney liberals they are not content with those Americans that are supporting them. They are even biting the hands that feed them by not associating themselves with the country music community any more.
For shame.
You know, I’m really disappointed in the reaction the Dixie Chicks have had to their self-inflicted notoriety. I mean, they came out of the gate like gangbusters with that defiant nude shot (take that America!) but now they’re just whining.
You know, I think a photo spread in Penthouse might just get their point across.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
The Difference Between Use and Abuse
I hate the phrase, “Just Say No”. It makes no distinction between one who uses and one who abuses. It feeds the notion that if you use drugs you are bad. This is a terrible thing to tell people. Everybody uses drugs. Christians use drugs. Parents use drugs.
“Just Say No” makes it us against them. Good christians don’t use drugs at all, non-christians and atheists use drugs. Satanists use drugs. It tells you that, if you use drugs, you are a bad person.
Why would Nancy Reagan wish to do this? Why would she wish to make people feel terrible when her messiah went around making people feel good?
A hint of the reason is Ayn Rand’s conclusion that you cannot rule a guilt free man. With Nancy and her little catch phrase, it is not ‘rule’ that is meant; control works better. The republican party is about control. Control of the media, control of the market, control of the governments of other countries. Thought control.
I would have had no problem with the “Just Say No” campaign were she to have added three words. This might have diminished the effectiveness of her phrase, considering the font would have to be smaller to put it all on a bumper sticker, but it would have been a more humane, christ-like thing to say. The three words? ‘ . . . to drug abuse’.
Say it with me, friends; the new phrase would be “Just Say No To Drug Abuse”.
I know my idea would have fallen on deaf ears. No one would have used it because it significantly reduces the number of people one can feel superior to, therefore, judgmental of. The right-wing, christian conservative republican is all about exclusion. And, like children, they love big simple reasons that give them their feeling of superiority.
*******************************
What really pisses me off about that bumper-sticker campaign of Nancy Reagan’s is that it was never meant to get people to quit using drugs. It was a throw together to make it look like Nancy gave a damn about doing something for the country and not just redecorating the White House. It was engineered to make it look like she cared about people and not just things.
Why is Nancy Reagan’s bumper-sticker campaign a big deal? As a consequence of her simple-minded actions, my children judge me to be a bad person based solely on the fact that I drink beer and smoke cigarettes. I don’t hit my kids, using time-outs and grounding; I encourage my kids to be individuals, I pay attention to them, and look them in the eye when they are talking, and I take their concerns seriously. Being a good, attentive father means everything to me. Yet, because they had a ‘Just Say No’ class at school, they came home with all these cellophane-wrapped things to say about my nasty little habits. And you cannot fight righteousness in a child. They want something to bang you over the head with; something that will diminish you, the disciplinarian, in their eyes.
It occurred to me that that is the reason we have what republicans call a lost generation of predatory consumerist children whose heads are messed up. They go to school and read bumper stickers all day, and come home to find their parents lacking. The same people who say that taking prayer out of public schools is the source of all the bad things happening in America, teach your children that you are bad if you have a beer after work, or take a Prozac when you’re stressed, or smoke a cigarette.
Even if you are abusing these things I have no problem with you until you cross the line from hurting yourself to hurting others.
Understand something, “Just Say No” was not meant to prevent you from using drugs, it was meant to pit you against those around you. It is a tool of division. There is no forgiveness or excuses within the “Just Say No” zealotry; you are either with us or against us.
A wrench can be used to great benefit, yet the power it provides you can be used in negative ways. Instead of using it to repair your automobile you can use it to kill someone by whacking them on their head. That would be abuse.
Use is a good thing. Abuse is too much of a good thing.
Just say ‘no’ to “Just Say No”.
“Just Say No” makes it us against them. Good christians don’t use drugs at all, non-christians and atheists use drugs. Satanists use drugs. It tells you that, if you use drugs, you are a bad person.
Why would Nancy Reagan wish to do this? Why would she wish to make people feel terrible when her messiah went around making people feel good?
A hint of the reason is Ayn Rand’s conclusion that you cannot rule a guilt free man. With Nancy and her little catch phrase, it is not ‘rule’ that is meant; control works better. The republican party is about control. Control of the media, control of the market, control of the governments of other countries. Thought control.
I would have had no problem with the “Just Say No” campaign were she to have added three words. This might have diminished the effectiveness of her phrase, considering the font would have to be smaller to put it all on a bumper sticker, but it would have been a more humane, christ-like thing to say. The three words? ‘ . . . to drug abuse’.
Say it with me, friends; the new phrase would be “Just Say No To Drug Abuse”.
I know my idea would have fallen on deaf ears. No one would have used it because it significantly reduces the number of people one can feel superior to, therefore, judgmental of. The right-wing, christian conservative republican is all about exclusion. And, like children, they love big simple reasons that give them their feeling of superiority.
*******************************
What really pisses me off about that bumper-sticker campaign of Nancy Reagan’s is that it was never meant to get people to quit using drugs. It was a throw together to make it look like Nancy gave a damn about doing something for the country and not just redecorating the White House. It was engineered to make it look like she cared about people and not just things.
Why is Nancy Reagan’s bumper-sticker campaign a big deal? As a consequence of her simple-minded actions, my children judge me to be a bad person based solely on the fact that I drink beer and smoke cigarettes. I don’t hit my kids, using time-outs and grounding; I encourage my kids to be individuals, I pay attention to them, and look them in the eye when they are talking, and I take their concerns seriously. Being a good, attentive father means everything to me. Yet, because they had a ‘Just Say No’ class at school, they came home with all these cellophane-wrapped things to say about my nasty little habits. And you cannot fight righteousness in a child. They want something to bang you over the head with; something that will diminish you, the disciplinarian, in their eyes.
It occurred to me that that is the reason we have what republicans call a lost generation of predatory consumerist children whose heads are messed up. They go to school and read bumper stickers all day, and come home to find their parents lacking. The same people who say that taking prayer out of public schools is the source of all the bad things happening in America, teach your children that you are bad if you have a beer after work, or take a Prozac when you’re stressed, or smoke a cigarette.
Even if you are abusing these things I have no problem with you until you cross the line from hurting yourself to hurting others.
Understand something, “Just Say No” was not meant to prevent you from using drugs, it was meant to pit you against those around you. It is a tool of division. There is no forgiveness or excuses within the “Just Say No” zealotry; you are either with us or against us.
A wrench can be used to great benefit, yet the power it provides you can be used in negative ways. Instead of using it to repair your automobile you can use it to kill someone by whacking them on their head. That would be abuse.
Use is a good thing. Abuse is too much of a good thing.
Just say ‘no’ to “Just Say No”.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Even When We Agree, We Don't Agree
December 11, 2004 Saturday 12:48pm
Dad came over with fudge that my mother made. Of course, we went to the basement to smoke and chat.
My father voted for Kerry for president. I had assumed that, though I knew his stances on gay-marraige and abortion, we’d find some common ground. I plumbed the depths to no avail.
To find something that we might agree on, I showed him my blog-site; he’d heard of blogs but had never seen one.
He didn’t agree with anything I had to say, yet he voted for Kerry. At one point, while discussing the fact that I am against abortion, but do not wish them to be banned, he went off on how horrendous partial-birth abortion is, and how he heard that the new agenda of pro-abortionists is to give new mothers ten days after a child is born, to decide whether or not they wish to keep the child or abort it.
What?
I’m going to have to look this up and see if there is some reference to it outside the right wing christian media that he watches on t.v. and hears on the radio.
************
I plugged in to Google the phrase, ‘abortion ten days after birth’ and came up with nothing. Then subtracted various words still coming up with nothing.
What my father must’ve heard was someone’s speculation that the abortion agenda might be looking to such things in the future. So, the truth of the matter is that such a statement is hokum.
Yet he voted for Kerry.
I am not for abortions. I would talk anyone out of it, unless they had damn good reasons for doing it, such as rape or incest or some horrendous birth defect, as long as it was in the first trimester of the pregnancy. I couldn’t bring myself to agree with anyone getting an abortion after the first trimester.
My father even agreed with my view of talking people out of abortions unless they had damn good reasons. Yet, he still thinks they should be banned. He went so far as to describe to me the procedure of partial-birth abortion, which I already knew.
The issue of abortion freaks him out on such a deep level that a rational conversation with him on this issue was impossible.
So why did he vote for Kerry? Taxes. He thinks Bush Jr. is giving big corporations too many tax breaks.
I asked him about the war in Iraq, and he said he agreed with our being there, that muslims were insane, and that they should be shown who’s the boss.
What?
I am amazed at how Americans think. We here in America, frequently referring to our country as “The Land Of The Free” talk about how we should be controlling the destiny of other countries, just because they don’t believe the way we do. Americans believe it OK for our children to fight and die just to bring them around to our way of thinking.
***********
Before our conversation devolved on the issue of abortion, and the war in Iraq, we discussed the issue of Americans immigrating to Canada. He had heard that ‘some web-site’ was getting 65,000 hits a day, with people looking to emigrate. Of course, from his point of view, it was all people who were tired of Bush Jr. passing out tax cuts to big corporations.
I told him, if a draft was ever brought back, I might be one of those who looks into immigrating to another country.
Being patriotic to this flawed nation of ours, he told me about his experience in other countries while in the Navy, and his conclusion was that we live in the freest nation on earth.
He might be right, but for how much longer?
***********
I had heard on the news that Dick Cheney is talking about not paying dues to the U.N. again. remember the last time that happened, back in 2001? Then came the disaster on 9-11-01, and within the week our U.N. dues were paid in full.
We cannot keep going down this road and expect the rest of the world to react kindly to us. We are forging ahead in an hostile environment, one in which our only strong ally, Tony Blair, (prime minister of England) is beginning to turn against us, saying that America should give the Kyoto protocols another look.
What worries me more than what we look like to the world is what we look like to ourselves. We are so fractured on these issues which shouldn’t even be issues, that we can’t unite on anything. My father, who voted for Kerry, as did I, doesn’t agree with me on anything, except that Bush Jr. and his minions are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
The next tactic of the terrorists should be to propogate the divide between the “two Americas” because a nation divided would be easy to conquer. If Americans began a bloody civil war, we would be easy pickings for a nation of any size who wanted to walk in and mop things up.
But please, if you are one of those Americans that believes in banning things, or forcing others to do things ‘our way’, do me the favor of never again using the term, “The Land Of The Free” because it makes you a goddam liar.
Dad came over with fudge that my mother made. Of course, we went to the basement to smoke and chat.
My father voted for Kerry for president. I had assumed that, though I knew his stances on gay-marraige and abortion, we’d find some common ground. I plumbed the depths to no avail.
To find something that we might agree on, I showed him my blog-site; he’d heard of blogs but had never seen one.
He didn’t agree with anything I had to say, yet he voted for Kerry. At one point, while discussing the fact that I am against abortion, but do not wish them to be banned, he went off on how horrendous partial-birth abortion is, and how he heard that the new agenda of pro-abortionists is to give new mothers ten days after a child is born, to decide whether or not they wish to keep the child or abort it.
What?
I’m going to have to look this up and see if there is some reference to it outside the right wing christian media that he watches on t.v. and hears on the radio.
************
I plugged in to Google the phrase, ‘abortion ten days after birth’ and came up with nothing. Then subtracted various words still coming up with nothing.
What my father must’ve heard was someone’s speculation that the abortion agenda might be looking to such things in the future. So, the truth of the matter is that such a statement is hokum.
Yet he voted for Kerry.
I am not for abortions. I would talk anyone out of it, unless they had damn good reasons for doing it, such as rape or incest or some horrendous birth defect, as long as it was in the first trimester of the pregnancy. I couldn’t bring myself to agree with anyone getting an abortion after the first trimester.
My father even agreed with my view of talking people out of abortions unless they had damn good reasons. Yet, he still thinks they should be banned. He went so far as to describe to me the procedure of partial-birth abortion, which I already knew.
The issue of abortion freaks him out on such a deep level that a rational conversation with him on this issue was impossible.
So why did he vote for Kerry? Taxes. He thinks Bush Jr. is giving big corporations too many tax breaks.
I asked him about the war in Iraq, and he said he agreed with our being there, that muslims were insane, and that they should be shown who’s the boss.
What?
I am amazed at how Americans think. We here in America, frequently referring to our country as “The Land Of The Free” talk about how we should be controlling the destiny of other countries, just because they don’t believe the way we do. Americans believe it OK for our children to fight and die just to bring them around to our way of thinking.
***********
Before our conversation devolved on the issue of abortion, and the war in Iraq, we discussed the issue of Americans immigrating to Canada. He had heard that ‘some web-site’ was getting 65,000 hits a day, with people looking to emigrate. Of course, from his point of view, it was all people who were tired of Bush Jr. passing out tax cuts to big corporations.
I told him, if a draft was ever brought back, I might be one of those who looks into immigrating to another country.
Being patriotic to this flawed nation of ours, he told me about his experience in other countries while in the Navy, and his conclusion was that we live in the freest nation on earth.
He might be right, but for how much longer?
***********
I had heard on the news that Dick Cheney is talking about not paying dues to the U.N. again. remember the last time that happened, back in 2001? Then came the disaster on 9-11-01, and within the week our U.N. dues were paid in full.
We cannot keep going down this road and expect the rest of the world to react kindly to us. We are forging ahead in an hostile environment, one in which our only strong ally, Tony Blair, (prime minister of England) is beginning to turn against us, saying that America should give the Kyoto protocols another look.
What worries me more than what we look like to the world is what we look like to ourselves. We are so fractured on these issues which shouldn’t even be issues, that we can’t unite on anything. My father, who voted for Kerry, as did I, doesn’t agree with me on anything, except that Bush Jr. and his minions are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
The next tactic of the terrorists should be to propogate the divide between the “two Americas” because a nation divided would be easy to conquer. If Americans began a bloody civil war, we would be easy pickings for a nation of any size who wanted to walk in and mop things up.
But please, if you are one of those Americans that believes in banning things, or forcing others to do things ‘our way’, do me the favor of never again using the term, “The Land Of The Free” because it makes you a goddam liar.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
On the cover of AdBusters
December 8, 2004 Wendesday 8:43pm
Nothing is precious in America, because there is too much of everything. Mega-mass production has caused us to lose site of the planet earth beneath our feet.
I took my daughter to art class, then went to Walmart for corn-huskers hand-lotion. On the way to checkout I stopped at the magazines; I scanned them all and found the variety lacking. Walmart is the home of the bland. Barnes and Noble, the king of magazines, is about three blocks away, so I went there.
I looked through all the new books at the front of the store, working my way back to the magazines. There are one or two that I gravitate to, but I neglect no section, I scan them all.
One that I enjoy is called AdBusters. I could not open it, tonight. The cover stopped me. There were many things on it, but the largest image was that of a wailing man holding the body of a child. It nearly stops me cold thinking about it now. It is rare in America to see such a display of true emotion. My heart breaks for this man.
This image was brought to me by my country’s war in the middle east. We just cannot keep our pecker in our pants; we have to go over there and fuck up everything for them. I have nothing but disgust for anyone willing to put magnetic ribbons on their car with sappy slogans telling me to support the troops, yet, were god to ask them to send their child to die in a war on the other side of the world, they would say no.
I’m sure that I am much too cynical. I know that there are good things somewhere in the world, but it is hard to see beyond the pain that we inflict on others while browsing through the magazine rack at Barnes and Noble.
I’m tired of the debate over the war. I don’t understand why we are killing people just to hold our ground in a place we never should have been in the first place. Why are we there? I no longer wish to know the answer to the question, but will ask you one: would you trade places with that man on the cover of AdBusters, carrying a dead child?
Nothing is precious in America, because there is too much of everything. Mega-mass production has caused us to lose site of the planet earth beneath our feet.
I took my daughter to art class, then went to Walmart for corn-huskers hand-lotion. On the way to checkout I stopped at the magazines; I scanned them all and found the variety lacking. Walmart is the home of the bland. Barnes and Noble, the king of magazines, is about three blocks away, so I went there.
I looked through all the new books at the front of the store, working my way back to the magazines. There are one or two that I gravitate to, but I neglect no section, I scan them all.
One that I enjoy is called AdBusters. I could not open it, tonight. The cover stopped me. There were many things on it, but the largest image was that of a wailing man holding the body of a child. It nearly stops me cold thinking about it now. It is rare in America to see such a display of true emotion. My heart breaks for this man.
This image was brought to me by my country’s war in the middle east. We just cannot keep our pecker in our pants; we have to go over there and fuck up everything for them. I have nothing but disgust for anyone willing to put magnetic ribbons on their car with sappy slogans telling me to support the troops, yet, were god to ask them to send their child to die in a war on the other side of the world, they would say no.
I’m sure that I am much too cynical. I know that there are good things somewhere in the world, but it is hard to see beyond the pain that we inflict on others while browsing through the magazine rack at Barnes and Noble.
I’m tired of the debate over the war. I don’t understand why we are killing people just to hold our ground in a place we never should have been in the first place. Why are we there? I no longer wish to know the answer to the question, but will ask you one: would you trade places with that man on the cover of AdBusters, carrying a dead child?
Thursday, December 02, 2004
All Tomorrow’s Parties
by William Gibson
In All Tomorrow’s Parties we are given a dark vision of a ‘post-post-industrialized’ America (as one of Gibson’s own characters put it) where the rule of law applies equally to everyone, as long they aren’t too far from the police station.
The result of having volunteered to try an experimental drug, Laney is able to sense the coming of monumental events through the ‘data flow’ on the internet. He doesn’t like what he ‘sees’ for the future, and thinks he knows who’s behind it, so sends agents into the real world to change what he sees from cyberspace.
Rydell is a wannabe cop who Laney sends looking for Harwood, a god-like character that Laney ‘feels’ may be the one behind the next event that will ‘change the world as we know it’. Rydell has good intentions but has a hard time in their execution, ending up bruised and battered for his efforts.
Chevette ends up getting twisted into the plot, but for some reason I don’t remember if Laney has asked her to. She runs into Rydell, who is an old ex-boyfriend, while she is trying to avoid her latest ex-boyfriend at a bar on ‘the bridge’ where Chevette used to live.
Rydell is in possession of something Gibson calls an idoru. It is a holographic projector that contains the virtual person of someone called Rei Toei. Rei Toei is a woman who has never existed in the flesh, yet she is a sentient creature. She is also central to the big ‘event’ Laney has predicted.
I’m really not interested in delving too deeply into the main event of the book. For me Gibson’s writings are appealing in how he sees the future. The gadgets he creates are worth the price of admission. The idoru, (which could be a made-up word; he did coin the word ‘cyber-space’ after all) is a genius idea on its own; one he liked so much he wrote a whole novel around it. And though a lot his gadgets don’t exist, (as far as I know . . .) he doesn’t stray too far from the probable.
Most writers of science fiction tend to concentrate on either the hardware or the social/cultural aspects of the future, where Gibson blends the two seemlessly in his bleak future-visions. In Gibson’s future smoking is illegal, and people live on suspension bridges that are barred from automobile traffic due to structural damage caused by an earthquake. They are dressed in what may or may not be clothing, and they fall in love with the avatar of no one who ever existed. They live in cardboard boxes while saving the world by surfing the internet.
In All Tomorrow’s Parties we are given a dark vision of a ‘post-post-industrialized’ America (as one of Gibson’s own characters put it) where the rule of law applies equally to everyone, as long they aren’t too far from the police station.
The result of having volunteered to try an experimental drug, Laney is able to sense the coming of monumental events through the ‘data flow’ on the internet. He doesn’t like what he ‘sees’ for the future, and thinks he knows who’s behind it, so sends agents into the real world to change what he sees from cyberspace.
Rydell is a wannabe cop who Laney sends looking for Harwood, a god-like character that Laney ‘feels’ may be the one behind the next event that will ‘change the world as we know it’. Rydell has good intentions but has a hard time in their execution, ending up bruised and battered for his efforts.
Chevette ends up getting twisted into the plot, but for some reason I don’t remember if Laney has asked her to. She runs into Rydell, who is an old ex-boyfriend, while she is trying to avoid her latest ex-boyfriend at a bar on ‘the bridge’ where Chevette used to live.
Rydell is in possession of something Gibson calls an idoru. It is a holographic projector that contains the virtual person of someone called Rei Toei. Rei Toei is a woman who has never existed in the flesh, yet she is a sentient creature. She is also central to the big ‘event’ Laney has predicted.
I’m really not interested in delving too deeply into the main event of the book. For me Gibson’s writings are appealing in how he sees the future. The gadgets he creates are worth the price of admission. The idoru, (which could be a made-up word; he did coin the word ‘cyber-space’ after all) is a genius idea on its own; one he liked so much he wrote a whole novel around it. And though a lot his gadgets don’t exist, (as far as I know . . .) he doesn’t stray too far from the probable.
Most writers of science fiction tend to concentrate on either the hardware or the social/cultural aspects of the future, where Gibson blends the two seemlessly in his bleak future-visions. In Gibson’s future smoking is illegal, and people live on suspension bridges that are barred from automobile traffic due to structural damage caused by an earthquake. They are dressed in what may or may not be clothing, and they fall in love with the avatar of no one who ever existed. They live in cardboard boxes while saving the world by surfing the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)