So, where’s the left? As Obama continues to morph into Bush Lite the left is off somewhere on life support. Sure, there are plenty of words flying round damning, condemning and suggesting. But there is no unified movement, no unified organization and no funding.
Part of this problem is that the bulk of the activity in on the net with the remainder being confined to progressive publications. Both are consumed in isolation, and the simple fact of the matter is that you’ve got to leave the house to start a revolution.
But there are other issues at work as well. The left sits by while the Tea Party rallies the working class that was once the left’s base. The reason is quite simple: the left turned its back on the working class in the sixties and continues to do so. Many on the left see the working class as beer-swilling Neanderthals and homophobes who care more about their guns then they do about the state of the country and who are constantly voting against their economic interests by returning one Republican after another to office. The left easily forgets that these are human beings groaning under the crushing weight of an oligarchy that continues to oppress them.
This split happened in the sixties when the left turned its back on the working class as the “new” left sought liberation in drugs and sex while damning all those who did not support its ideological goals. The Republicans, of course, capitalized on this split. What commentators call their Southern Strategy was really the GOP’s Blue Collar Strategy. The first thing they did after they locked in the working class was to screw them to the wall while distracting them with cultural warfare against gun control, abortion and gay rights.
At the same time, the left fragmented into a series of ideological encampments, each secure behind its own wall and so certain of the rightness of its fragmented cause that it was unwilling to enter into meaningful dialog. Consequently, the left today remains crippled by its own ideological prissiness.
There will be no viable left until it reestablishes solidarity with the working class. However, in doing so it must remember that the most important component of solidarity is listening! At the same time, the left must take a careful look at some of its ideological chestnuts and see if there is sufficient wiggle room to make its reunification with the working class a reality.
The irony is that one of the stickiest disagreements between the working class and the left is the one that could be easily resolved—gun control. This probably stirs a greater degree of working class anger than any of the other “culture” issues. Sure, the anti-abortion forces make a lot of noise, but it is gun control that can really get the working class enflamed.
Were it up to me, I would say to the working class, Keep your guns. But I ask one favor in return: teach your sons how to hunt. Hell! Teach your daughters how to hunt as well. Because hunting is environmentally sound. It takes 16 pounds of grain to raise one pound of beef. That works out to eight tons per steer, eight tons the hungry of the world will never see. The average male deer, when dressed, yields about 72 pounds of edible meat. That is 72 pounds of ecologically sound meat that has had a minimum impact on the environment. This venison displaces 72 pounds of beef raised on factory farms, which are environmental disaster areas.
Nor does any hunter want to see his wood leveled to make room for upscale condos or a coven of McMansions. This puts hunters in bed with the environmentalists.
Many will claim hunting is cruel because a lot of hunters can’t shoot straight. However, in nature animals rarely die peacefully in their sleep. Death comes slowly after weeks or months of suffering. Coyotes have been known to eviscerate a sheep while it still lives. And we must never forget that all of creation is grounded in death. (The most sacred thing we do is die. It’s so goddamn sacred we want nothing to do with it.)
It’s true, guns kill people and there have been some horrific acts of violence, but so do trains, planes and automobiles and there’s been no talk of banning them. They are, however, regulated, something the NRA would have to accept, and something it might be more willing to consider once it is convinced the left doesn’t care a whit about taking its guns away.
Gun control is only one example of an area where compromise could be achieved. And no, I am not talking about Obamaesque pragmatism or centrist triangulation. What I am talking about is the left’s core ideal of building a decent society in which all are cared for and in which our corporate oligarchy is brought under control. It is a decent society that would benefit the working class because it would guarantee that its children would have enough to eat, competent and free medical care and America would begin to rebuild its manufacturing base. It would be a country in which our hubric dream of global conquest would be recognized for the pipe dream it is and the Pentagon would be turned into the world’s largest indoor shopping mall.
Yet, none of this will happen until we win back the working class. Either we get them or the Tea Party does. This means our days of ideological prissiness must end.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Even more change we can believe in.
It seems the Army is in a bit of a snit over WikiLeaks.org’s release of the tape showing an Apache helicopter gunning down a group of Iraqi men and the van that came to pick up the wounded.
Huffed an Army spokesperson, WikiLeaks “represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the U.S. Army.”
There was a time this would have been called journalism.
Huffed an Army spokesperson, WikiLeaks “represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the U.S. Army.”
There was a time this would have been called journalism.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Making "All the News That's Fit to Print" fit.
When The New York Times says, “fit,” it means all the news that’s fit to print if its reporters want to continue to have “access,” that door that opens and ushers a reporter into the multiple seats of power, both public and private, that control America. And the door stays open as long as the reporter behaves himself and doesn’t embarrass his handlers with tough questions or voice opinions that do not have official approval.
So it was, in the wake of the WikiLeaks.org video showing the gunning down of Iraqi citizens by U.S. Apache helicopters, that the Times ran a soothing “There, there” story in effect explaining that “boys will be boys.”
“Experts Cite Conditioning and Heat of Combat to Explain Iraq Airstrike Video,” read the headline. You see, the article explains, in order to kill somebody, you’ve got to make a game out of it, you have to dehumanize your victim because that makes it so much easier to kill him. As one officer explains, “Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human being.”
This is another way of saying that war is a perversion in that it forces people to perform acts that in any other context they would find morally repulsive, unless they were confirmed sociopaths. This is why a country shouldn’t go to war unless it absolutely has to because in the process it emotionally cripples the young men and women who serve.
There may be times when a war is a necessary perversion, but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is a necessity. Both are wars instituted by policy wonks who really think it’s all a game and have no concept of the crippled mindset necessary to kill another human being. Both wars muddle along like slithering blobs driven by their own momentum and continued simply because they are already in motion and to withdraw might injure our credibility, which is being shredded anyway because of our inability to bring either war to a satisfactory conclusion.
However, the above is part of a larger debate that is studiously avoided by our mainstream media. Corporate media never questions policy because said policy is set into motion by the Beltway’s corporate masters.
Getting back to the article in question, what is noticeable is the question the reporter failed to ask. Granted, in this day in age it is considered impolite for a reporter to ask tough questions and doing so might end up getting him stripped of his “access.” This would mean he’d have to revert to the old-fashioned journalistic techniques of digging and wearing out shoe leather.
Let us allow that the pilots were on edge and easily spooked. This brings us to the single, most important question the Times reporter failed to ask the experts: Why was the Fire Discipline so lax? One of the components of Fire Discipline is that a soldier fires when commanded to and ceases when commanded to. The assumption is that the individual in command has enough presence of mind to cease firing when a threat no longer exists.
Now, bending over backwards until the back is ready to break, one might say the initial encounter with the group of civilians milling in the street was a tragic action brought on by confirmation bias, which security analyst Christopher Albon defines as “the tendency of the human mind to unconsciously prefer information reinforcing existing beliefs. In this case, the fact the pilots were looking for armed insurgents made them predisposed to believe that any item carried by the persons were weapons.”
Firing on the van that came to assist the wounded was a gratuitous act of violence. If you listen to the dialog between pilots and the individual on the ground responsible for Fire Discipline, it is obvious that the pilots’ blood is up. They’ve killed and they want to kill some more, an unfortunate side effect of combat. This is why Fire Discipline is so important. It is the responsibility of the commander to recognize this and to order his men to cease fire when a threat is no longer present.
When the van showed up, it is obvious it only wanted to collect the wounded. Yet, the pilots begged their controller for permission to fire. They begged and pressured and in the end they controlled their controller and he folded and gave permission to fire on a van that represented no threat whatsoever. Fire Discipline broke down completely. And, of course, the Times never questioned this because it would have been impolite to do so.
After all, boys will be boys, so why sweat it? Once again, the Times made the news fit to print.
So it was, in the wake of the WikiLeaks.org video showing the gunning down of Iraqi citizens by U.S. Apache helicopters, that the Times ran a soothing “There, there” story in effect explaining that “boys will be boys.”
“Experts Cite Conditioning and Heat of Combat to Explain Iraq Airstrike Video,” read the headline. You see, the article explains, in order to kill somebody, you’ve got to make a game out of it, you have to dehumanize your victim because that makes it so much easier to kill him. As one officer explains, “Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human being.”
This is another way of saying that war is a perversion in that it forces people to perform acts that in any other context they would find morally repulsive, unless they were confirmed sociopaths. This is why a country shouldn’t go to war unless it absolutely has to because in the process it emotionally cripples the young men and women who serve.
There may be times when a war is a necessary perversion, but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is a necessity. Both are wars instituted by policy wonks who really think it’s all a game and have no concept of the crippled mindset necessary to kill another human being. Both wars muddle along like slithering blobs driven by their own momentum and continued simply because they are already in motion and to withdraw might injure our credibility, which is being shredded anyway because of our inability to bring either war to a satisfactory conclusion.
However, the above is part of a larger debate that is studiously avoided by our mainstream media. Corporate media never questions policy because said policy is set into motion by the Beltway’s corporate masters.
Getting back to the article in question, what is noticeable is the question the reporter failed to ask. Granted, in this day in age it is considered impolite for a reporter to ask tough questions and doing so might end up getting him stripped of his “access.” This would mean he’d have to revert to the old-fashioned journalistic techniques of digging and wearing out shoe leather.
Let us allow that the pilots were on edge and easily spooked. This brings us to the single, most important question the Times reporter failed to ask the experts: Why was the Fire Discipline so lax? One of the components of Fire Discipline is that a soldier fires when commanded to and ceases when commanded to. The assumption is that the individual in command has enough presence of mind to cease firing when a threat no longer exists.
Now, bending over backwards until the back is ready to break, one might say the initial encounter with the group of civilians milling in the street was a tragic action brought on by confirmation bias, which security analyst Christopher Albon defines as “the tendency of the human mind to unconsciously prefer information reinforcing existing beliefs. In this case, the fact the pilots were looking for armed insurgents made them predisposed to believe that any item carried by the persons were weapons.”
Firing on the van that came to assist the wounded was a gratuitous act of violence. If you listen to the dialog between pilots and the individual on the ground responsible for Fire Discipline, it is obvious that the pilots’ blood is up. They’ve killed and they want to kill some more, an unfortunate side effect of combat. This is why Fire Discipline is so important. It is the responsibility of the commander to recognize this and to order his men to cease fire when a threat is no longer present.
When the van showed up, it is obvious it only wanted to collect the wounded. Yet, the pilots begged their controller for permission to fire. They begged and pressured and in the end they controlled their controller and he folded and gave permission to fire on a van that represented no threat whatsoever. Fire Discipline broke down completely. And, of course, the Times never questioned this because it would have been impolite to do so.
After all, boys will be boys, so why sweat it? Once again, the Times made the news fit to print.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Christian Nation?
The fundies are carrying on about how the United States is a “Christian” nation, which is their way of saying that we should be a theocracy ruled over by a gaggle of televangelists. Instead of taxes we’d simply send a dollar bill to the address on our television screen. Not only would that fund our public services, it would also get us prayed for.
But let’s say, just for the fun of it, that we were a Christian nation. What exactly would that entail? Well, in Matthew 25:35 Jesus says, “For I hungered and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink.”
I suppose that means that a Christian nation would feed its hungry, clothe its naked and shelter its homeless. That sort of plays havoc with the religious right’s belief that poverty is a sign of God’s displeasure. It also means a Christian nation would have one hell of a strong safety net. In a Christian nation no child would go to be hungry; no family would be homeless; no individual would be denied adequate health care; its prisons would focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment; it would honor humility instead of celebrity; and it would value love over strength.
But it gets tougher. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoins us to “turn the other cheek.” In other words, a Christian nation would only resort to violence as a last resort when all other means had been exhausted. It would also mean that a Christian nation would not maintain an obscenely bloated defense establishment. It would mean that the nation would play nice in its conduct of foreign affairs instead of starting wars of aggression and exploiting Third World countries for their resources.
A Christian nation would see all persons as children of God; there would be no illegal immigrants or racially inferior “others;” it would value people over money or property. A Christian nation would embrace all of creation as a gift from God for which they were expected to be responsible stewards instead of rapacious exploiters.
Instead of the Ten Commandments, a Christian nation would hand the Beatitudes in its public buildings, as Kurt Vonnegut suggested.
Is the United States a Christian nation?
I don’t think so.
But let’s say, just for the fun of it, that we were a Christian nation. What exactly would that entail? Well, in Matthew 25:35 Jesus says, “For I hungered and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink.”
I suppose that means that a Christian nation would feed its hungry, clothe its naked and shelter its homeless. That sort of plays havoc with the religious right’s belief that poverty is a sign of God’s displeasure. It also means a Christian nation would have one hell of a strong safety net. In a Christian nation no child would go to be hungry; no family would be homeless; no individual would be denied adequate health care; its prisons would focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment; it would honor humility instead of celebrity; and it would value love over strength.
But it gets tougher. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoins us to “turn the other cheek.” In other words, a Christian nation would only resort to violence as a last resort when all other means had been exhausted. It would also mean that a Christian nation would not maintain an obscenely bloated defense establishment. It would mean that the nation would play nice in its conduct of foreign affairs instead of starting wars of aggression and exploiting Third World countries for their resources.
A Christian nation would see all persons as children of God; there would be no illegal immigrants or racially inferior “others;” it would value people over money or property. A Christian nation would embrace all of creation as a gift from God for which they were expected to be responsible stewards instead of rapacious exploiters.
Instead of the Ten Commandments, a Christian nation would hand the Beatitudes in its public buildings, as Kurt Vonnegut suggested.
Is the United States a Christian nation?
I don’t think so.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A Sordid Tale
The sordid story of the Ford Pinto is an instructive study of the corporate mindset. In the late 60s, small foreign cars such as the VW Beetle were giving American automakers a run for their money.
Lee Iacocca, a Ford vice president, told Henry Ford II he could produce a car that would weigh less than 2,000 pounds and cost less than $2,000. And he promised Ford to have the car in dealer showrooms by 1971.
In the auto industry the normal time it takes to go from planning to production is 43 months. Iacocca had the Pinto in production in 25 months.
During the initial design stage, engineers had become concerned over the fact that the gas tank was jammed hard against the back seat. They feared it might rupture in the event of a rear-end collision. In such a scenario, the smallest of sparks could set off a raging inferno.
Iacocca blew off the objections. As one engineer commented, “The company is run by salesmen, not engineers.”
Once the car was in production, actual crash tests proved that matters were even worse than engineers had originally feared. The gas tank would ruptured in rear-end collisions as slow as 25 mph. At 40 mph, the doors became jammed shut and occupants were trapped in a burning car.
What to do.
Hell! That was easy! Ford commissioned a cost-benefit analysis.
They estimated that the Pinto, as designed, would cause 180 burn deaths and 180 burn injuries. At $200,000 a death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle, the total cost to the company would be $49.5.
Redesigning the car to make it safe would cost the company $137 million.
It was a no brainer. The Pinto hit the market unmodified.
One wonders, in amazement, at the mindset that would let people burn just to save a few bucks. However, that’s the rub. In the corporate world, there are no people, only numbers.
What we have here is an example of corporate sociopaths at work. To the corporate sociopath, quantification is all. In this sterile world, there is no death, no blood, no gore, no charred bodies, no suffering, no cries of pain, no broken lives and no motherless children.
There are only numbers, and if the numbers justify an act, no matter how horrendous, then everything is fine because the corporate sociopaths are meeting their fiduciary obligations to their stockholders.
Life’s easier than way. There are no sticky ethical questions to deal with. All the sociopath has to do is lean back and let the numbers do the thinking for him.
Incidentally, there is a coda to this tale. Ford could have made the Pinto safer for less than the cost o the deaths and injuries. Goodyear had developed a rubber bladder that could be placed inside the gas tank , thus preventing the tank from rupturing. They didn’t consider it because Iacocca wanted the cars in Ford showrooms by 1971, and modifying the car would have delayed its introduction and possibly cost Ford some market share.
It was those pesky numbers again.
Lee Iacocca, a Ford vice president, told Henry Ford II he could produce a car that would weigh less than 2,000 pounds and cost less than $2,000. And he promised Ford to have the car in dealer showrooms by 1971.
In the auto industry the normal time it takes to go from planning to production is 43 months. Iacocca had the Pinto in production in 25 months.
During the initial design stage, engineers had become concerned over the fact that the gas tank was jammed hard against the back seat. They feared it might rupture in the event of a rear-end collision. In such a scenario, the smallest of sparks could set off a raging inferno.
Iacocca blew off the objections. As one engineer commented, “The company is run by salesmen, not engineers.”
Once the car was in production, actual crash tests proved that matters were even worse than engineers had originally feared. The gas tank would ruptured in rear-end collisions as slow as 25 mph. At 40 mph, the doors became jammed shut and occupants were trapped in a burning car.
What to do.
Hell! That was easy! Ford commissioned a cost-benefit analysis.
They estimated that the Pinto, as designed, would cause 180 burn deaths and 180 burn injuries. At $200,000 a death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle, the total cost to the company would be $49.5.
Redesigning the car to make it safe would cost the company $137 million.
It was a no brainer. The Pinto hit the market unmodified.
One wonders, in amazement, at the mindset that would let people burn just to save a few bucks. However, that’s the rub. In the corporate world, there are no people, only numbers.
What we have here is an example of corporate sociopaths at work. To the corporate sociopath, quantification is all. In this sterile world, there is no death, no blood, no gore, no charred bodies, no suffering, no cries of pain, no broken lives and no motherless children.
There are only numbers, and if the numbers justify an act, no matter how horrendous, then everything is fine because the corporate sociopaths are meeting their fiduciary obligations to their stockholders.
Life’s easier than way. There are no sticky ethical questions to deal with. All the sociopath has to do is lean back and let the numbers do the thinking for him.
Incidentally, there is a coda to this tale. Ford could have made the Pinto safer for less than the cost o the deaths and injuries. Goodyear had developed a rubber bladder that could be placed inside the gas tank , thus preventing the tank from rupturing. They didn’t consider it because Iacocca wanted the cars in Ford showrooms by 1971, and modifying the car would have delayed its introduction and possibly cost Ford some market share.
It was those pesky numbers again.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Return of Belacqua Jones
Belacqua Jones is returning. Yes, America’s lovable Machiavelli on meth is coming back after destroying the country’s rehab network in a vain attempt to get him clean. His new blog, “Confessions of a Right Wing Stoner” will debut on Monday (unless he’s too stoned to reach the keyboard.)
For those of you new to this site, Belacqua first appeared some years ago when this blog was titled, “Open Letters to George W. Bush” in which Belacqua acted as George’s shadow advisor. When George left the White House, Belacqua went to pieces. His binge made the Guinness Book of Records and has yet to be equaled.
It was only when he realized that Bush had not died but had risen from the dead in the body of Barack Obama that Belacqua sobered up enough to return to the keyboard with his trippy view of world affairs.
Belacqua is a visionary who sees the world through a set of lenses cracked by a neocon ideology run amok and too many controlled substances. So tune in on Monday for the first of his incoherent rants and discover the wisdom that is to be found in madness.
For those of you new to this site, Belacqua first appeared some years ago when this blog was titled, “Open Letters to George W. Bush” in which Belacqua acted as George’s shadow advisor. When George left the White House, Belacqua went to pieces. His binge made the Guinness Book of Records and has yet to be equaled.
It was only when he realized that Bush had not died but had risen from the dead in the body of Barack Obama that Belacqua sobered up enough to return to the keyboard with his trippy view of world affairs.
Belacqua is a visionary who sees the world through a set of lenses cracked by a neocon ideology run amok and too many controlled substances. So tune in on Monday for the first of his incoherent rants and discover the wisdom that is to be found in madness.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Consumptive Freedom
The commodities economy long ago enslaved Americans and other “developed” capitalist societies. But Americans in particular. The most profound slavery must be that in which the slaves can perceive of no other possible or better world than their bondage. Inescapable, global, all permeating, the commodities economy rules so thoroughly most cannot imagine any other possible kind of economy.
Joe Bageant
It appears to be forever even though it may be coming to an end. Fevers peak just before they break, and the same is true of the orgy of consumerism that that had gripped the American psyche since the Industrial Revolution, which became a frenzied Bacchanal in the decades following World War II.
Delusion always accompanies the end of an era. Any twelfth century noble man would have been aghast had someone suggested that feudalism was coming to an end.
Consumerism won't end with a revolution.. When America revolts, it heads for the nearest mall. We don’t have revolutions, we have fashion statements.
And on those rare occasions when the public becomes so fed up that it begins murmuring about systemic change, our one-party system swings the door opens and invites them in, promising it to fight for the changes it wants. Then it tells the public to take a chair in the corner and keep quiet while the experts and professionals fight for the change it is demanding, which will involve only the most superficial of window dressing. (Before you cite the New Deal, remember that when the Great Depression hit, America had a viable labor and socialist movement, which are no more.)
It’s awfully hard to revolt when you’re glued to a screen or fascinated by the latest celebrity scandal. But then, why revolt when we’re the land of the free? After all, is not our freedom of choice complete? I see a shining example of our freedom every time I visit my supermarket. There I find a seventy-five foot shelf devoted solely to condiments. I can choose from an infinite selection of ketchups, mustards, hot sauces, vinegars, olive oils and marinades. Hell, how much freer can I be?
Yes, we are a consumptive democracy in which slaves are free to choose any commodity they want as long as their plastic isn’t maxed out. It is such a dazzling display of flashing, blinking, beeping toys, gourmet foods, engineered running shoes, T-shirts fashioned out of organic cotton and designer boxer shorts that we never even notice the erosion of our civil liberties. We are comforted by the fact that when the surveillance cameras catch our image we are dressed to the nines. In a consumptive society appearance is all. If you look good, you are good. This is especially true of politicians.
Who needs freedom when there’s UPS at the front door delivering another package?
Life is simpler that way. Why worry about an identity based on character when we can have one defined by the logos we display? Who needs freedom as long as we are free to go shopping?
It will end not because we revolt or because we experience a collective epiphany and return to a life of simplicity. It will end when the oil runs out, when the last credit card is maxed out and when the country is totally bankrupt. In retrospect, future generations will look back on our Age of Consumption and see it for what it was—a slow and gradual suicide in which we mistook decline for ascent.
Puck nailed it when he said, “What fools these mortals be!”
Joe Bageant
It appears to be forever even though it may be coming to an end. Fevers peak just before they break, and the same is true of the orgy of consumerism that that had gripped the American psyche since the Industrial Revolution, which became a frenzied Bacchanal in the decades following World War II.
Delusion always accompanies the end of an era. Any twelfth century noble man would have been aghast had someone suggested that feudalism was coming to an end.
Consumerism won't end with a revolution.. When America revolts, it heads for the nearest mall. We don’t have revolutions, we have fashion statements.
And on those rare occasions when the public becomes so fed up that it begins murmuring about systemic change, our one-party system swings the door opens and invites them in, promising it to fight for the changes it wants. Then it tells the public to take a chair in the corner and keep quiet while the experts and professionals fight for the change it is demanding, which will involve only the most superficial of window dressing. (Before you cite the New Deal, remember that when the Great Depression hit, America had a viable labor and socialist movement, which are no more.)
It’s awfully hard to revolt when you’re glued to a screen or fascinated by the latest celebrity scandal. But then, why revolt when we’re the land of the free? After all, is not our freedom of choice complete? I see a shining example of our freedom every time I visit my supermarket. There I find a seventy-five foot shelf devoted solely to condiments. I can choose from an infinite selection of ketchups, mustards, hot sauces, vinegars, olive oils and marinades. Hell, how much freer can I be?
Yes, we are a consumptive democracy in which slaves are free to choose any commodity they want as long as their plastic isn’t maxed out. It is such a dazzling display of flashing, blinking, beeping toys, gourmet foods, engineered running shoes, T-shirts fashioned out of organic cotton and designer boxer shorts that we never even notice the erosion of our civil liberties. We are comforted by the fact that when the surveillance cameras catch our image we are dressed to the nines. In a consumptive society appearance is all. If you look good, you are good. This is especially true of politicians.
Who needs freedom when there’s UPS at the front door delivering another package?
Life is simpler that way. Why worry about an identity based on character when we can have one defined by the logos we display? Who needs freedom as long as we are free to go shopping?
It will end not because we revolt or because we experience a collective epiphany and return to a life of simplicity. It will end when the oil runs out, when the last credit card is maxed out and when the country is totally bankrupt. In retrospect, future generations will look back on our Age of Consumption and see it for what it was—a slow and gradual suicide in which we mistook decline for ascent.
Puck nailed it when he said, “What fools these mortals be!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
