I am repulsed. I am so repulsed that I left the following comment:
I don’t own an SUV.
Having said that, you are a giant asshat. SUV's are not the cause of this war. A maniacal, sociopathic, power hungry administration is. Do you really think that if, by some magical wand-waving, there were no more SUV’s, then this war would end? Grow up! Soccer moms are not the cause of the war nor the continuation thereof.
This war was waged for control and power and money. Control over the oil, power over the land that produces the oil, and the money that comes from owning the oil. This entire country is run on oil. Do you really think that an SUV is the largest source of all the need? You are pitifully uninformed.
Soldiers are not dying so people can drive SUV’s. Soldiers are dying because we have self-centered, greedy, evil men running our country. How dare you lay the responsibility of this outrageous war at the feet of people because of the kind of car they drive. Stop wasting your time and resources on such worthless banalities. Put the blame where it belongs. Perhaps then you will actually accomplish something worthwhile.
You know, I’m sure the sentiment is in the right place (?), they want an end to the war just like the rest of us. But, like PETA, they totally screw up a good message BECAUSE THEY’RE A BUNCH OF BARKING MOONBATS.
Come on guys, you’re making the rest of us look bad and completely obliterating the cause.
Like I said, I'm a little cranky. Boneheads...
22 comments:
I need someone to love me and then be ok, has to be real pretty woman with correct specifications
I'm sorry, perhaps you've confused this place with Eharmony.com
http://eharmony.com/
But thanks for playin'...
Moogirl,
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my intentions. I think you missed the underlying subtext of this proposed guerilla action. I would like to employ text from your argument, in defense of mine. You wrote: "Soldiers are dying because we have self-centered, greedy, evil men running our country." I would counter and say soldiers are dying because of the complicit agreement/belief between power and consumer that consumption is beneficial,ie consumption drives the economy, with no side effects, environmental, social, or political. This neoeconomic structure is based on a world where there are no static reserves of any material, water, oil, steel, space. Therefor it only makes sense to encourage growth, at least on paper. However it must be remembered that neoclassical economics got its foothold in the late 1800s, a time when the industrial revolution had a certain romance and thus a public support system that propagated and encouraged rapid growth. It goes without saying that this rapid growth was a result of unbridled consumption. Before the industrial revolution, only the upper classes could afford to consume beyond thier immediate needs. But, now, all but the poorest of the poor could afford that little extra something; extra shoes, new pants, labour saving devices that ultimately helped lead to women being liberated from glorified (sometimes) domestic servants.
Conspicuous consumption connotated your
pecuniary status. With the development of the middle class, this lead to the average consumer (if we deem the middle class average) consuming beyond their needs. Of course, this was great for the economy, and economists noted that.
By the 50s, neoeconomics (and thus widespread conspicuous consumption) was becoming synonymous with Democracy. This implied need for yearly growth lead to a number of things: after the war, American big interests got together with the Whitehouse, and called for a constant state of war, in order to justify continued high capacity manufacturing (it was after all, not the New Deal that pulled us out of the Great Depression, but the act of gearing up for war), and in what should have been a massive anti trust case, Detriot motor companies bought out almost every public transport system (not buses, but street cars, subways, ect), and quietly disbanded them, forcing the American city dweller to go buy a pink Chevrolet. Still with me? The mid 50s to early 60s saw cars grow to unsurpassed sizes. The biggest car of all, it should come as no suprize, was a Cadillac. Again: consumption as status signigier. The American public's thirst for status (and in my argument, status through oil consumption) lead to 1971's record American production of oil. Need we be reminded that, among other things, (of course SUVs and Mustangs, ect arnt the only things to blame, but to say they arnt to blame as well would be foolish)
the late 60s was the period of the biggest engines ever put in a car, the time of the muscle car. Manufacturing capabilities became refined to the point that even lower middle class buyers could afford to purchase the most inefficent status symbol on the road. Hmm... inefficent status symbol, whats that sound like? Now the claim could be made that individuals are controlled by the marketing that reaches them most effectively. And they will buy where that marketing leads them, like a sheep to slaughter.
This absolves the individual from blame, much like German officers (or American soldiers) claiming they were only following orders. Of course, that argument never holds water in war crimes tribunals: why should it hold water where the consumer is concerned?
Are American consumers symptomatic of a continued denial of the unfeasible nature inherient in neo-economics? Or did neo-economics merely position a theoretical ground work to facilitate the lust of the consumer? You wrote:
"How dare you lay the responsibility of this outrageous war at the feet of people because of the kind of car they drive." Who does the responability ultimately lie with? If American consumers acted with prudence and thought, unbridled consumption wouldnt lead to unprecidented drains on natural resources, and the constant campaign to exploit new ones. You see, at heart I am a stanch environmentalist. I believe all of our actions affect us ten fold down the road. I think we need to start somewhere. If people start to think like power figures, (perhaps you should read Jean Lyotard's The Post Modern Condition) which is to say, if they start thinking in terms of abstract units or numbers, rather than in pronouns, they lose sight of the impacts of thier actions. If the consumer ignores that which it is convient to ignore, or thinks of actions only in terms of convience or status, then they become one step closer to unfeeling automatons, only looking forward, never side to side or backward, much less into the future.
You wrote: "Put the blame where it belongs." I ask you: if the American consumer cant be held accountable who can? It is after all, the American consumer who elects our leaders. How can they be absolved of that? Blame it on marketing?
You wrote: "Do you really think that an SUV is the largest source of all the need?" Did I ever posit that claim? No. In fact, in the first sentance of my post, I wrote: SUVs (easy target).
You do have to start somewhere. It would be pretty impractical to put stickers on a power plant. This is about oil consumption, but its also about consumers taking personal responsability for thier actions. Oil consumption is a result of a consumer action. If we didnt drive as much, or as needlessly, or as inefficently, our reliance on oil would go down. If we lowered our even further, bought local produce, and didnt eat meat, it would again go down. If we lived in closer to work, again. Its about choice, and the choices people make, and the consequences therein. I feel that I am
putting "the blame where it belongs."
I think I have herein negated your first paragraphs arguments. Also: what is an asshat? Also: you kind of look like Ann Coulter. Read Thorstien Veblen's Theories of the Leisure Class, which is all about conspicuous consumption and its affects.
Check out neoeconomics. Subscribe to adbusters.
“You kind of look like Ann Coulter...”
Wow, low blow. But since I have no Adams apple and I own more than one little black dress, I guess I’ll let it go. I know how you vegetarians are sometimes anemic and therefore have trouble with your eyesight. But it was a good shot, and I think I love you.
First and foremost, thank you for spending the time leaving such a long, heartfelt explanation of your intensions. I mean that, although it will probably be the last nice thing I say.
Your intensions are crystal clear. It’s your actions I’m calling into question. I liken your bumper sticker proposal to the bombing of abortion clinics to stop abortions, or the throwing of red paint on celebs that wear fur. Are you really trying to effect change, or do you just want attention?
I suspect the latter. The simple fact that you compare drivers of SUVs with gassing Jews is very telling as to what you’re all about. You don’t really care about change, you just want to punish those whom you sinful, i.e. gas-wasters.
Do we, as a country, need to become less dependant on oil? Of course we do. Will your program do anything to effect that? Your program will do exactly zippo to effect that. In fact, you will only succeed in pissing off the very people you’re trying to persuade to change. Your bumper stickers will not work. People will not stop driving SUVs because of your bumper stickers. They just won’t. You know this. So this leads me to believe that you are all about punishing. You, Mr. Johnson, have deemed yourself The Great Punisher.
How very unproductive of you. And since we’re flinging outrageous comparisons, I’d say you’re not much different than Bush, Rumsfeld, and/or Cheney. They will also trot out the bodies of dead soldiers to further their agenda. Hell they’ll even create new ones. What will you say to a widow or mother of a dead soldiers when she’s minding her own business, driving to the neighborhood store, and she sees one of these things with her son/husband’s name on it? How dare you tell that mother that her son only died so that we can drive SUVs. How dare you belittle her son’s sacrifice like that. How dare you heap on even more pain so that people can see you have an opinion. Shame on you.
I realize that people’s concept of a never-ending supply of oil needs to be changed. I just don’t think anyone with a conscience could use dead soldiers to do it. I know what you’re all about, Mr. Johnson. You’re a bleeding heart. I know because I used to be one.
I’m sure most of this will fall on deaf ears. Your heart is in the right place, I know this because I can see it on your sleeve. But your ethics are sadly lacking.
So SUV drivers are Nazis. Really??? This is why people won’t listen to you. They can’t hear your message over all the barking at the moon.
I really must run. I have to take a flat iron to my face so as to never be compared to Ann Coulter again! But I give you props, THAT HURT... :>
Sorry, I forgot. An asshat is someone who may as well wear his hat on his ass because that’s where you’ll always find his head.
Wow, that was a rant and half. Interesting that it ignores all of the points I made, except the Nazi one. Easy target. Sound familiar? To say that anger is a motivator is foolish. To say that small, annoying actions are fruitful is to ignore every guerilla campaign ever. Are the so called rebels in Iraq holding the Americans at bay using diplomacy and nice guy tactics? My reference to the Nazis was perfectly valid. It is a case study in people claiming to be exempt from the results of their actions because of one reason or anouther.
Bush and Cheney only reference living soldiers doing a good job. They dont tout the dead ones for any agenda. Would the whole tone change for you if I used the names of people I know that are of drafting age, but arnt currently enlisted? Implying that they could die for a foolish and selfish cause?
Do you think Michael J Fox was exploiting himself and his condition to further the cause of the Democrats? If so, and if it worked, so what? What do you propose as a solution? A blog that barely anyone reads? A movie? Vast environmental regulation that borders on Fascism? Or do you just want to wait the ten scant years we have left before methane gases released from melting permafrost irreversibly change our climate?
Perhaps instead of straight criticism (which is easy right?) you should offer a solution, or a least a means to a solution. Also: try some doing some reading to back your arguments up. I hear thats more persuasive. Have a nice holiday.
Also: try answering some of my questions .
Insults like that won't convince anyone of the strength of your opinion.
Do you really think a bumper sticker with a dead solder's name on it is going to change economics? I don't question your intention, I question your methods. And I question your style of getting the message across.
If you want to debate the economics of the situation then it's more the corporations that are focused on short term profits and expenses of switching to other forms of energy that are more at fault than the consumers.
In the oil shortage of the 70's with the long lines for gas, a lot of alternatives were proposed, why did it take more than 30 years to develope some of them? The consumers would've bought Hybrids before and what about the electric car that was shoved to the back shelf?
Is a bumper sticker about dead soldiers going increase the supply of those? No the consumer demand for cleaner energy sources is what is going to change economics when the corporations find it more profitable to produce those kind of cars instead. There will still be SUV's but they will have more efficient engines.
So how will that bumper sticker help accomplish that?
Any place can be Eharmony if you meet the right person right? Although his way of asking wasn't exactly conducive to finding one. He better work on his introduction first.
As you said his heart is probably in the right place, he probably just needs to change his focus a bit. Maybe he needs to calm some of that righteous indignation. Ken Wlber did offer some solutions to integrate more fully
Integral Naked: what does it mean?
He explains some more in this video
YouTube - Ken Wilber
That might help to relax and change your perspective to be able to spot the false assumptions you were making with that bumper sticker. As the buddhist monk said the the pizza guy "Make me one with everything" but then when he asked the pizza guy for the change from his $20 bill, he was told "Change must come from within"
Which is a good idea and maybe what you need is to change your focus from mourning to something more pleasurable like world peace.
I figured that's a worthy cause to contribute positive energy for a brighter future so to help spread the message I made some T-shirts, mugs, hats and clocks for people to use that would remind them of what they could accomplish. You can get them here:
http://www.cafepress.com/globalo
Help encourage World Peace : CafePress.com
Johnson,
All right, I’ll answer you one point at a time. Might I suggest that you incorporate the use of paragraphs in the future so that it’s easier to find those points?
1. One good rant deserves another.
2. Please point out one guerilla campaign that was ever successful. Are people still wearing fur? Are they still clubbing baby seals? Are they still cutting timber? Whaling? Having abortions?
3.Bush and Cheney DO use the dead. Perhaps they’re not touting the number of dead in Iraq (bad for business) but they certainly do dance on the souls of the people who died in 911 to further their agenda.
4.You asked: “Would the whole tone change for you if I used the names of people I know that are of drafting age, but aren’t currently enlisted?”
YOU BET! And you can start with the names of my daughter and two stepsons, all three of which are of draft-i-licious age.
In fact, why don’t you do that? Why don’t you create stickers, use the names of draft-able youth, and say
“John Doe---He could die so you can drive an SUV”
Then stick that sucker on the bumper of YOUR car, or in your case, a bicycle seat. Think of it, thousands of young people buy your sticker, put their own names on it, and stick it on THEIR OWN CARS. I would totally get behind that idea. And no widows would be harmed in the making of said stickers. We may be on to something.
5. If Michael J. Fox was exploiting his illness, it is his illness to exploit. I don’t believe he was exploiting anything or anyone. He was bringing attention to a disease. Apples and oranges compared to what you’re doing.
6.You ask; “What do you propose as a solution?” I don’t. I don’t offer any solution. It’s not my pet project. Just because I think your idea is pointless and harmful doesn’t mean I have to come up with a solution for you, even though I believe I just did. See point #4.
7. “A blog that barely anyone reads”… Ummm, my first public post was six days ago, I just surpassed 300 visits, Site meter at the bottom of the page, for all to see. My personal visits aren’t counted.
8. Our climate is already irrevocably changed. Doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to change that, but buying a bumper sticker isn’t one of them
9. Straight criticism has never been difficult for me. Again, I don’t have to offer a solution in order to see that yours has no merit.
You said in your first comment: “If American consumers acted with prudence and thought…” Most don’t. And the ones who don’t will not be swayed by a snarky bumper sticker. Thus, your campaign’s objectives fail.
You mentioned: “The American public's thirst for status…” Again, anyone who drives a car for status is going to be unfazed by your campaign.
Now answer MY original question: Do you want results, or do you just want to punish. Please state exactly what you hope to accomplish.
Now, to the commenter named “You know”. I would love to answer your questions, but you didn’t ask any. But thanks for trying to add something to the conversation. Bonehead…
Apparently what he wants to accomplish is a lynch mob against him since that's a lot more likely to happen with the methods he's using than any change in economic or coporate policy.
Especially if someone catches him with bumper sticker that has some one they have lost and he's putting it on their car. He'd be lucky if they don't tied him to the bumper of that SUV he finds so needless and drag him.
The corporations have had some solutions that they didn't want to use because they were more concerned with short term profit and whipping people up into a frenzy of remorse is in no way going to change that, since they'll more likely direct that anger at the people that made them feel guilty about it than the corporation that sells them the products they need to use.
you know is me. Obviously you didnt know. Which makes you extra thick.
Here's your responses:
2. Please point out one guerilla campaign that was ever successful. Are people still wearing fur? Are they still clubbing baby seals? Are they still cutting timber? Whaling? Having abortions?
2. answers: successful guerilla campaigns: Revolutionary War, in America. (what that didnt start as a guerilla action? How quickly we forget.) Cuban revolution. The current resistance in Iraq. The French Resistance in WWII helped to no small degree.
3.Bush and Cheney DO use the dead. Perhaps they’re not touting the number of dead in Iraq (bad for business) but they certainly do dance on the souls of the people who died in 911 to further their agenda.
I particularly like how you are twisting your original phrase. Your originally said dead soldiers. Now you are back pedaling with just the dead, the 9/11 dead, which I have never said they didnt utitilize. Bad form, intellectually dishonest.
4. Its a possibility. Nothing is printed yet.
5. If Michael J. Fox was exploiting his illness, it is his illness to exploit. I don’t believe he was exploiting anything or anyone. He was bringing attention to a disease. Apples and oranges compared to what you’re doing.
Fox is the sole sufferer of Parkinsons?
I'm bringing attention to a problem and its symptom. Its not very different at all.
6.You ask; “What do you propose as a solution?” I don’t. I don’t offer any solution. It’s not my pet project. Just because I think your idea is pointless and harmful doesn’t mean I have to come up with a solution for you, even though I believe I just did. See point #4.
Um, if you recall, that was my idea.
7. “A blog that barely anyone reads”… Ummm, my first public post was six days ago, I just surpassed 300 visits, Site meter at the bottom of the page, for all to see. My personal visits aren’t counted.
3500 in 2 days on my blog.
8. Our climate is already irrevocably changed. Doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to change that, but buying a bumper sticker isn’t one of them.
How do you know?
Have to go set the table. I'll be back for more debunking. You should fire argon, he's a liability.
I, too, must do the turkey thing. But I’ll be back this evening to pick up where we left off.
I wont be able to partake this evening. Family and all that. Starmer actually found the picture, so hats off to him. I think you could just cut your hair, really. Ann Coulter is evil, so its not too cool to look like her. If I looked like Sean Hannity, I would shave my head and get glasses. Parting food: check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla#Examples_of_countries_and_wars_where_guerrilla_campaigns_were_successful
Oh smack!
Hey I actually kinda like your blog, or at least parts of it. Not to get all sappy or anything. Have you even read any of the other posts on mine?
http://ridelugged.com/2006/10/25/further-proof-bush-is-satans-dumb-kid-2/
also: did you know a fella from wonkette writes for us? He's a good riding buddy... thats the link: where nick gets his beer money. Since your blog is kinda scandal rag in itself, I thought you might be interested.
but dont despair: I have nothing to do tomarrow except wreck up on your shit.
A rose by any other name would still be a tard. Actually I love Wonkette, those guys raise snarkdom to a whole new level. Kudos to you if you have one of them writing for you. I’ll watch my back.
And no, I haven’t had much of a chance to check out the rest of your place, been kinda busy DODGING ALL THE INCOMING. But I’m taking the night off so I’ll check it out. Do I have to know nine different ways to cook tree bark to fit in?
Oh snap!
Ann Coulter is evil incarnate so tonight while I was putting the turkey in the oven, I stuck my head in there too and just singed all my hair off. Made the turkey taste kinda funny, but oh well.
And if it’s in Wiki, then it must be true!
I’ll assume you meant scandal rag in a good way, especially since you have a Wonker writing for you.
And I am so looking forward to having my shit wrecked up on. It’ll be like getting bitch slapped by Yule Gibbons!
Oh double snap!
Sleep tight, Tofu Boy...
http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/data/roadbike/500/236005Baylis_headtube.jpg
the off white is a lug.
i dont eat tofu but i do have a good friend who could pass you some pine bark flour recipes. he makes a killer squirrel pot pie, i hear.
Ok i'm going to answer your last few questions and then lay this down and walk slowly away.
"You said in your first comment: “If American consumers acted with prudence and thought…” Most don’t. And the ones who don’t will not be swayed by a snarky bumper sticker. Thus, your campaign’s objectives fail."
First of all, faced with the visual connection between death and consumption, the owner of the car will be pissed. Thats good. If it stopped there: good enough for me. Is that punishment? Not so much as it is provocation through finger pointing. Which I wouldnt put on equal footing, really. But the campaign goes beyond that, as clearly those who's SUVs are employed in message dispersement will not have time to peel the sticker off the instant they receive it. It will rove around, causing others to make note of the same connection. If there is a punishment it is the act of having to peel the sticker off. I'll give you that much. No one likes that.
Ok next.
"You mentioned: “The American public's thirst for status…” Again, anyone who drives a car for status is going to be unfazed by your campaign."
I know two rich assholes who went out and bought hybrids, having owned SUVs, after they went to see Al Gore's Opus.
Of course his was more eloquent. And had a diffent message. But to say people, if provoked, wont change, is foolish. They just need a little help sometimes. Quite often its the case of hearing the same thing over and over from different sources. I volunteer to be a source.
"Now answer MY original question: Do you want results, or do you just want to punish. Please state exactly what you hope to accomplish."
I think I have answered that, in the above. Now, that being said, if all the people with vehicles they didnt need were smited by say, a large bag of hippy feces, I wouldnt mind at all.
The world needs agitators and ideas that start from the bottom up.
Without an agitator would your washing machine do its job as well?
Thats a metaphor...
Well to continue your metaphor, people use agitators to get their clothes clean but it still puts money in Whirlpool's pocket, right? If their washing machine is vandalized, they don't blame Whirlpool, they blame the person who broke it.
It would be the same with a bumper sticker on a SUV, they'd be pissed off a you, not their choice of what car they purchased.
The difference bewteen Al Gore's presentation is it is backed up by a lot of facts and some great Power Point presentations (I actually just had a freelance contract with Duarte Design the company that does those presentations for them for help with the workload) Since you're equating 2 things that have different assumptions with don't have the same basis and the people that see the bumper sticker aren't going to connect them in the same manner.
Take the example of the Your Love is Lifting Me Higher video that you put on your blog. I did that video to try and help stem the tide of anger and hate that was flooding YouTube, even if it doesn't do anything to accomplish the purpose to convince the people to stop being nasty and rude in their comments, it still may have positive effects on inspiring creativity, at least it hurts no one even if they ignore the message.
OTOH your bumper sticker even if it doesn't have any effect on the cars that are driven still has a damaging effect by trivalizing the soldiers that died and treating them with disrespect, especially on the families that lost them. Isn't that the difference that people will object to?
That's why I questioned you method in the 1st place, it wasn't worth the damage being caused since the end wasn't justified by the means you were using.
All right, all right. I understand your objective. I really do. But I’m a results-oriented kind of girl. I seriously think you should reconsider using the names of dead soldiers. Don’t you think it would be a better idea to change the wording slightly and say “John Doe could die so YOU can drive that SUV”? Especially with all the talk about the draft being reinstated?
I think these would sell so much better. People who oppose the war would buy them People who have a loved one already serving (and oppose the war) would but them. Kids who don’t want to server would buy them, as would the parents of the kids. It would be a way to say, “I’m not willing to sacrifice my loved one so that you can drive a status symbol, you selfish asshat.” Hey, would THAT fit on a bumper sticker?
And by placing them on your own car, they would be seen by thousands. Your way, they may not be seen at all if the driver sees it first. Also, no one would go to jail or get the beaten into a bloody spot on the pavement. Not all drivers of SUVs are soccer moms...
And how about hummers? I want one that says hummers instead of SUV. At least an SUV has a purpose. How about a sticker that says, “I have a tiny penis. That’s why I drive a Hummer”?
Ok, about the lug business. That design in the photo is really pretty, but I have no idea what I’m looking at. I assume it’s a bike, but is the design the lugged part?
As I said, I'm backing away slowly. So, enough of that arguing shit. The lug occurs at any junction of tubes on a bike frame. All bikes used to be lugged (or at least 99 percent were). Its stronger, prettier, and easily repaired, which is why they have fallen out of favor, replaced by souless Tig welds, which all the same. Each maker had their own lug design. If a bike was unpainted, you could still tell who made it. Now bikes are disposable, artless. Only boutique makers still use lugs, for all the right reasons.
I, too, thought we buried the hatchet (no pun intended) over a rousing game of Pilgrims and Indians last night. I was actually being serious and thoughtful. Guess I need to work on that. :>
And now that I know what lugged is, you site makes EVER so much more sense! Who knew that bicycles used to be works of art?
Post a Comment