This is only slightly longer than a status update surely.
I just finished reading about how the Toronto Police Union is going to try and block the charges laid against their men for (allegedly) beating the shit out of someone, cause they can during the G20 in Toronto.
I've been shitting on unions for a long time, in all honesty. This one is great though. The same left-wing people that always maintain to me that it's impossible that a union could ever do something wrong, are faced with this.
This is why too much power is bad. For anyone. No group, union, business, government, or corporation should have the ability to stonewall the law. They do, regularly. I'd like a list of all the times a police officer has been charged with assault in the last 20 years.
I imagine the list is so short it's inconceivable to be true.
Also: These officers going as "unidentified" for so long is also hilarious. Aren't scrap citizens like us often asked to come forward and provide information on a crime? However when they commit one no one knows anything?
Union mentalities are just as bad as corporate mentalities. The problem is the corporate ones usually result in a greater reduction in the middle class - whereas unions add to the middle class more often than not. Either way, this is a joke. No one is going to face any serious consequences from the G20 herding - and that's exactly the kind of thing that isn't even supposed to be possible in Canada.
This isn't the Canada I was raised in. This is Harper's Canada. Where 1000 people are arrested over a weekend, the police attack people without cause - and there's no consequences.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Buying Jeans
This is my experience of going to Champlain Place to buy pants tonight:
First off, from outside it looks glorious. One story high (can't be two, it's built on marshland) and encompassing an entire city block, Champlain Place is home for all of Greater Moncton's shopping needs. From what I've heard from the not so locals, it's also a place that people travel from all around the maritimes to shop at.... I'm not kidding.
When I first walked in, I was greeted with significant signage which explained to me that "Love starts here". It's also on the front page of their website.
I was happy to see that malls had cut out the psycho-babble bullshit and just started to give it to people straight: "If you really love these people - you need to buy more shit". Thankfully, there was no shortage of maritime people ready to oblige and prove their love. I was on a hunt for jeans. I'd recently realized that all but one pair of mine had holes in the knees. This isn't a look I mind - however my workplace takes some issue with it. Apparently, the mall was busy. I don't notice this since the busiest maritime mall day doesn't come close to a weekend at the Eaton Centre, so I plowed through the "crowds" and went looking for some jeans.
I started at H&M because... well the only reason I can think of is that I hate myself. Of course, H&M is the company that sells things at absurdly low prices, and you'll be hard pressed to find any of it made in North America. I'd decided that I would place my morals aside given my lack of pants for work this week. Could I really wear the same jeans all week? Probably... but I shouldn't. I never did find any jeans in H&M that had the appropriate effect on my ass, and therefore I moved toward the exit. It was at this point that I found a black brimmed hat that my love and I had been toying with the idea of. As always, she was right - and I looked pretty awesome in it. I pushed the thoughts of the Chinese workers who made it to the back of my (so-called) mind and got in line. My friend who was accompanying me noted how you really can't find clothes made anywhere but China or Indonesia now-a-days. I thought that would be a good time to start loudly discussing how purchasing decisions are made around price almost exclusively in our modern world - and that until consumers become smarter (*chortle*) or the government takes action (*doublechortle*) then we'll continue to purchase all our goods from companies who keep manufacturing overseas. We will have a massive trade deficit and keep destroying the social fabric we spent the last century creating - but damn it we'll look good and have stuff. That's really what's important. Didn't you see the sign coming in? Stuff is love, and if stuff is cheap (who cares if it's made by slaves or not) we'll all have lots of love. No one in the line of course had any interest in this discussion - as they were browsing the bins near the cash for deals on various socks.
It was at this time that I realized there were about eight of us in line, and one cash open. This isn't a ratio that works for me, so we left and went to The Gap. I'll admit I never really had the intention of buying anything here, I just wanted to see what fashion atrocities they were shilling this month. Chords, appeared to be the name of the game. As I noted to my friend, "Chords or the pants that are ALWAYS out of style within 18 months of making their come back". Sure, if you want to hold onto the pants for a decade you can get a good run out of them, but otherwise jeans will always be a better option.
After this, we happened on a store called "Pantorama". I noticed almost immediately that the people in there were either douche bags, or mentally disabled. I'm sure some people think you can't figure this out from an employee just saying "Hey guys", but sometimes you need to trust your gut. Once we got near the "Affliction" t-shirts, my friend said, "We need to go, now." He was right. "I hear if you get too close to those shirts you go blind... from douchiness". I couldn't find any flaws in his logic and left as quickly as possible.
At this point, the friend got food and I went to American Eagle. I had decided skinny jeans were the way to go. It appeared that there were three staff members, and what I can only assume was a bitch of a mother trying to find jeans for her sons. The staff showed her the skinny jeans and she shook her head in displeasure as she explained, "The thighs aren't big enough. They have very large thighs. Not that they're fat, no no, my boys are muscular hockey players. Big thighs." When she was directed to try a section over for wider legged pants, her mind changed pretty quickly and said that perhaps these skinny jeans would do. I'm not sure if she was trying to talk up her sons to the young ladies in hopes of finding them a life-mate, or if she just feels the need to explain the thigh width of her sons to all retail people - but one thing was obvious by her verbal and body language: These retail women would have to do her bidding for as long as she required, no matter how nonsensical or idiotic her requests or soliloquies may be. This is potentially the worst kind of person in western society. The one who, unless given some distinct personal gain to be had by kindness toward a stranger, will treat the stranger like shit.
I brought two pairs of jeans toward the fitting room. I don't want to say American Eagle management at this mall is racist, but I found it telling that the only black employee was stuffed in the back and probably working harder than everyone else in the store combined. I found a pair that fit, and had the appropriate impact on my ass. As I left the fitting area I brought back the pair I didn't want along with the plastic number assigned to me when I entered the fitting rooms. I wished the young lady a good evening and she smiled at me as if I was the first person to talk to her that day then offered me what appeared to be a sincere thank you. I can only imagine the mental abuse that goes along with working at American Eagle... and I hate myself a little right now for supporting their soulless product.
Then I went to Starbucks. Starbucks I'm sure is just as soulless a corporation as the next one, yet I still find myself gravitating toward the peppermint mocha when needed. Soul sucking corporation they may be, I know enough people who have worked there and rave about their social responsibility that I'm able to trick myself into consuming their product.
At this point I tried to engage in some retail therapy. See, my mother has been perpetually bitching about not getting enough face time with me. Not enough phone calls. I've made an effort since returning from vacation to make plans with her to have one of these phone calls - and had agreed on this evening to be the time for it. She notified me 15 minutes later than our agreed upon time that this conversation couldn't take place as she had more shopping to accommodate. It is close to Christmas after all, and as the mall had pointed out to me love starts with shopping. If that's where love starts, I'd like to know where phone calls fall on that list. Apparently I was/am hurt over this and managed to fool myself temporarily that trying to fit in with the rest of the world and buying shit to create joy would fix the issue. I proceeded to Game Stop, reached for the new COD game and moved toward the cash. It didn't feel right though. Was I really buying this game because I felt like it was worth sixty dollars and I'd get my monies worth out of it? No. I was buying it because my friends had it - wanted me to buy it, and I wanted some kind of acceptance since clearly my family wasn't going to be providing it to me on this day. Once I realized this, I found myself verbalizing my thoughts. "No. Fuck that. No no no. Fuck this shit. Fuck it" and I put the game back. My friends looked at me as if I'd grown two additional heads. I wandered through two more outlets (pun intended) looking for something to purchase that I could justify as wanting and needing while feeling normal about fitting into our socially accepted retail therapy. It didn't happen.
I returned to H&M which only had two people in line. I got the hat, stood there and ignored those around me while I looked through the bins of socks. I paid and the cashier wished me a happy holiday as I left. I found myself feeling nothing but disdain for her. She'd done nothing wrong, and I was ready to throw a shirt rack at her. I was disappointed in myself for this childish emotional response and left.
This holiday season I've tried to be more merry. Christmas as an exercise in consumerism and religion absolutely disgusts me. There's something to carry with us throughout the year in the messages of "Peace on earth" and "Goodwill toward men" though. As such I have tried to grab on to those themes. I don't think I did a very good job tonight, really. Tomorrow is another day, though.
First off, from outside it looks glorious. One story high (can't be two, it's built on marshland) and encompassing an entire city block, Champlain Place is home for all of Greater Moncton's shopping needs. From what I've heard from the not so locals, it's also a place that people travel from all around the maritimes to shop at.... I'm not kidding.
When I first walked in, I was greeted with significant signage which explained to me that "Love starts here". It's also on the front page of their website.
I was happy to see that malls had cut out the psycho-babble bullshit and just started to give it to people straight: "If you really love these people - you need to buy more shit". Thankfully, there was no shortage of maritime people ready to oblige and prove their love. I was on a hunt for jeans. I'd recently realized that all but one pair of mine had holes in the knees. This isn't a look I mind - however my workplace takes some issue with it. Apparently, the mall was busy. I don't notice this since the busiest maritime mall day doesn't come close to a weekend at the Eaton Centre, so I plowed through the "crowds" and went looking for some jeans.
I started at H&M because... well the only reason I can think of is that I hate myself. Of course, H&M is the company that sells things at absurdly low prices, and you'll be hard pressed to find any of it made in North America. I'd decided that I would place my morals aside given my lack of pants for work this week. Could I really wear the same jeans all week? Probably... but I shouldn't. I never did find any jeans in H&M that had the appropriate effect on my ass, and therefore I moved toward the exit. It was at this point that I found a black brimmed hat that my love and I had been toying with the idea of. As always, she was right - and I looked pretty awesome in it. I pushed the thoughts of the Chinese workers who made it to the back of my (so-called) mind and got in line. My friend who was accompanying me noted how you really can't find clothes made anywhere but China or Indonesia now-a-days. I thought that would be a good time to start loudly discussing how purchasing decisions are made around price almost exclusively in our modern world - and that until consumers become smarter (*chortle*) or the government takes action (*doublechortle*) then we'll continue to purchase all our goods from companies who keep manufacturing overseas. We will have a massive trade deficit and keep destroying the social fabric we spent the last century creating - but damn it we'll look good and have stuff. That's really what's important. Didn't you see the sign coming in? Stuff is love, and if stuff is cheap (who cares if it's made by slaves or not) we'll all have lots of love. No one in the line of course had any interest in this discussion - as they were browsing the bins near the cash for deals on various socks.
It was at this time that I realized there were about eight of us in line, and one cash open. This isn't a ratio that works for me, so we left and went to The Gap. I'll admit I never really had the intention of buying anything here, I just wanted to see what fashion atrocities they were shilling this month. Chords, appeared to be the name of the game. As I noted to my friend, "Chords or the pants that are ALWAYS out of style within 18 months of making their come back". Sure, if you want to hold onto the pants for a decade you can get a good run out of them, but otherwise jeans will always be a better option.
After this, we happened on a store called "Pantorama". I noticed almost immediately that the people in there were either douche bags, or mentally disabled. I'm sure some people think you can't figure this out from an employee just saying "Hey guys", but sometimes you need to trust your gut. Once we got near the "Affliction" t-shirts, my friend said, "We need to go, now." He was right. "I hear if you get too close to those shirts you go blind... from douchiness". I couldn't find any flaws in his logic and left as quickly as possible.
At this point, the friend got food and I went to American Eagle. I had decided skinny jeans were the way to go. It appeared that there were three staff members, and what I can only assume was a bitch of a mother trying to find jeans for her sons. The staff showed her the skinny jeans and she shook her head in displeasure as she explained, "The thighs aren't big enough. They have very large thighs. Not that they're fat, no no, my boys are muscular hockey players. Big thighs." When she was directed to try a section over for wider legged pants, her mind changed pretty quickly and said that perhaps these skinny jeans would do. I'm not sure if she was trying to talk up her sons to the young ladies in hopes of finding them a life-mate, or if she just feels the need to explain the thigh width of her sons to all retail people - but one thing was obvious by her verbal and body language: These retail women would have to do her bidding for as long as she required, no matter how nonsensical or idiotic her requests or soliloquies may be. This is potentially the worst kind of person in western society. The one who, unless given some distinct personal gain to be had by kindness toward a stranger, will treat the stranger like shit.
I brought two pairs of jeans toward the fitting room. I don't want to say American Eagle management at this mall is racist, but I found it telling that the only black employee was stuffed in the back and probably working harder than everyone else in the store combined. I found a pair that fit, and had the appropriate impact on my ass. As I left the fitting area I brought back the pair I didn't want along with the plastic number assigned to me when I entered the fitting rooms. I wished the young lady a good evening and she smiled at me as if I was the first person to talk to her that day then offered me what appeared to be a sincere thank you. I can only imagine the mental abuse that goes along with working at American Eagle... and I hate myself a little right now for supporting their soulless product.
Then I went to Starbucks. Starbucks I'm sure is just as soulless a corporation as the next one, yet I still find myself gravitating toward the peppermint mocha when needed. Soul sucking corporation they may be, I know enough people who have worked there and rave about their social responsibility that I'm able to trick myself into consuming their product.
At this point I tried to engage in some retail therapy. See, my mother has been perpetually bitching about not getting enough face time with me. Not enough phone calls. I've made an effort since returning from vacation to make plans with her to have one of these phone calls - and had agreed on this evening to be the time for it. She notified me 15 minutes later than our agreed upon time that this conversation couldn't take place as she had more shopping to accommodate. It is close to Christmas after all, and as the mall had pointed out to me love starts with shopping. If that's where love starts, I'd like to know where phone calls fall on that list. Apparently I was/am hurt over this and managed to fool myself temporarily that trying to fit in with the rest of the world and buying shit to create joy would fix the issue. I proceeded to Game Stop, reached for the new COD game and moved toward the cash. It didn't feel right though. Was I really buying this game because I felt like it was worth sixty dollars and I'd get my monies worth out of it? No. I was buying it because my friends had it - wanted me to buy it, and I wanted some kind of acceptance since clearly my family wasn't going to be providing it to me on this day. Once I realized this, I found myself verbalizing my thoughts. "No. Fuck that. No no no. Fuck this shit. Fuck it" and I put the game back. My friends looked at me as if I'd grown two additional heads. I wandered through two more outlets (pun intended) looking for something to purchase that I could justify as wanting and needing while feeling normal about fitting into our socially accepted retail therapy. It didn't happen.
I returned to H&M which only had two people in line. I got the hat, stood there and ignored those around me while I looked through the bins of socks. I paid and the cashier wished me a happy holiday as I left. I found myself feeling nothing but disdain for her. She'd done nothing wrong, and I was ready to throw a shirt rack at her. I was disappointed in myself for this childish emotional response and left.
This holiday season I've tried to be more merry. Christmas as an exercise in consumerism and religion absolutely disgusts me. There's something to carry with us throughout the year in the messages of "Peace on earth" and "Goodwill toward men" though. As such I have tried to grab on to those themes. I don't think I did a very good job tonight, really. Tomorrow is another day, though.
Monday, 12 December 2011
An Open Reply To Christie Blanchford
Dear Christie,
You wrote a nice little opinion piece on Saturday. It seems quite popular because still today you're trending on the top of the National Post site, and haven't written anything since.
It would be my hope that you're not paid to write ever again.
It's clear while reading this that you've gone out of your way to ensure I'm not able to call you a homophobic bigot. You mention on several occasions that you don't have anything against gay men as a group. I'm impressed by your efforts to ensure that no one misinterpret your "Ick!" feeling as homophobia by proclaiming your adoration for gays "as a group". I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your reaction to the young males hugging. I just figured "Ick!" is close enough to "Mortified and appalled".
I'm not entirely sure what it was that you were intending to connect between the dots of boys hugging each other, and the TDSB declining to hand out UFC propaganda, or I may just find the entirety of the logic in this article incomprehensible. This might be my age, or left leaning moral compass, or you might not make any sense.
[Sidenote: How did you get that 5th paragraph past your editor? That was about as big a cluster fuck as I've ever seen. I'm assuming you meant UFC in the 6th paragraph as well, because otherwise I have no way of knowing what the hell you're talking about here. ]
As best I can tell, you have some form of personal bias for men who are more traditional, at least in the sense of their lack of what's traditionally called the "feminine" side. I'd argue that perhaps these masculine and feminine sides are not so much a form of basic nature but of a millenia's worth of socializing. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of having the completely archaic view that men are the strong, tough, controlling and capable counterparts to their weak, subservient female partners of marginal value. To do so would be an over simplification of your already simplified ideals.
What it appears you'd like most is for your traditional expectations of a man to be met. Essentially trying to ensure that we fit into some kind of man box.
I'm also curious - how far should we take this expectation of a man? For example, if a 12 year old has a particularly "girlish" voice should he be ridiculed in school? I'm assuming you wouldn't have him beaten (we save that for the bullies, as they are so rarely victims of violence elsewhere) but we'd still mock him right? No? Is the expectation that the child make an effort to speak in a lower voice? Would this child just end up in the "loser pile" of the far right thinking "winners and losers" society? Clearly, some men or boys will not be born into the box you desire them to fit into. What should we do with them, exactly? May I suggest reeducation camps? I know we wouldn't want tax-payer dollars going to gay positive education, but surely we could use some for classes to get these sissies to man-up.
This article encourages violence and further perpetuates the traditional gender roles that have restricted both sexes. I'd like to see your article next week on the Toronto woman's inability to fit the traditional model. In fact, I'm personally displeased with you - specifically the haircut shown in your picture. This is not the appropriate length of a woman's hair. I personally feel like far too many women are employed and would be better served to be at home cooking, especially during the holiday season.
All jokes aside Mrs. Blatchford, the world has changed. The generation in schools now were born in the 90s where most of their parents had already figured out that both sexes were equal. In fact, being a child of the late 80s early 90s in Toronto I like to think I was part of one of the first generations to go through the school system recognizing that sex, race, or orientation should have no influence on the person you turn out to be. I'd like to think that the world of under 40s is increasingly disinterested in fitting into whatever box is set out in front of them and is instead developing a more well rounded and emotionally mature group mentality.
This article is the equivalent of an over aged white decrying the blacks being allowed in the same store as them. The rest of the city has moved on, even if you, The National Post, or other such dinosaurs have not.
Sincerely,
Charles Hollyer, OPEM
Openly Proud Effeminate Male
You wrote a nice little opinion piece on Saturday. It seems quite popular because still today you're trending on the top of the National Post site, and haven't written anything since.
It would be my hope that you're not paid to write ever again.
It's clear while reading this that you've gone out of your way to ensure I'm not able to call you a homophobic bigot. You mention on several occasions that you don't have anything against gay men as a group. I'm impressed by your efforts to ensure that no one misinterpret your "Ick!" feeling as homophobia by proclaiming your adoration for gays "as a group". I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your reaction to the young males hugging. I just figured "Ick!" is close enough to "Mortified and appalled".
I'm not entirely sure what it was that you were intending to connect between the dots of boys hugging each other, and the TDSB declining to hand out UFC propaganda, or I may just find the entirety of the logic in this article incomprehensible. This might be my age, or left leaning moral compass, or you might not make any sense.
[Sidenote: How did you get that 5th paragraph past your editor? That was about as big a cluster fuck as I've ever seen. I'm assuming you meant UFC in the 6th paragraph as well, because otherwise I have no way of knowing what the hell you're talking about here. ]
As best I can tell, you have some form of personal bias for men who are more traditional, at least in the sense of their lack of what's traditionally called the "feminine" side. I'd argue that perhaps these masculine and feminine sides are not so much a form of basic nature but of a millenia's worth of socializing. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of having the completely archaic view that men are the strong, tough, controlling and capable counterparts to their weak, subservient female partners of marginal value. To do so would be an over simplification of your already simplified ideals.
What it appears you'd like most is for your traditional expectations of a man to be met. Essentially trying to ensure that we fit into some kind of man box.
I'm also curious - how far should we take this expectation of a man? For example, if a 12 year old has a particularly "girlish" voice should he be ridiculed in school? I'm assuming you wouldn't have him beaten (we save that for the bullies, as they are so rarely victims of violence elsewhere) but we'd still mock him right? No? Is the expectation that the child make an effort to speak in a lower voice? Would this child just end up in the "loser pile" of the far right thinking "winners and losers" society? Clearly, some men or boys will not be born into the box you desire them to fit into. What should we do with them, exactly? May I suggest reeducation camps? I know we wouldn't want tax-payer dollars going to gay positive education, but surely we could use some for classes to get these sissies to man-up.
This article encourages violence and further perpetuates the traditional gender roles that have restricted both sexes. I'd like to see your article next week on the Toronto woman's inability to fit the traditional model. In fact, I'm personally displeased with you - specifically the haircut shown in your picture. This is not the appropriate length of a woman's hair. I personally feel like far too many women are employed and would be better served to be at home cooking, especially during the holiday season.
All jokes aside Mrs. Blatchford, the world has changed. The generation in schools now were born in the 90s where most of their parents had already figured out that both sexes were equal. In fact, being a child of the late 80s early 90s in Toronto I like to think I was part of one of the first generations to go through the school system recognizing that sex, race, or orientation should have no influence on the person you turn out to be. I'd like to think that the world of under 40s is increasingly disinterested in fitting into whatever box is set out in front of them and is instead developing a more well rounded and emotionally mature group mentality.
This article is the equivalent of an over aged white decrying the blacks being allowed in the same store as them. The rest of the city has moved on, even if you, The National Post, or other such dinosaurs have not.
Sincerely,
Charles Hollyer, OPEM
Openly Proud Effeminate Male
Thursday, 1 December 2011
You Win, Stephen
After a freedom of information request today by The Toronto Star it's been discovered that not only was Peter McKay full of shit in his "training exercise" excuse for the use of the rescue helicopters - but they were also warned ahead of time that it would likely turn into a PR nightmare. With that in mind they of course set it "Under the guise of... a search and rescue operation". These emails also outline how there were actually two other options discussed, neither of which would have been a search and rescue operation. So if the entire point of this exercise was to display the search and rescue capabilities, why were two of the options not search and rescue options?
Of course we know that wasn't the point at all. It was a glorified taxi ride.
Surely, being the Minister of Defense it's not completely unreasonable to think this was for something important like an impending war or whatnot. OH! It must have been right at the start of the Libyan conflict, right? Well.... wrong. It was to get him to a photo-op on time. Of course this was a very important announcement covered by all kinds of news media, right? A search on Google News for this time frame provided me with one result (that was public and not a press release cut&paste) from the London Free Press. My favorite part of this story has got to be that there was already another cabinet minister there. They had to order the helicopter to get the minister to an event that a federal minister was already attending and got news coverage in exactly ONE city. In the next election two of the three seats in London went Conservative so surely the tax dollar usage was worth it.
When asked about why his previous story made no sense in the house today, Mr. MacKay reiterated his old story. Which leads me to this article by Lawrence Martin.
I'm increasingly disgusted by how the government will not answer questions. I didn't watch the Grey Cup, but I have a nice little mental image of how all this looked. Mostly because I've seen the last 10 Super Bowls and they do the exact same thing. The Americanization of our once great country is not only troubling to me... it's terrifying. The man in charge is the same man who thought we should have gone to Iraq. There are lots of middle eastern countries pissing each other off (as usual) and a shit-ton of Republican candidates that would love to bomb something. Two years from now when a Republican is leading his nation into an ill-conceived war with Mr.Harper following closely behind with his 1500 communications staffers and stealth snow mobiles... there's really no witty finish to that. It's fucking terrifying how realistic that scenario is.
So Stephen, you win. I'm just going to stop paying attention. Clearly you don't want an open government, or an honest dialogue with your citizens. Most of the country stopped paying attention long ago. I'll join them.
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
This Blog Remains Unoccupied
I want to preface all of this by saying that at my core, I can't help but side with the occupy people. Limiting the amount of influence greed plays over our society seems like a reasonable idea. Trying to make sure people who steal billions of dollars get punished for it, would be ideal. However, as much as I like idealism - I try to remain as realistic as possible.
Occupy This
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement will soon be entering December and I'm pretty sure it's as irrelevent as ever.
For the record, I almost fully support their ideals - however these ideals are so far removed from reality that I feel as though far too many people have wasted far too much time on this movement.
The system is what it is - and it's not as if everyone was somehow screwed into thinking that things are "fair". For the most part, people aren't blissfully ignorant of the inequity between the 99 and 1 percent, instead they're quite aware of it.
There's a lot I want to talk about around this occupy thing and I'm going to try to keep it under some fairly broad headlines. I'd like to point out now that the things I'm about to say are not intended to indicate what is ethically or morally right, but moreso an attempt at accurate description of how things currently stand.
What are they protesting?
This question of outcome keeps coming up. One would think a movement of this size would have some kind of agenda laid out, or demands if you will. They don't, though. Instead it's a mismash of people with their own gripes. I'm not quite sure certain things haven't been laid out as of yet (see: Constitutional ammendment to indicate that corporations are not people, the immediate jailing of Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankenfield etc.) but for whatever reason the movement would much rather just grow. Growing is nice - but it peaks, eventually. We're on the other side of that because the fact of the matter is...
These people have absolutely no power.
Protest your brains out, people - no one who matters gives a shit. See, it's a numbers game. One of two parties is going to get elected - and both have already been bought and paid for. So while you hang out in your tents and using your human microphone, you effect about as much change as my choice of socks in the morning. This is essentially what you're protesting, right? Well, the only way for your voice to be heard is through the law of the land. As frustrating as it is to see political pundits from both sides try to lay claim to the movement, the only way the movement has any clout is to become a force within one of the parties. The Democrats seem like the obvious choice - but I wouldn't rule anything out. Unless this group is willing to be poitically engaged within the political system that currently exists - it's unlikely that they'll see change that meets their needs. Some would ask, "Why would a movement that's storming the country ever want to allign itself with a politcal party unless there were enough people to essentially co-opt that party?" My question for those people would be, "Why should a movement that can't even carve out a part of a political party to get things done be taken seriously?"
Ignorance
I believe that it's the perception of many inside the occupy movement that there are millions of blissfully ignorant people who don't undesrstand how badly they're getting screwed. I'd argue that much of the population knows (while perhaps not in great detail) that they're getting screwed. People realize at a very young age usually that the system is broken. To provide yourself with clothes to wear, food to eat, and a roof over your head - you almost always have to work in a position where you are paid less than what you are worth. Even if working in a position that is a loss leader, the position is necissary to the overall success of the company usually. We know this though. There's not one account manager making money equal to what they bring in for the organization. Obvious exceptions to this are positions like health care and social services and other not for profit positions. However, in the private marketplace you are almost certainly going to be doing a job where the value you provide is returned in a portion of that value into your bank account.
If you sit down and explain these simple facts to people, the majority already know it. There are the blissfully ignorant who had no idea - but having them latch on to this information isn't about to bring on some kind of internal revelation that will make them join us. These are the people who vote republican because they love job creators and Jesus (or don't like that black guy). The vast majority of these people are perfectly happy in their blissfully ignorant world and any argument against it can be so easily turned into an argument against their guns, religion, or family values that these are not the people that we'll ever see join us.
The ones that should be targeted are the choiceful ignorant. Those of us that see how completely fucked up our way of life is, want drastic change, and will do anything to get there. It's here where you'll find me diverge from the common OWS folk.
It's a numbers game, and you don't have them
This paragraph is going to be filled with generalizations and assumptions that I don't think I grossly unrealistic. Let us assume OWS has already or can convince everyone 18-34 that they're right. Good work! Now what are you going to do about the seniors who vote en mass and have lived in the current system their entire life. It was clearly good enough for them - so why do they want change? Also: How about those middle aged folks who have families and such? An attempt to overhaul the system would surely have some reprecussions throughout the economy. While the previous statement is a huge assumption in and of itself - it shouldn't be disregarded as this will be the primary attack point for people on the right.
"I think we can all agree that we want to make the world a more fair place, but such changes would completely destroy our economy and way of life!"
The second that there's a constitutional amendment around corporations not being people (or restricting the financial system to not allow gambling with your retirement) you'll immediately hear this and millions of lines like it. If you're 27 and have spent the last 7 years traveling the country trying to find yourself - this isn't a big deal to you. If you're 44, married with a mortgage and two kids the threat of a poor economy is the threat of losing your house, your car, your marriage, and possibly even your kids. This doesn't invoke a rationalization about economic phases and long term gain - it invokes an emotional response that can usually best be summarized as "No one will take food off my child's plate."
The System
There's an entire machine built around ensuring that you have less money and someone else has more. Our western capitalism essentially rotates around people trying convince you that you need something that you don't. In fact - there's an entire industry (marketing) created around this idea.
If it's through the fine print in an online terms of service agreement, exorbinant bank fees, or hidden cell phone charges - there's always a way for a corporation to find a reason that they need more of your money. This isn't because you did anything wrong - or even that they did. It's just that within the current system productivity is key and executives that can't find a way to increase it aren't worth anything.
While we can all sit here and rationalize that it's impossible for productivity to constantly increase - managers can find ways to make it happen. Sometimes that means that Coke is going to give us 9ml fewer than the original 600 - but more often than not it means having your staff do more with less. When we're looking at the short term especially in freshly started businesses this is extremely important for creating viability. However - multinational corporations have, will, and continue to place new productivity expectations on their workforce. A friend who works for a multi-million company that cleared a billion dollars last year outlined for me how their expectation for production had increased by 43% for the new year. This means that employees who had been producing just fine at the previous expectation - had to work 43% harder to earn the same wage.
So...
Let me recap. OWS wants to effect change - but they'll never get great number from those over 35, or who the current system favors, those disengaged, and those just flat out stupid. How does one make change happen without having any pull with those groups? The short answer is that they don't.
Maybe though - just maybe, Matt Taibbi may have nailed it:
People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It's about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a "beloved community" free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn't need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.
I want to note that if somehow OWS can be successful and gain wide ranging support significant enough to fix some of the glaring issues in our ready to implode economy, we're living in an extremely exciting time. While the prospect of reshaping the quality of life for future generations is exciting - I still don't think it's realistic... yet.
Occupy This
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement will soon be entering December and I'm pretty sure it's as irrelevent as ever.
For the record, I almost fully support their ideals - however these ideals are so far removed from reality that I feel as though far too many people have wasted far too much time on this movement.
The system is what it is - and it's not as if everyone was somehow screwed into thinking that things are "fair". For the most part, people aren't blissfully ignorant of the inequity between the 99 and 1 percent, instead they're quite aware of it.
There's a lot I want to talk about around this occupy thing and I'm going to try to keep it under some fairly broad headlines. I'd like to point out now that the things I'm about to say are not intended to indicate what is ethically or morally right, but moreso an attempt at accurate description of how things currently stand.
What are they protesting?
This question of outcome keeps coming up. One would think a movement of this size would have some kind of agenda laid out, or demands if you will. They don't, though. Instead it's a mismash of people with their own gripes. I'm not quite sure certain things haven't been laid out as of yet (see: Constitutional ammendment to indicate that corporations are not people, the immediate jailing of Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankenfield etc.) but for whatever reason the movement would much rather just grow. Growing is nice - but it peaks, eventually. We're on the other side of that because the fact of the matter is...
These people have absolutely no power.
Protest your brains out, people - no one who matters gives a shit. See, it's a numbers game. One of two parties is going to get elected - and both have already been bought and paid for. So while you hang out in your tents and using your human microphone, you effect about as much change as my choice of socks in the morning. This is essentially what you're protesting, right? Well, the only way for your voice to be heard is through the law of the land. As frustrating as it is to see political pundits from both sides try to lay claim to the movement, the only way the movement has any clout is to become a force within one of the parties. The Democrats seem like the obvious choice - but I wouldn't rule anything out. Unless this group is willing to be poitically engaged within the political system that currently exists - it's unlikely that they'll see change that meets their needs. Some would ask, "Why would a movement that's storming the country ever want to allign itself with a politcal party unless there were enough people to essentially co-opt that party?" My question for those people would be, "Why should a movement that can't even carve out a part of a political party to get things done be taken seriously?"
Ignorance
I believe that it's the perception of many inside the occupy movement that there are millions of blissfully ignorant people who don't undesrstand how badly they're getting screwed. I'd argue that much of the population knows (while perhaps not in great detail) that they're getting screwed. People realize at a very young age usually that the system is broken. To provide yourself with clothes to wear, food to eat, and a roof over your head - you almost always have to work in a position where you are paid less than what you are worth. Even if working in a position that is a loss leader, the position is necissary to the overall success of the company usually. We know this though. There's not one account manager making money equal to what they bring in for the organization. Obvious exceptions to this are positions like health care and social services and other not for profit positions. However, in the private marketplace you are almost certainly going to be doing a job where the value you provide is returned in a portion of that value into your bank account.
If you sit down and explain these simple facts to people, the majority already know it. There are the blissfully ignorant who had no idea - but having them latch on to this information isn't about to bring on some kind of internal revelation that will make them join us. These are the people who vote republican because they love job creators and Jesus (or don't like that black guy). The vast majority of these people are perfectly happy in their blissfully ignorant world and any argument against it can be so easily turned into an argument against their guns, religion, or family values that these are not the people that we'll ever see join us.
The ones that should be targeted are the choiceful ignorant. Those of us that see how completely fucked up our way of life is, want drastic change, and will do anything to get there. It's here where you'll find me diverge from the common OWS folk.
It's a numbers game, and you don't have them
This paragraph is going to be filled with generalizations and assumptions that I don't think I grossly unrealistic. Let us assume OWS has already or can convince everyone 18-34 that they're right. Good work! Now what are you going to do about the seniors who vote en mass and have lived in the current system their entire life. It was clearly good enough for them - so why do they want change? Also: How about those middle aged folks who have families and such? An attempt to overhaul the system would surely have some reprecussions throughout the economy. While the previous statement is a huge assumption in and of itself - it shouldn't be disregarded as this will be the primary attack point for people on the right.
"I think we can all agree that we want to make the world a more fair place, but such changes would completely destroy our economy and way of life!"
The second that there's a constitutional amendment around corporations not being people (or restricting the financial system to not allow gambling with your retirement) you'll immediately hear this and millions of lines like it. If you're 27 and have spent the last 7 years traveling the country trying to find yourself - this isn't a big deal to you. If you're 44, married with a mortgage and two kids the threat of a poor economy is the threat of losing your house, your car, your marriage, and possibly even your kids. This doesn't invoke a rationalization about economic phases and long term gain - it invokes an emotional response that can usually best be summarized as "No one will take food off my child's plate."
The System
There's an entire machine built around ensuring that you have less money and someone else has more. Our western capitalism essentially rotates around people trying convince you that you need something that you don't. In fact - there's an entire industry (marketing) created around this idea.
If it's through the fine print in an online terms of service agreement, exorbinant bank fees, or hidden cell phone charges - there's always a way for a corporation to find a reason that they need more of your money. This isn't because you did anything wrong - or even that they did. It's just that within the current system productivity is key and executives that can't find a way to increase it aren't worth anything.
While we can all sit here and rationalize that it's impossible for productivity to constantly increase - managers can find ways to make it happen. Sometimes that means that Coke is going to give us 9ml fewer than the original 600 - but more often than not it means having your staff do more with less. When we're looking at the short term especially in freshly started businesses this is extremely important for creating viability. However - multinational corporations have, will, and continue to place new productivity expectations on their workforce. A friend who works for a multi-million company that cleared a billion dollars last year outlined for me how their expectation for production had increased by 43% for the new year. This means that employees who had been producing just fine at the previous expectation - had to work 43% harder to earn the same wage.
So...
Let me recap. OWS wants to effect change - but they'll never get great number from those over 35, or who the current system favors, those disengaged, and those just flat out stupid. How does one make change happen without having any pull with those groups? The short answer is that they don't.
Maybe though - just maybe, Matt Taibbi may have nailed it:
People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It's about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a "beloved community" free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn't need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.
I want to note that if somehow OWS can be successful and gain wide ranging support significant enough to fix some of the glaring issues in our ready to implode economy, we're living in an extremely exciting time. While the prospect of reshaping the quality of life for future generations is exciting - I still don't think it's realistic... yet.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Operation 5 Reaction Follow Up
In less than a day from me getting Operation 5 in the public domain I've received a lot of feedback on this. For the most part it's "Oh, that's a neat idea!" or "Are you sure you can last 6 months?"* or "Letters to your consoles was way better". I expected all those responses. The ones I didn't expect (but maybe I should have) were from female friends who thought that it was an absurd idea. That the talking to women part makes perfect sense - but if they want to fuck me, I should definitely fuck all of them.
Again - this might be because I grew up in a house with a mother and a sister who have been used and abused by single men - but I think that's not in my make-up. Apparently, because I have a penis I should be viewing the entire female population as a fleshlight with a pulse. What exactly is wrong with a little bit of self control and NOT fucking someone just because of lust or sexual chemistry?
Really - if I'm never seeing this woman again - why do I want to fuck her exactly? Cause I can? I've slept with enough people in my life - that the physical act of sleeping with someone, while awesome - doesn't exactly do it for me if there isn't some kind of deeper emotional or psychological connection. In fact - the last woman I broke up with was a direct response to me asking her, "Sometimes I think you'd rather just be friends with benefits" and her replying, "Depends on the day."
The "Fuck anyone who will fuck you" sentiment was not exactly unexpected - but I expected it from men. To have multiple female friends pushing me to use women for some kind of temporary satisfaction that can only be described as either a notch on the bedpost or a bandaid for the ego -- it's surprising.
While I would like to think that the women around me growing up were raised to expect more out of their men -- I'm starting to wonder if more and more people were raised to treat each other like meat and any deviation of that indicates some kind of obscure lack of manhood.
If being a man requires having mindless sex with emotionally insignificant women -- you all can start calling me a female now.
*I'm not.
Again - this might be because I grew up in a house with a mother and a sister who have been used and abused by single men - but I think that's not in my make-up. Apparently, because I have a penis I should be viewing the entire female population as a fleshlight with a pulse. What exactly is wrong with a little bit of self control and NOT fucking someone just because of lust or sexual chemistry?
Really - if I'm never seeing this woman again - why do I want to fuck her exactly? Cause I can? I've slept with enough people in my life - that the physical act of sleeping with someone, while awesome - doesn't exactly do it for me if there isn't some kind of deeper emotional or psychological connection. In fact - the last woman I broke up with was a direct response to me asking her, "Sometimes I think you'd rather just be friends with benefits" and her replying, "Depends on the day."
The "Fuck anyone who will fuck you" sentiment was not exactly unexpected - but I expected it from men. To have multiple female friends pushing me to use women for some kind of temporary satisfaction that can only be described as either a notch on the bedpost or a bandaid for the ego -- it's surprising.
While I would like to think that the women around me growing up were raised to expect more out of their men -- I'm starting to wonder if more and more people were raised to treat each other like meat and any deviation of that indicates some kind of obscure lack of manhood.
If being a man requires having mindless sex with emotionally insignificant women -- you all can start calling me a female now.
*I'm not.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Introducing: Operation 5
For those of you in the know, I've been on a self improvement kick lately. Now, I know you're all sitting there thinking, "Really, Charles? You were already so impressive - how could you possibly plan to improve on that?"
It's a good question. Let's go over what's been done already:
Family Sidenote #2: I like to blame the previous paragraph on my Father. Apparently there's some basic "man shit" that people are supposed to learn when they're growing up. I pretty much missed all that. So I stumble my way through assembling things. However when it comes to understanding the whole "Showing your interested while not looking too interested" thing, or the "Treat a woman like shit and she'll love you for it" thing -- I never got the memo. You'd figure with his history of infidelity my Dad could have at least left me a manual or something like American Pie - right? God knows my grandfather tried with his, "Just talk to them - what's the worst that can happen? They say no?" speech. That never quite made it into my subconscious it seems though. Apparently, "Hey what's up?" is enough to make new friends and shit - but for some reason I'm a little more contemplative than that and the fact that I don't look like Thor (yet) gets in my way.
So with the understanding that I got game like Lebron in the 4th quarter of a finals game - I decided there's got to be a way to fix this. Operation 5 is my answer.
Operation 5: Five Women, every night, with five rules, that can be overruled by five of my best friends.
The Five Rules:
It's a good question. Let's go over what's been done already:
- No smoking, drinking, or toking for 50 days
- Healthy eating
- Exercise every day
Family Sidenote #1: When I spoke to my mother recently about these changes - she seemed nervous. I can only assume this is because she knows I'm dangerously close to playing high and mighty with every member of the family who whines about eating healthy being hard or not having the time to exercise.... she's right to be nervous. They should get off their lazy asses.
So, with smoking out - eating and exercise in - there's really only one thing left to do: Flirt.
For those of you out of the know: I have no game. I mean NO game. This isn't anything new, either. It took me till 25 to realize that if a woman invites you into her place after a date there's a very good chance she doesn't ACTUALLY want to watch South Park.
Family Sidenote #2: I like to blame the previous paragraph on my Father. Apparently there's some basic "man shit" that people are supposed to learn when they're growing up. I pretty much missed all that. So I stumble my way through assembling things. However when it comes to understanding the whole "Showing your interested while not looking too interested" thing, or the "Treat a woman like shit and she'll love you for it" thing -- I never got the memo. You'd figure with his history of infidelity my Dad could have at least left me a manual or something like American Pie - right? God knows my grandfather tried with his, "Just talk to them - what's the worst that can happen? They say no?" speech. That never quite made it into my subconscious it seems though. Apparently, "Hey what's up?" is enough to make new friends and shit - but for some reason I'm a little more contemplative than that and the fact that I don't look like Thor (yet) gets in my way.
So with the understanding that I got game like Lebron in the 4th quarter of a finals game - I decided there's got to be a way to fix this. Operation 5 is my answer.
Operation 5: Five Women, every night, with five rules, that can be overruled by five of my best friends.
The Five Rules:
- Every night I go out with other people to a public place of drinking, or beaching, or partying - I must speak to 5 women.
- I will not fuck any of them
- The women can not be friends I already have
- If they make some kind of OBVIOUS advance at me - they will be informed that I'm not having sex again until December - and can have a date if they want to wait that long.
- Waiting until December can be overruled by a 3/5 vote of my Toronto female friends (The responses to the text messages when I told them this were HILARIOUS)
So that's Operation 5. It starts the next time I'm out with a crew - likely Thursday. My intention is to blog about it every time I try it - but we all know how I do with hard targets on blogging.
Footnote: Let it be known that part of my problem might "contemplative face" that I get sometimes when I'm out - where it's obvious I'm thinking really hard about something.... that shit's not sexy. People only say they want someone smart so their friends don't think they're superficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)