Rabbit Creative

Damn good comment high-jacked from Alternet:

One of the chief detriments of the so-called “information revolution” is the nature of information delivery: we get “factoids” — dismembered fragments of data delivered in such great numbers at so great a speed that developing the context and critical thinking necessary for real comprehension is, in most peoples’ cases, obviated. This easily places media like television and the internet almost by default at the service of prevailing establishment power. All that needs be done is to keep bombarding the populace with byte-sized disconnected chunks of emotionally resonant information which, given this dislocation from any corresponding or conflicting data and from any grounded theory of historic process, debases the very essential question of “how are we to live” to the point that such a question is little more than hollow entertainment. Fewer and fewer of us, struggling to keep body and soul together, have the time, energy, or inclination to develop the patience and epistemological grounding requisite to taking a well-reasoned, humane and ethical orientation to the constantly streaming flood of factoids which create in our minds “the world.”

It is essential that any well-intentioned vision of alternative futures not replace or sap a persistent effort to perceive, oppose and deconstruct the immoral, inhumane establishment structure of power and ideology. Until we are agreed on a clear and well-detailed picture of what we hope to change, to “envision alternate futures” is all too often just time and energy stolen from the liberation and transformation we pay lip service to and, through that distraction, perpetuation of the cruelties and injustices we all hope to remedy.

Here two opposing viewpoints:

Viewpoint 1:

Actually I can… we live on finite planet with finite resources. We
now have over 6.6 billion people here. The more people on the earth,
the smaller the resource pie becomes, especially when non- renewable
resources are starting to decline.

What an interesting time to be alive.

Viewpoint 2:

So you say we live on a finite planet with finite resources? Billions
of watts of power fall on our planet from an outside source every day.

If anything, it’s the zero-sum, finite-resource type of thinking tht’s
going to get us into trouble. Don’t fight over the pie, bake new
ones…

Given the dichotomy between viewpoint 1 and 2, I say the root problem is, as I’ve said before, fear.

Fear that if you don’t, someone else will; and the person that does will not be kind towards you.

It’s sad when common sense is eaten alive by fear and a cover-your-ass attitude.

I’m glad I was given the opportunity to see it firsthand, but I’m disheartened that it was there to see in the first place.

An entity claiming responsibility for all happenings that lacks the resources, expertise or motivation to actually act responsibly is not an entity that should exist. Doing otherwise sounds like a narcissistic god delusion to me. Proponents of god, like those of big government, claim their benevolent dictator can do more that it can.

The government (state-level government, I’m assuming here) dipped its creeping fingers into something it didn’t understand, or, more likely, didn’t care to understand. The result is a free iPhone, some nice code, decent designs and another nail in the coffin of the “land of the free and the home of the brave”.

Free indeed.

I’ve loosely followed the happenings over at the Consumerist for about a year now. Reading articles here and there and reading about half the comments for each article.

The articles themselves are decent. They’re revealing and interesting to read.

Some of the comments, however, are a different story. The following were taken from this article:

Our bank has me properly trained.

All I had to do was upgrade my account to playa level, in accordance with the higher balance, and I could use a lot more of my money daily.

Wanting to make a purchase @ Best Buy, and he Banks with Bank of America?? That’s like admitting you are a stupid consumer.

If you can afford to put it on the debit card, you can just as well put it on the credit card and immeidately pay down the balance without incurring interest. This is credit cards 101 stuff here LOL.

They reek of playing by the rules and using workarounds to “correct” an issue that, in my mind, shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

On a positive note, there are some level-headed, reasonable commentators as well.

I think the OP has a right to be mad. It’s HIS money.

“OP” means “original poster,” and usually refers to the author of the article about which people are commenting.

I think it is a big deal that he was denied access to his own money. It’s not Bank of America’s money, it’s his money.

I’d like to focus on this comment for a moment:

I am so sick of consumers like you who think there’s no problem anywhere until something happens to you personally, and that if problems happen to others its their fault because they are not as slick or whatever as you are.

See anything odd?

This part, I am so sick of consumers like you…

I’ve been noticing this house of mirrors kind of dichotomy for quite some time.

It’s one in which I must be very careful about the language I use. Each word is both ally and enemy. Use a word in one context and it becomes a scholar of truth. The same word in a different context can turn on you like beaten dog. And some words, ought not be used at all.

In its common usage, “consumer” is one of them.

Using the term “consumer” as a description of a human being is like throwing your chips into the pile. You’ve agreed to play the game. Their game. A game you cannot win because of the very definition of the word.

Sure, everyone consumes. Consume food. Consume “goods.” Consume air. “Consumer” doesn’t seem like such a bad word. Does it?

Have you ever met someone that was able to argue their way into or out of anything? Regardless of how ridiculous their stance may have sounded in the beginning, you were eventually able to see their point of view.

Like most things, language isn’t permanent. Quite literally, a word means no more and no less than what I say it does. In my mind and in my communications. You can agree or disagree to use it in the same way. The practice of “rewiring” words is deceptive. It’s also common. The best defense is to be aware of it.

Words are like opinions. Opinions are subjective. You understand what I am saying because of the agreed upon definitions of the words I am using. Or you don’t. Or you understand some, but not all. Or you understand, but disagree. The last one is rare.

Now, imagine for a moment that you and I are good friends with staggering wealth. We agree to redefine a word, say, “consumer,” to mean “unit of consumption that leads to profit.”

With our financial influence we begin to use the word “consumer” in all communications. The word, to a degree, fits, or makes sense, in the contexts it is being used, and so catches on.

Finally, you take the bait. “I’m a consumer, damn it! I have rights!”

No, no you don’t. Humans have rights. Consumers, per the game (context) you’re playing, do not.

Same word, different contexts. I use the word context here to describe a social climate. By social climate I mean a rather large group of humans who subscribe to a certain set of rules. This is that. This is considered good form, that isn’t. So on and so forth. I don’t call it culture because I believe culture to mean something produced serendipitously over time, not arbitrarily as in my above example.

Now we come full circle. The very name of the website, “consumerist.com,” leads me to believe the people engaged therein have all agreed to step into yours and mine’s house of mirrors. No matter how much progress they make in “improving” it, we will always be the game masters. Should they come close to completion, with a stroke of the pen we will return them to the beginning. New restrictions, new technicalities, new rules. Unending rules. Arbitrary rules. Rules designed to keep them minimally satisfied, and always busy enough to prevent them from really thinking about the situation they’re in.

If you’ve come this far, and I trust you have because I believe you to be intelligent, it is of the utmost importance that you realize there are games within games. Breaking out of one is often not good enough. There are many games we have been fooled into playing.

I’ll end this by saying that simple is good. If a system is so big you can’t hold the entire thing in your head at once, it’s too complex. Break it down and distribute. The Constitution is a small, relatively simple document. The IRS tax code is a large, complex document.

I was poking around Ron’s site via a link from SvN and found that he has written quite a few essays. I read one entitled What Does Freedom Really Mean? and loved it!

Before I found the essays I peeked at the Issues link but didn’t find anything of substance. “I want to know what this guy thinks!” I thought to myself. The media certainly doesn’t give him (or anyone else) the time required to really elaborate how he feels about things, so these essays are important.

Enjoy!

Fear is a powerful motivator. And it’s fear that has led us to where we are. Fear that if we don’t strike first, someone else will.

And that’s it. That’s our entire story. Groups of people, across great distances and long time periods were afraid that someone would come and usurp their way of life, so they sought to do the same to others. Only they would do it first.

“You’re with us or against us!” comes from behind locked doors. The speaker’s forehead sweaty and furrowed. Grimy, shaking hands wield knives they hope to use against those who feel differently. You might think that behind that door all is merry and bright, but I say nay, even amonst themselves they will cut and chew. Break each other’s necks and struggle internally about a notion unaccepted. A notion they lied about to get in in the first place. A notion that, voiced, would end their tenure inside that coveted room.

All this is in response to fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of self. Absolute terror in being alive. Those that hate, fear the most.

Know fear. Know yourself. Know peace.

The world is like a ride in an amusement park…

A comment at Human Events:

Its all about power and control, freedom has to many elements which cannot be controlled, watch zeitgeist movie and learn! there is nothing you can do about it, the world will be better for it. your not Americans, your not Canadians, your not Mexicans, your humans and one day the world will be one place and one government. The world is a single organism and an organism at war with itself is doomed. Its all for the greater good. The revolution is now and you don’t even know it! mwah ha ha!

The part in bold was quoted from Zeitgeist.

I’m not certain of the commenter’s viewpoint or intentions, but it appears as though he’s using the film against itself.

But unified government is not the answer. The world is at war, not because people are inherently bad, but because we have been taught that we are inherently bad and need to be “governed.”

Again, that’s fear talking. Censorhsip is essentially not wanting, or stopping, someone from thinking or seeing something. Fear is an easy way to do that. Let’s not think about how things could be because the enemy is just over that hill, waiting to strike! Follow me, a ‘fraidy cat… believe as I do that someone out there is trying to hurt you… but if you don’t believe me, I’ll hurt you…

It’s just a ride. And rollercoasters are scary. Don’t hold me hostage though; it’ll be over soon.

This post is erratic. However, upon watching this, most importantly between the 25th and 29th minute, and then reading, or re-reading as the case may be, I feel you will better understand. That is, if you wish to understand.

The audience member’s question was that in people changing what the bill of rights says changes our actual rights. The speaker is saying that no, changing the text does not change rights, because rights transcend the text. He, like myself, and probably even you, have not grown with what the text implies; we have not embodied it. Because we are not fighting for those rights we do not define ourselves by those rights. Instead, we read the text, and then try to apply what we understand of it through our lens of reality — the reality of blockbuster movies, pathetic government, invasive advertising, TV and computer screens. Want for a lethal weapon could certainly seem unnecessary when the only bad guys are on your computer screen or tucked far away in another country.

The very concept of a right is just that — a concept. An idea. A notion. A belief. Your rights are gone the moment you cease to believe you have them.

It is here we get into the dirty details. If I believe I have a right to kill people, then I very well have that right. You, however, may disagree with that right. What happens after that I leave to you to decide.

In general the speaker is saying: here are ten rights that people who lived before us believed all people have at birth and forever more. I happen to agree with those ten rights, therefore I stand before you today telling you about them.

In a word, he’s marketing. He’s marketing the concept, idea, notion and belief that these ten rights are inalienable, that they are part of being alive.

What happens is that people agree or disagree with that belief. Those who agree will stand up and do what they feel is necessary to preserve those rights. Those who do not agree, or are uncertain, will let others act for them.

And that is where America stands. Uncertain, unaware, uncaring. It’s a cultural thing.

Compared to myself, and I bet compared to you who is reading this, our forefathers had difficult lives. They sailed across the sea. They fought battles. They argued amongst themselves on how to run a country. You and I sit in our chairs reading on the Internet, listening to radio on our stereos. If we’re thirsty we get up and grab a root beer.

Our mindset is probably very different than that of ANYONE who lived two-hundred-plus years ago. The idea that anyone can own and carry a weapon probably seems scary.

But have you ever asked why? And when you were provided with an answer, did you ask why again? And again and again, over and over until the person you were asking went mad?

I was recently called a rebel. I was offended. I’m not a rebel, I simply like asking questions. Questions that, I have good reason to believe, some would rather I not ask…

I would like to direct your attention to this excellent breakdown of presidential candidates and their stance on some important issues. I’m not sure how accurate it is, but when I saw how many things Ron Paul and I disagree on, I became saddened. If not Ron Paul, who?

Dennis Kucinich, of course!

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner.

It’s interesting, to finally be affected by something. I live in a mode and place that shelters me from a lot of what goes on in politics. I don’t own a gun, I don’t do crazy things with my money, I don’t own a business, I don’t interact with other countries. Oh yeah, I’m white and a native US citizen, too. I suppose that helps.

But today is different. Granted, it’s not really a political movement that’s affecting me, but it does the music industry, who undoubtedly lobby congress for certain changes. So in a way it’s still a political issue. Anywho…

Today, all internet radio stations participating are silent. (Or close to it… the only station I’ve tried, Groove Salad, is looping a stream briefly detailing what’s going on.) This affects me.

If you regularly listen to internet radio, it affects you. Granted, it may only affect you for one day, but it’s a demonstration of what could become.

Now, that’s not the really interesting part. What IS interesting is the following scenario:

Copyright Royalty Board institutes higher royalties for songs played. Internet radio stations shut down. People get upset and band together. Band of upset people realize, after being beaten and thrown in jail, they no longer have the right to get upset and band together.

If the scenario sounds unfinished or lacking, then you’re not paying attention to what’s going on in the US government.

Boiled frog, anyone?

That’s how well Peter Birkenhead nailed it in a Salon article about self-doubt:

But our generation has erected a culture that confuses happiness with a lack of discomfort, and leadership with an almost psychotic form of false optimism. We have ingeniously insulated ourselves from self-scrutiny and fear. We tuck ourselves away in gated communities, hibernate in food courts, or sleep in front of televisions, swathed in layer upon layer of soft and soporific comfort to protect ourselves from the bracing draft of doubt. We can barely feel our own culture anymore.

Beautiful, man. Beautiful.

Anywho, to actually add something to his piece, I’d like to say that my personal insulation has puncture holes all throughout. I see crazy shit like this on YouTube (fixed, thanks, Marquis) and I realize that at any moment, something similar could happen to myself or someone I love. Now, I wouldn’t say I’m afraid of something like that happening, but I’m aware it could happen, and that changes my perspective.

This is similar to those instances where someone does some stupid shit while driving and I call them out on it. My last incident on the road involved someone almost running a stop sign. I slowed to a stop in the middle of the road, rolled down my window and stared at the two guys sitting in the front of a beat up Cadillac. The driver got out and said something to the effect of, “Mother fucker if you don’t get the hell out the way I swear on my mom I’m gonna fucking kill you.”

I didn’t blink.

Instead I lit up my tires and watched as the former bad ass grew an expression of surprise and stepped back.

He didn’t follow me.

Here’s how I see situations like that: if you really want to kill me over something silly, your head is in the wrong place, and there’s nothing I can do about that.

PS: The video I linked to was filmed in Las Vegas. Looks like it was taken in the parking lot of the big General store on Sahara and Las Vegas Blvd.

This post is mostly about the awesome Cluetrain Manifesto, available online, in its entirety, for free!

It’s been out for a while. It’s been mentioned a few times over at Creating Passionate Users (sadly, it appears CPU is but a dark, hardened shell of its former self). I’ve even read the 95 Theses at least once before.

But today, on this lame Friday, I’m reading it. At work. “Work.” Hehe…

Anywho, here’s a few kick ass excerpt:

Knowledge worth having comes from turned-on volitional attention, not from slavishly following someone else’s orders. Innovation based on such knowledge is exciting, inflammatory, even “dangerous,” because it tends to challenge fixed procedures and inflexible policies. While collaboration has been paid much lip service within corporations, few have attempted it beyond their own boundaries. Ironically, companies that remain “secure” within those boundaries will be cut off from the global marketplace with which they must engage in order to survive and prosper.

The fervor that produced the first wild-oats crop of intranets surely didn’t come from the CIOs who got quoted in Business Week. Workers have had it with repressive management that just gets in the way. Markets have had it with hyperbole-laden corporate rhetoric that’s 99 percent hot air. The next huge opportunity for business is to bring workforce and market together. And companies smart enough to realize this start instigating a potent form of internal anarchy.

Unfortunately, such companies are rare exceptions. Most are hanging on for dear life to the one thing they think they can’t live without: control. But they only think they’re in control. Feeling their real abilities and contributions have gone unappreciated, many employees simply do what they feel like doing anyway, giving as little as possible to the company. They punch the clock and that’s it. The relationship is adversarial as hell. If you look into it closely, though, the company has almost invariably set things up this way — by not trusting people to take the initiative, to be engaged, motivated, intelligent, creative, innovative. It’s a long, sad story with roots that go back to the early industrial era.

One definition of community is a group of people who care about each other more than they have to. This isn’t a business exchange, even remotely. It is conversation, the verbal glue binding people separated by geography into a community. Chat’s important to us corporate types because it’s a medium where it’s almost impossible to operate within the old rules. Because chat is a “live” medium, there’s little leeway for faking a voice, for a sophist approximation of a person. You can adopt a new persona, but youíre going to need to button it all the way up and live it, or we’ll be able to tell there’s someone else underneath. Chat is CB radio on steroids. It’s immediate and unwashed. If you can’t type and think at the same time, you’re in deep weeds. We can’t broadcast, can’t message, can’t spew corporate pabulum in a chat environment. If business could successfully integrate chat into its marketing universe, companies would be on their way to shaking off some of the mass-media shackles separating them from customers.

We know that the real purpose of marketing is to insinuate the message into our consciousness, to put an axe in our heads without our noticing. Like it or not, they will teach us to sing the jingle and recite the slogan. If the axe finds its mark we toe the line, buy the message, buy the product, and don’t talk back. For the axe of marketing is also meant to silence us, to make conversation in the market as unnecessary as the ox cart.

Ironically, many of us spend our days wielding axes ourselves. In our private lives we defend ourselves from the marketing messages out to get us, our defenses made stronger for having spent the day at work trying to drive axes into our customers’ heads. We do both because the axe is already there, the metaphorical embodiment of that wedge Toffler wrote about—the one that divides our jobs from our lives. On the supply side is the producer; on the demand side is the consumer. In the caste system of industry, it is bad form for the two to exchange more than pleasantries.

Okay, I now I feel like I’m ripping half the book. Hmm… I know! I’ll provide a link (scroll back up, it’s on top!).

But how can a business be authentic? Authenticity describes whether someone truly owns up to what she or he actually is. Since corporations and businesses aren’t individuals, ultimately their authenticity is rooted in the employees. If the company is posing, then the people who are the company will have to pose as well. If, on the other hand, the company is comfortable living up to what it is, then an enormous cramp in the corporate body language goes away. The marketing people won’t create throwaway lines that are clever but false. The sales folk will walk away from the “sales opportunities” that the company is better off losing than having to support. The product developers won’t propose features that look good on paper but do their customers no real good.

Emphasis my own. Those last two sentences are SO FUCKING TRUE! I wish the people in this shitty company (that’s right, I said it) could see themselves running around trying to act like a big, bad ass corporation (something they’re clearly not, and at least in my mind, shouldn’t want to become). Losers.