Long rambling response.
I had a woman, a photographer, apparently liberal, and obviously pissed off, write a comment in response to our proposed project. I accidentally hit submit before I could sign my name and wish her a happy thanksgiving. Here, reprinted for your enjoyment, is her comment, and my response. Go to her website to confirm one of my parting shots.
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.
18 Comments so far
-
Argon November 22nd, 2006 7:09 pm
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?
-
johnson November 22nd, 2006 7:56 pm
Argon, first of all, i know who you’re in cahoots with. I’ll address, and attempt to debunk, your critique, which frankly sounds like a rehashed/toned down moogirl diatribe.
“Do you really think a bumper sticker with a dead solder’s name on it is going to change economics?”
No. First of all, on the dead soldier thing. Its soldier not solder. Which, in case you didn’t know, is any alloy fused and applied to the joint between metal objects to unite them without heating the objects to the melting point. That cheap shot aside (yeah at least I can admit it when I make em) I believe that any action that causes anger/questioning/indignation in regards to the war/environment/consumerism is worth making. Any act that can shock us out of our narrow paths, be it violently, righteously or otherwise, is a noble and worthwhile act. Its kind of a P.T. Barnum situation. Action is needed. Questions are needed. Any of either are beneficial. Soldiers are attention getters. If you read my original essay, you would know that the mention of the soldiers is to provoke a ready connection between
thoughtless acts of consumption and the death of a real person, with a name and all that comes with having a name.“I don’t question your intention, I question your methods. And I question your style of getting the message across.”
That’s a bit redundant, but I’ll skip that. Ok my methods: I assume you mean the act of applying a sticker, easily removed, to someones modus transportatus. The sticker tag has two things going for it: it humilates (and perhaps enrages) the owner of the vehicle, and the vehicle itself acts as a roving billboard (until the sticker comes off) spreading the message. I think its prudent to note this website. Please look at it: http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/80377
Does that change anything? It should, I think.Ok next issue:
“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.”
This argument is worthless. If the consumers demanded more efficient technology, the companies would be forced to build it. Lets look, instead of at the electric car, (which is limiting at best, yeah I saw the movie, thanks) at politics. When politicians fuck up they get kicked out next go ’round. We just saw this happen on a large scale, no? The voters (substitute consumers) spoke, and the problem was removed. Its not as if there is a efficient car shortage, and people are forced to buy SUVs. They do it by choice. So: junk argument.
Wow this is fun!
“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?”
Ok, how about because the oil shortage ended? Or if that doesnt work for you (I would say its 90 percent of the answer, and documented) how about cause if those proposals were adopted by the government, the car companies would have shot them down in court. (see the California zero emissions act)
“The consumers would’ve bought Hybrids before and what about the electric car that was shoved to the back shelf?”
Battery technology has only recently made either viable. How about a more practical solution: ethanol. No new tech needed.
“Is a bumper sticker about dead soldiers going increase the supply of (hybrids, electric cars)”
No, but it might, just might, help increase demand.
“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.”
Your right! Whats going to make that happen? Dissatisfaction with the availible product, terror in the form of global war, governmental regulations. But the seed has to start somewhere. I dont want to wait until a neo fascist government needs to save us, or a global war destroys us. How do you propose to get the message out? Whats your solution?
Lastly: SUVs are needless vehicles. They are like mtn bikes in that 90 percent of their owners never take them off road. Minivans do the same job, better and more efficently, not to mention more comfortably. Before SUVs came along, there were all wheel drive Minivans that could handle dirt roads and snow and ice better than most SUVs. They are safer. Waiting for the consumer to make the right choice is no longer an option. They’ve made their choice. They killed the right answer and bought into the wrong one. Consumers need to be smacked, hard, to wake up from their ignorance nap. They have literally fallen asleep at the wheel. The bumper sticker will wake their asses up. It doesnt provide a answer, beyond the concept of better choices lead to more positive results. But I think that
is a damn good starting place. -
Argon November 22nd, 2006 8:01 pm
Yes, they’ll wake up and lynch you and that will end your feeble attempts since you don’t want an honest debate on the merits.
-
Moogirl November 22nd, 2006 9:27 pm
Wow, I see you save all the good snark for your own site. Might I inquire as to what you drive, I mean if you have a vehical besides your bicycle?
-
Moogirl November 22nd, 2006 9:35 pm
And just so your readers know, I not only left a comment on your site, I did an entire post on the banality of your little bumper sticker project.
And the “parting shot” was that I look like Ann Coulter. I’m still hurting.
And just so you can find said “parting shot” easier:
http://joanofsnark.blogspot.com/2006/11/im-little-cranky.html#links
Feel free to join in, he can use all the help he can get.
-
Argon November 22nd, 2006 11:31 pm
Obviously he feels safer in his home turf since he can sneer at typos, use guilt by association, dismiss any argument he doesn’t like out of hand and other failures of logic like jumping on like jumping on the Right Wing bandwagon to try and prove his point. It might sell a lot of t-shirts and bumper stickers but it won’t change the corporations policies.
Dissatification with his tasteless bumper stickers isn’t going to increase demand for more energy efficient cars, it’s going to increase demand for him to be burned at the stake, that’s what appealing the instincts he’s going after will provoke more than anything
-
johnson November 23rd, 2006 6:19 am
Moogirl, you dipshit. Your comments are amazing! You and your buddy, who is actually even more stupid that you, havn’t raised one valid point! I posted my comment about how you look like Ann Coulter on my webpage! I didnt hide it.
Argon: its appropriate that you are named after a gas. And a boring one at that. I’m pretty sure stake burning and lynching have their spiritual home in left wing ideology. Oh wait! Thats straight up Michael Richards shit! Talk about intolerance.
Futher, I love this quote:
“Yes, they’ll wake up and lynch you and that will end your feeble attempts since you don’t want an honest debate on the merits.”
What merits are you talking about? Don’t you know how to contextualize? Sure sure, get on me for not answering your question that has no implied subject! I like how neither of you right wing nut jobs with liberal hats on has answered or addressed any of the issues I have brought up except Nazism. (which was an exceedingly valid comparison)Moogirl: why should I answer your request to know what I drive when you havnt answered any of my questions?
I live in a town where cars arnt really needed. Buses and bikes and gloves and hats when its cold.Also: Moogirl: Allow me to quote:
“And just so your readers know, I not only left a comment on your site, I did an entire post on the banality of your little bumper sticker project.And the “parting shot” was that I look like Ann Coulter. I’m still hurting.”
Your personal blog post was just a bland rehash of the stuff in the post you posted here. So why would I link you? I really like the parting shot comment, lets hear it again:
“And the “parting shot” was that I look like Ann Coulter. I’m still hurting.” ”
This sentance, and its placement, directly implies that you wrote that you look like Ann Coulter in your personal post. Nice. Smooth, even. Are you in college yet?
Argon: Your mindlessness is beyond me. Check this whopper out!
“Obviously he feels safer in his home turf since he can sneer at typos”
Where else am I going to sneer at you jerk face? Its not like you posted that comment on your blog! Do you want me to call you with it? Arrange a time for tea? Call in to a radio show? Write an editorial to the Washington Post?You sink lower:
“failures of logic like jumping on like jumping on the Right Wing bandwagon to try and prove his point.”Wow nice typo! I never jumped on the right wing wagon asshole. I was showing you that link to prove the contempt right wing consumers have for the consequences of the war. Obviously you were too fucking thick to get that though.
-
starmer November 23rd, 2006 9:01 am
-
Moogirl November 23rd, 2006 10:16 am
Johnson, right after I eat my turkey, I’m going to kill myself! Just before I do that, be forewarned, I’m going to cop both these pictures and put them on my site. Is it still plagiarism if you TELL someone you’re stealing their stuff? I don’t know, food for another debate.
All I want to know is, how long did it take for you to find a picture of Coulter in a pose so similar to mine? You dog! My hat is off to you, my friend, credit where credit is due. I am both amused and horrified, and thinking very seriously about dying my hair black!
All right, enough of this fluffy, gooey, Thanksgiving Day crap. This evening, the gloves come off and turkey will fly!
Hope you have a good one,
Moo -
Moogirl November 23rd, 2006 10:42 am
Forgive me, I just realized that the credit for the photos goes to someone named Starmer. Evil knows no bounds!
I’m still stealing it :>
-
juan carlos November 23rd, 2006 4:33 pm
coulter’s a nut job all right, but is fairly attractive. and is moo married to an oil tycoon? i bet her left arm is pretty strong from carrying around that rock all day.
hope everyone had their fill of turkey.
and now back to tryptophan induced ranting… -
David Taylor November 27th, 2006 11:57 am
johnson
In regards to your above posts:
You are the most condecending, arrogant, indecent, elitist, PUNK I have had ever the misfortune of stumbling across in the blog world.
And if I mispelled something, Fuck you.
Actually, Fuck you anyways.
-
Johnson November 27th, 2006 2:49 pm
David: I’m glad to see that republicans like you are so commited to honest debate and taking the high moral ground. Obviously thats a hallmark of your party, and always has been. You and your cronies havnt raised a single valid point, at all, yet, Nor have you successfully rebutted any of my arguments. But, I suppose you dont have to, having the high moral ground you are so noted for.
-
Sean Chaney November 30th, 2006 4:34 pm
awesome in its hilarity. are fillets souless too? I’m interested.
-
Sean Chaney November 30th, 2006 5:42 pm
I can’t help it. I know I’m late to the party here, and I’m really not trying to rehash old shit, but I’m jumping in and am eagerly looking forward to a rebuttal.
Here’s the thing: from my perspective anyone who takes a hard line in the guise of environmentalism is fundamentally a hypocrite unless they’re growing all their own raw materials on some kind of hippie commune and don’t use one iota of “manufactured” raw materials.
It’s easy to single out SUV’s because they’re a slow moving, overly consuming, bulbous target. Manufacturers, consumers and ad agencies can share the blame. But what about the house you live in? How about the bikes you ride? Where do you think the 2×4s that are likely to be holding up your house came from? They probably came from a clear-cut out here in my territory and worse, they were probably hauled across the country by some means of transportation that required hundreds of pounds of petrol based product to get it there.
Where does the steel, aluminum and titanium (not to mention brass and silver) come from that was used to build your (and my) bikes? It’s quite probable that those materials were collected from a mining operation that left a huge hole in the earth, facilitated erosion and used thousands of pounds of petrol based products to excavate, collect and then deliver them to a manufacturer who then used countless toxic chemicals to alloy them into an ingot that was sent to a mill that used machines run off of electricity (probably not wind powered either) to make the tubes or forgings or castings.
I was thinking about all this while folding my freshly machine dried laundry in my house that was constructed of wood, while standing on a freshly laid floor (bamboo – a point for me for using a quickly renewable resource). I get most of my electric energy from wind power and I ride around this great city on my bike as often as possible. I’ve also converted most of my cycling gear to wool and I recycle every available scrap…but that doesn’t make me immune to consumerism, the effects of the war or from contributing to the destruction of society in general.
This whole notion is a war that can’t be won. People can make noise all they want, take part in guerilla tactics to get the attention of others, do everything in their power (but everyone has a limit, right?) to make good on the health of the environment and society as a whole, but you can’t win because every single item you touch has played a role in the very system you (the collective “you”) detest.
I’m not implying that we, as individuals, shouldn’t do what we think is necessary to make things better; we absolutely should and it’s great to share ideas with others. It’s just that no one is truly righteous and despite our best efforts, we can’t MAKE anyone do anything.
-
Mislead December 1st, 2006 8:44 am
So, where did the original post go? I was showing it to friends last night and then this morning it’s gone, just kind of wondering, liked reading the long list of commentary. And for the record, someone who picks apart other peoples’ grammar is searching for an easier argument than the one that is being debated. Just food for thought. And Moo, you’re really pretty and I think your point is very valid indeed. Johnson, why don’t you just use your own money to make your stickers? It’s only like $600, I make that extra every few weeks, and I’m just 22. Just curious. Another thing, so you are NOT a consumer and you make all of your products that you use yourself, and never ever splurge on any expenditure. I bet the lake is cold this time of year while you are washing your clothes in it. You should try using rollerblades instead of a bicycle, they use fewer parts and cost less as well. Don’t forget the computer you’re currently typing on, because they’re not technically a necessity, so you shouldn’t really own it, maybe sell it to get the money for your sticker project? Also, and finally, why did you feel the need to post that idea in the first place? To exercise your freedom of speech? Did you really need funds? I mean, $600 isn’t really that much money especially if it’s for a cause as righteous as yours…or did you want to post it and have everyone paying attention to you and debating on your forum? Just curious.
-
Johnson December 1st, 2006 8:57 am
Mislead: I was sick of responding to the same dumb questions/accusations again and again. When I was 22 I could afford 600bucks, no problem. I had a job and all that crap. I commuted on a train to my job. Anyway, I went back to school, where I am now, and have no money, cause there is not time to work a job. I’m not against the capitalist system, as so many people seem to think. I think people should be able to buy smart things, expensive things, pretty things. I, however, do think, that its the consumer’s responsability to purchase products that have a minimal negative impact. Go ahead and spend 45 grand on car. Make it electric. Spend the extra money and have a custom house built. Put solar panels on it though, and buy whatever extra energy you need from a renewable source. Grow veggies, dont buy them. Dont eat foods out of season in regards to where you live. Its not rocket science. I’m not against consumerism, I’m against what it attempts to justify. On the grammar note: I was making a point. I constantly am accused of being an idiot, a moron, blah blah, and I was just sort of turning that back on the user. On the bikes/rollerblades thing. Bikes are the most efficent form of transport known to man. Rollerblades arnt. Besides, I live up a big hill. Rollerblades dont climb well. Also, cant carry groceries, lumber, the water that I drink that I get from a local stream, the sewing machine my wife uses to make clothes, to the repair store, ect ect ect.
Also: the useful life span of a good bike is far longer than a pair of plastic rollerblades. The useful lifespan of a good bike is at least 3 times that of a car, while we’re at it. -
Rick December 1st, 2006 3:52 pm
I see you deleted my post. Guess you will delete this one as well. Just goes to show what type of character you have. Of course your bumper sticker idea already did that.
Leave a reply
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 blames where it belongs. Perhaps then you will actually accomplish something worthwhile.