After about a year of thinking about it, I'm shutting down FBB. I thought for a long time that I was just taking a break but now it's clear that it's over. I think of entries and write them in my head, like I used to, but now they float right out of my brain after I've "written" them. They don't linger like they used to, pestering me until I put them on the page for you all to read. The reason, I think, is clear.
I started this blog a few years ago as a way to make me write, on a daily basis, and as a way to counter my corporate existence. Now, I write daily on my scripts and I no longer have the corporate life. Weird how that works. Perhaps the blog willed my new life into existence. Now when I have thoughts that I might have explored in the blog, I explore them in my stories or jot them in a journal to be explored another time. The personal exposure got me into a bit of trouble as well and turned me off of the full disclosure feeling of the blog. But again, a script is as personal as writing can be and everything I am not putting down here will end up at some point on the page.
Thank you dear friends and readers! This site will remain archived at: http://fluffybunnybutts.blogspot.com/.
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An unreasonable man
Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Eight products that I don't need
When I was in the UK, I stocked up on an over-the-counter lip cream for cold sores. It comes in a tiny tube and has 5% Acyclovir. Cold sores go away almost instantly with this cream which is available only by prescription in the U.S. I don't have a doctor and have only had health insurance about 6 of the 16 years that I've lived away from home. Needless to say, I won't pay for the doctor visit to get the prescription (that has to be represcribed every two years EVEN THOUGH herpes simplex is a very common virus that you can't get rid of) and can't afford to pay for the drug anyway.
In the U.S., there are no less than eight over-the-counter remedies for cold sores. All with a drug other than Acyclovir, and none of them work. I know because I've had cold sores since I was four and have tried everything. They don't have any of these "other" remedies in the UK because they don't NEED them. The one that works is available to everyone and it's cheap, cheaper even than our non-remedies. The cost of the Acyclovir cream in the UK is $6 for the generic brand and $8 for Zovirax, the name brand, compared to about $50 here for a prescription for Zovirax and $6-12 for our OTC products.
Our entire pharmaceutical industry works like this, marketing dozens of useless products to suckers like me who can't get the real deal and then charging a small fortune for prescription drugs. But here's what I find most interesting. GlaxoSmithKline makes Abreva, the over-the-counter remedy that I had been using, and they're the SAME COMPANY as GlaxoWellcome that makes Zovirax!
So these jerks are charging us ten times more than the Europeans are paying for the same drug, but keep access to it so restricted that they can make even more money marketing products to us that we don't even want! It's a total racket. How much longer are we going to put up with this?
If you have examples, please post. Thanks!
In the U.S., there are no less than eight over-the-counter remedies for cold sores. All with a drug other than Acyclovir, and none of them work. I know because I've had cold sores since I was four and have tried everything. They don't have any of these "other" remedies in the UK because they don't NEED them. The one that works is available to everyone and it's cheap, cheaper even than our non-remedies. The cost of the Acyclovir cream in the UK is $6 for the generic brand and $8 for Zovirax, the name brand, compared to about $50 here for a prescription for Zovirax and $6-12 for our OTC products.
Our entire pharmaceutical industry works like this, marketing dozens of useless products to suckers like me who can't get the real deal and then charging a small fortune for prescription drugs. But here's what I find most interesting. GlaxoSmithKline makes Abreva, the over-the-counter remedy that I had been using, and they're the SAME COMPANY as GlaxoWellcome that makes Zovirax!
So these jerks are charging us ten times more than the Europeans are paying for the same drug, but keep access to it so restricted that they can make even more money marketing products to us that we don't even want! It's a total racket. How much longer are we going to put up with this?
If you have examples, please post. Thanks!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wired sells out to Monsanto
I picked up my new Wired magazine and immediately read their cover story, an inflammatory ‘environmentalists are full of shit’ piece. It really pissed me off. They end their series of anti-arguments based on facts focused around cutting carbon dioxide, with a “take it with a grain of salt" letter from the editor of Worldchanging.com. He basically says the article is a short-lens focus that could get us into even more trouble. Isn’t the damage already done with a cover like “Keep your SUV, forget organics and screw the spotted owl?” I suppose it would be okay if they were using it to get people reading but then dole out some actual wisdom inside, but they don’t.
Here are my reactions to the articles:
1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.
2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.
3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.
4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.
5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.
6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.
7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.
8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?
9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.
10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?
I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.
Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:
Here are my reactions to the articles:
1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.
2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.
3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.
4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.
5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.
6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.
7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.
8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?
9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.
10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?
I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.
Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The power of one
Sitting on the bus this morning, I was listening to music, sipping my coffee, and watching other people. There were a handful of people on the bus who were doing a bunch of things at once - reading the newspaper, drinking coffee, checking their Blackberry's, talking on the phone, playing with their hair (girls play with their hair a lot I've noticed). There was a sense that they just couldn't take in enough information, but not information in the observation sense - take my co-worker who was surprised to see a dead deer on the road. In the six months that she's been taking the bus down the 280 she's never noticed a) other dead deer b) the signs that say watch for deer and c) the DEER that are eating grass on the side of the highway. She doesn't miss a day reading the paper but isn't even taking in the information around her.
So I start thinking about how bizarre it is that humans are so interested in what other humans are doing, and how I observe humans but not any more than I observe anything - plants, animals, weather, stars. There's not much in the news about what animals are doing unless it relates somehow to what humans are doing with animals. Same with plants and space and weather. It reminds me of the hilarious comment from a lecture on environmental sustainability that a natural disaster is only considered a disaster if it kills humans. A million cows killed by Mad Cow (a disease we potentially caused) isn't a tragedy but 10,000 people killed in a mudslide is.
I was feeling like someone from Heroes who has seen the future and knows that what everyone is madly doing at this moment is so inconsequential to the big picture and so soon to be obsolete. I haven't seen the future and I don't know what it is but I'm pretty sure that the industrial age is about to come to an end. The age in which we set up factories and machines to exploit natural resources and human labor to create goods. The age in which we work in these factories to make money to buy the stuff that's made in them. It's mostly coming to an end because we're going to run out of resources to exploit but also, I think, because the kind of change that we need to make in the coming years for our species and civilization to survive will need to happen quickly and be motivated by much more than profit.
The age that's going to replace it is the age of the individual - but not everyone will be an individual. In this age, individuals, not corporations, are in charge. Companies still exist but they work for us instead of the other way around. A people-powered world where we don't have to demand change and yet suffer the constraints of an old system, we'll just collective make the change. Individuals are much quicker to adapt than companies. Think about it. How long did it take people to buy into the iPhone? Something that was literally revolutionary six months ago is now commonplace. Did people have to be cajoled into using it? No. Now think about wi-fi and the fact that if it were up to PEOPLE, all cities would be wi-fi enabled. I'd be happy to pay a monthly fee to access public wi-fi, or pay it in taxes, or not at all. But we don't have it because the communication companies spent a billion dollars laying fiber optic cable so they keep us in the dark ages (while people in developing nations access wi-fi on tiny handheld computers run that on solar power!) because they need to make money off of their investment.
Individuals are more innovative than think tanks, better benefactors than governments, better employers than corporations, better organizers than unions, and better reporters than newspapers. One could make an argument that certain things need infrastructure, like communication, but in the wi-fi scenario, that just isn't the case. Transportation, maybe, but again if individuals were in control, we'd be putting our money into railroads instead of airplanes. Big business runs the world but they're losing their grip. More people are using sites like Craigslist, eBay and Amazon to buy and sell from each other instead of companies. Etsy lets individuals sell things they've made to other people, things that are more interesting and cheaper than a lot of "made in China" crap from Target. Celebrities and philanthropists like Bill Gates and Richard Branson are doing more to change the world than our president.
In the age of the individual, reputation is everything, and these people who aren't working for the common good can no longer hide in a corporation or the White House. Microfinance is taking banks out of the equation by letting people lend money to each other. And people are starting to see that health care as something employers need to provide just isn't viable. Too many people now don't have an employer. More and more people are working from home, creating their own jobs, their own businesses and deciding how and when they want to work. We're deconstructing the power structure that was royalty, religion, government and business and increasingly breaking the world down in smaller bits that connect in new, random and spontaneous ways. We're starting to look like the internet - a place where literally anything can happen. This change adds more checks and balances to every interaction and ultimately makes us all much more accountable to each other.
There were three articles in Rolling Stone this month about big recording acts not renewing their record contracts and either going straight to the people with their music (Radiohead), working directly with a promoter and cutting out the middle-man (Madonna) or just simply letting their contract expire (Nine Inch Nails). It's an exciting time, and this trend is something that gives me hope. If corporations are in charge of turning this planet around, it will never happen in time, but if the right individuals take charge, it just might.
So I start thinking about how bizarre it is that humans are so interested in what other humans are doing, and how I observe humans but not any more than I observe anything - plants, animals, weather, stars. There's not much in the news about what animals are doing unless it relates somehow to what humans are doing with animals. Same with plants and space and weather. It reminds me of the hilarious comment from a lecture on environmental sustainability that a natural disaster is only considered a disaster if it kills humans. A million cows killed by Mad Cow (a disease we potentially caused) isn't a tragedy but 10,000 people killed in a mudslide is.
I was feeling like someone from Heroes who has seen the future and knows that what everyone is madly doing at this moment is so inconsequential to the big picture and so soon to be obsolete. I haven't seen the future and I don't know what it is but I'm pretty sure that the industrial age is about to come to an end. The age in which we set up factories and machines to exploit natural resources and human labor to create goods. The age in which we work in these factories to make money to buy the stuff that's made in them. It's mostly coming to an end because we're going to run out of resources to exploit but also, I think, because the kind of change that we need to make in the coming years for our species and civilization to survive will need to happen quickly and be motivated by much more than profit.
The age that's going to replace it is the age of the individual - but not everyone will be an individual. In this age, individuals, not corporations, are in charge. Companies still exist but they work for us instead of the other way around. A people-powered world where we don't have to demand change and yet suffer the constraints of an old system, we'll just collective make the change. Individuals are much quicker to adapt than companies. Think about it. How long did it take people to buy into the iPhone? Something that was literally revolutionary six months ago is now commonplace. Did people have to be cajoled into using it? No. Now think about wi-fi and the fact that if it were up to PEOPLE, all cities would be wi-fi enabled. I'd be happy to pay a monthly fee to access public wi-fi, or pay it in taxes, or not at all. But we don't have it because the communication companies spent a billion dollars laying fiber optic cable so they keep us in the dark ages (while people in developing nations access wi-fi on tiny handheld computers run that on solar power!) because they need to make money off of their investment.
Individuals are more innovative than think tanks, better benefactors than governments, better employers than corporations, better organizers than unions, and better reporters than newspapers. One could make an argument that certain things need infrastructure, like communication, but in the wi-fi scenario, that just isn't the case. Transportation, maybe, but again if individuals were in control, we'd be putting our money into railroads instead of airplanes. Big business runs the world but they're losing their grip. More people are using sites like Craigslist, eBay and Amazon to buy and sell from each other instead of companies. Etsy lets individuals sell things they've made to other people, things that are more interesting and cheaper than a lot of "made in China" crap from Target. Celebrities and philanthropists like Bill Gates and Richard Branson are doing more to change the world than our president.
In the age of the individual, reputation is everything, and these people who aren't working for the common good can no longer hide in a corporation or the White House. Microfinance is taking banks out of the equation by letting people lend money to each other. And people are starting to see that health care as something employers need to provide just isn't viable. Too many people now don't have an employer. More and more people are working from home, creating their own jobs, their own businesses and deciding how and when they want to work. We're deconstructing the power structure that was royalty, religion, government and business and increasingly breaking the world down in smaller bits that connect in new, random and spontaneous ways. We're starting to look like the internet - a place where literally anything can happen. This change adds more checks and balances to every interaction and ultimately makes us all much more accountable to each other.
There were three articles in Rolling Stone this month about big recording acts not renewing their record contracts and either going straight to the people with their music (Radiohead), working directly with a promoter and cutting out the middle-man (Madonna) or just simply letting their contract expire (Nine Inch Nails). It's an exciting time, and this trend is something that gives me hope. If corporations are in charge of turning this planet around, it will never happen in time, but if the right individuals take charge, it just might.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Impossible to disengage
If nothing else, I have learned some truly invaluable lessons working in the corporate environment. I hadn’t realized the extent to which the agency environment is utterly free. Even though you work for a client and you could lose the work and lose your job, while you’re working you know it’s a job. You know it’s a job because you’re working for a company that's working for someone at another company. It’s twice removed from you. The people judging you, your bosses, etc, are judging you through the lens of another company. They give you a lot of leeway – the client is a pain in the ass, the schedule sucks, the budget blows, and we can’t do the kind of creative we want so god bless you for sticking around.
In addition, one project really doesn’t affect another that much. Two teams can work on huge projects side by side and don’t have to know what the other is doing. Sure, they have to share resources and sometimes that gets a little annoying but it’s not like a change on my project changes everyone else’s project in the entire company.
But that’s exactly what it’s like working in a corporation. My group launched a microsite. Another group was running print ads to coincide with the launch, another is planning a viral seeding campaign, another a huge buy with You Tube and a partnership with My Space. Then there’s the whole internal team with their own marketing schedule, restrictions and requirements for banner ads, interstitials, emails. One thing changes, like the schedule, the URL, or the creative, and everything has to change. And those things are all connected to other things.
The onsite marketing is scheduled in among a dozen or more groups with their own needs and demands and changing parameters. The media buy is fixed and can’t change. The print ads are already on the press, can’t change them now. And that’s all before I even get to what my boss is telling his boss and so on and so forth. Just hope and pray that by the time the CEO sees it, it’s up, it’s running and it’s exactly what she heard it was going to be. In an organization like this, every little thing affects a dozen groups and potentially thirty or more other people. There are people I don’t even know, haven’t even met, emailing me saying they didn’t know I was doing x, y, and z and can they know more because something in their group depends on this information. How is that possible?
The biggest result of this kind of environment is that it’s impossible to disengage. At the agency level, I’m running the project and the client is somewhere else. In another building, another city, sometimes another state or country! If I feel like taking a 15-20 minute break to write a blog entry, I can. I know I’ve got a few moments, I know exactly what’s going on and I know the client won't barge in on me. Not so in the corporate environment. There’s no hiding from someone who wants or needs something from you, there’s no unplugging for 15-20 minutes and frankly, I don’t completely know what’s going on at any given moment.
I feel sometimes like I’m keeping a power plant from having a meltdown. Keeping small problems from getting bigger, creating solutions to potential problems and all the while trying to keep an eye on the future, well at least tomorrow. One of my friends at an agency we work with put in an interesting way. He said in the agency world, the enemy is the project itself. Getting it done in time, on budget, and with the best creative. Everyone in the company and the client is moving and working towards a common goal. In the corporate world, the enemy is right next to you. Whether you want it or not, you're all working towards the goal of being your boss. So four people are jockeying to fit into one slot - and that's only after the one that's already there has left. It is definitely a much more complicated organism, one that I feel is much more intelligent than I am. I'll keep you posted.
In addition, one project really doesn’t affect another that much. Two teams can work on huge projects side by side and don’t have to know what the other is doing. Sure, they have to share resources and sometimes that gets a little annoying but it’s not like a change on my project changes everyone else’s project in the entire company.
But that’s exactly what it’s like working in a corporation. My group launched a microsite. Another group was running print ads to coincide with the launch, another is planning a viral seeding campaign, another a huge buy with You Tube and a partnership with My Space. Then there’s the whole internal team with their own marketing schedule, restrictions and requirements for banner ads, interstitials, emails. One thing changes, like the schedule, the URL, or the creative, and everything has to change. And those things are all connected to other things.
The onsite marketing is scheduled in among a dozen or more groups with their own needs and demands and changing parameters. The media buy is fixed and can’t change. The print ads are already on the press, can’t change them now. And that’s all before I even get to what my boss is telling his boss and so on and so forth. Just hope and pray that by the time the CEO sees it, it’s up, it’s running and it’s exactly what she heard it was going to be. In an organization like this, every little thing affects a dozen groups and potentially thirty or more other people. There are people I don’t even know, haven’t even met, emailing me saying they didn’t know I was doing x, y, and z and can they know more because something in their group depends on this information. How is that possible?
The biggest result of this kind of environment is that it’s impossible to disengage. At the agency level, I’m running the project and the client is somewhere else. In another building, another city, sometimes another state or country! If I feel like taking a 15-20 minute break to write a blog entry, I can. I know I’ve got a few moments, I know exactly what’s going on and I know the client won't barge in on me. Not so in the corporate environment. There’s no hiding from someone who wants or needs something from you, there’s no unplugging for 15-20 minutes and frankly, I don’t completely know what’s going on at any given moment.
I feel sometimes like I’m keeping a power plant from having a meltdown. Keeping small problems from getting bigger, creating solutions to potential problems and all the while trying to keep an eye on the future, well at least tomorrow. One of my friends at an agency we work with put in an interesting way. He said in the agency world, the enemy is the project itself. Getting it done in time, on budget, and with the best creative. Everyone in the company and the client is moving and working towards a common goal. In the corporate world, the enemy is right next to you. Whether you want it or not, you're all working towards the goal of being your boss. So four people are jockeying to fit into one slot - and that's only after the one that's already there has left. It is definitely a much more complicated organism, one that I feel is much more intelligent than I am. I'll keep you posted.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Another day in the trenches
My basic job hunting/finding problem is that I have done many different jobs and have excelled at all of them. It baffles most minds that a person could literally jump into a job they have never done and do it well, more than a few times. What I didn't realize is that those opportunities, while seemingly common in my world, are not common. What most hiring managers want is someone whose resume looks exactly like their job description. Someone who has done only the job their hiring for and is only interested in that job.
A while back, a recruiter contacted me about an email marketing job. They sent me a list of questions to answer before the interview and I did. To some of them I had to reply "I have no experience with this." I explained to the woman that this job was very technical and not something that i had experience in, or was particularly interested in. I can do it, I said, but I'd much rather be working on a broader marketing level. She wrote back, thank you, she'll keep looking. A couple of days later, she wrote again saying the company wanted to meet me anyway.
In my past interviews I felt like a round peg trying to be stuffed into a square hole of a job, trying to explain why I don't fit, so I decided to take a different tactic this time. Instead of defending my non-linear career path, instead of answering questions about my background and what I did or didn't do where, I would simply just start coming up with ideas and strategies for their company, sharing my marketing philosophy and generating questions for the interviewers. Don't tell them what you can do, show them.
Of course this is easier when interviewing with a company that has a product (rather than an agency in which I'd work for many clients that remain to be disclosed). Such as it was last week when I interviewed for an online photo fulfillment company. I had already interviewed once on the phone and it went well. I met with that same guy and two VPs. They rapid fired questions at me and I came right back with business strategies, product ideas and marketing questions. And, to my surprise, they were very pleased and impressed.
One of the VPs remarked, "You have a GREAT interviewing style, by the way." I thought for a moment that she was making a sarcastic remark to cut me down, but I don't think she was. "Most people," she said, "tell you everything they think you want to hear, but when they leave, you're not sure if it's true. You, on the other hand," she continued, "are totally honest, I feel like I know exactly who you are and what you can do." I've never heard it put that way, but she was right. When that quality is appreciated, it is usually by the owner of the company. That person wants smart, quick, no bullshit people in leadership positions, but when interviewing with upper management, those qualities are usually regarded as anathema.
Hiring managers are thinking one of three things: A) She'll take my job, B) She'll make me look bad or C) She'll make me have to work harder. These people like the status quo because it's easy. Change should come at a slow incremental pace. By comparison, I look like the leader of a revolution. I spent nearly four hours in this interview. They ran marketing problems, product problems, business problems by me. "How would you fix this?" "How would you tackle this?" "What would you do in this situation?" It was fun.
A few days later, the recruiter called me to say that they wanted to hire me as a consultant. I thought it was a dream come true. "They were very impressed with you," the recruiter said, "and think you're a very strong overall marketer." Fantastic! Exactly what I should be doing, crafting marketing strategy and handing over my recommendations for execution by someone else.No political crap, just doing the work. We discussed a rate and he called them to negotiate. Now, here's where the whole thing falls apart.
It's wonderful that I've been recognized for who I am. And I'm so flattered that this company wants to find a way to fit me in, but at the end of the day, all they need filled is a square hole, and I'm still a round peg. See, the recruiters double my rate to get their fee so by the time it's presented to the employer, it sounds outrageous. They needed an email marketer. Now they're thinking about paying a lot more money to hire a person who isn't a permanent employee to do a position that doesn't exist. And the job they're hiring for is still empty. Try justifying that to the boss.
They've now started checking my references so I'm thinking they're going to offer me the original email marketing position. And I'll have to decide if I want an hour commute to take a job that doesn't fit.
A while back, a recruiter contacted me about an email marketing job. They sent me a list of questions to answer before the interview and I did. To some of them I had to reply "I have no experience with this." I explained to the woman that this job was very technical and not something that i had experience in, or was particularly interested in. I can do it, I said, but I'd much rather be working on a broader marketing level. She wrote back, thank you, she'll keep looking. A couple of days later, she wrote again saying the company wanted to meet me anyway.
In my past interviews I felt like a round peg trying to be stuffed into a square hole of a job, trying to explain why I don't fit, so I decided to take a different tactic this time. Instead of defending my non-linear career path, instead of answering questions about my background and what I did or didn't do where, I would simply just start coming up with ideas and strategies for their company, sharing my marketing philosophy and generating questions for the interviewers. Don't tell them what you can do, show them.
Of course this is easier when interviewing with a company that has a product (rather than an agency in which I'd work for many clients that remain to be disclosed). Such as it was last week when I interviewed for an online photo fulfillment company. I had already interviewed once on the phone and it went well. I met with that same guy and two VPs. They rapid fired questions at me and I came right back with business strategies, product ideas and marketing questions. And, to my surprise, they were very pleased and impressed.
One of the VPs remarked, "You have a GREAT interviewing style, by the way." I thought for a moment that she was making a sarcastic remark to cut me down, but I don't think she was. "Most people," she said, "tell you everything they think you want to hear, but when they leave, you're not sure if it's true. You, on the other hand," she continued, "are totally honest, I feel like I know exactly who you are and what you can do." I've never heard it put that way, but she was right. When that quality is appreciated, it is usually by the owner of the company. That person wants smart, quick, no bullshit people in leadership positions, but when interviewing with upper management, those qualities are usually regarded as anathema.
Hiring managers are thinking one of three things: A) She'll take my job, B) She'll make me look bad or C) She'll make me have to work harder. These people like the status quo because it's easy. Change should come at a slow incremental pace. By comparison, I look like the leader of a revolution. I spent nearly four hours in this interview. They ran marketing problems, product problems, business problems by me. "How would you fix this?" "How would you tackle this?" "What would you do in this situation?" It was fun.
A few days later, the recruiter called me to say that they wanted to hire me as a consultant. I thought it was a dream come true. "They were very impressed with you," the recruiter said, "and think you're a very strong overall marketer." Fantastic! Exactly what I should be doing, crafting marketing strategy and handing over my recommendations for execution by someone else.No political crap, just doing the work. We discussed a rate and he called them to negotiate. Now, here's where the whole thing falls apart.
It's wonderful that I've been recognized for who I am. And I'm so flattered that this company wants to find a way to fit me in, but at the end of the day, all they need filled is a square hole, and I'm still a round peg. See, the recruiters double my rate to get their fee so by the time it's presented to the employer, it sounds outrageous. They needed an email marketer. Now they're thinking about paying a lot more money to hire a person who isn't a permanent employee to do a position that doesn't exist. And the job they're hiring for is still empty. Try justifying that to the boss.
They've now started checking my references so I'm thinking they're going to offer me the original email marketing position. And I'll have to decide if I want an hour commute to take a job that doesn't fit.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Changing the course of capitalism
I watched "The Insider" again the other night. A great, inspiring movie at the beginning of what has become a hot topic: holding companies to a higher moral responsibility. A responsibility to not cheat their employees out of their retirements, to disclose how it is that CEOs make 400-700 times the average employee and to make their products safer for consumption and the environment. It's not enough any more to simply stimulate the economy; more and more, people are demanding responsibility. Fortunately, many companies are waking up to the economic opportunities of this kind of responsibility.
Most of my career as a marketer, I've believed that selling product inherently breeds bad behavior. In order to generate more profit, companies have to produce a product more cheaply. To increase market share their product has to be more addictive and/or necessary. And to sell a higher quantity, the product has to be consumed at a faster rate. I challenge you to think of a product that can be made more profitable or increase market share without damaging the environment, the consumer or some other poor creature.
(I tried to think of something that must be innocuous, like raising fluffy little sheep and shearing them for wool. This sounds really harmless but then I read this. Yikes!)
See, sometimes companies make something a customer wants, and then have to figure out a way to make it profitable. But many times, they're making something they've deemed profitable and then hire PR/advertisers to make people want it:
When the disposable razor came along, marketers only had to show women a picture of a naked armpit to sell razors to women wanting to be more fashionable. But they had a tougher time convincing them to shave (and bare) their legs. They tried for years without success until a very famous war-time poster came out featuring a very sexy Betty Grable with shaved naked legs and women were told it was their patriotic DUTY to wear shorter skirts and sheer nylons. And off the hair came! (We're still one of the only countries in the world where women regularly shave their hair off.)
Then there were disposable diapers, not a hit for the first five years. Then the PR people hired a pediatrician and cooked up a story about how damaging it is to potty-train children too early. It would make them "anal" to be separated by their poo at too early an age. Instantly, they extended the life of their product by at least a year as anxious moms allowed their children longer diaper time. (By the way, "disposable" diapers will take about 500 years to decompose.)
Sometimes, to make a product more profitable, they have to decrease it's shelf life.
Electronics and appliances have a shorter lifespan than they ever have despite our advances. It just isn't very profitable to make a device that lasts several years. And if you make them too cheap, it isn't profitable either. A CD player now costs let's say $60, which is cheaper than the $250 I paid in 1985, but it only lasts a year. Printers are now less than $100 but only last six months to a year! Cellphones? They're practically "disposable." (Like the diapers, the hunks of junk ends up in the dump when they stop working and probably never biodegrade.)
Sometimes, to make people want a product again, they have to lie.
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive. Fast food clogs your arteries. How can you increase your market share without telling people otherwise? French fries aren't French fries if they aren't deep fried! Tell the consumer you're using a different kind of oil that isn't as bad. Tell them the alcohol has less calories and the cigarettes don't have additives so they're less harmful. They're all lies but how else can it be done? Since only 10% of smokers start after age 20, they have to get addicted young.
Sometimes, experts are used to show how the product should be consumed.
For the last fifteen years, we've been eating a higher protein diet. We've been told it's the way to be healthy and slim. It's not true. Eating vegetables is much better for you than meat but meat is a booming industry. When it's so cheap and yummy, how can we resist? (Inhumane treatment to animals, declining nutrition of the meat, increased sickness due to bad meat and pollution that was unheard of a few decades ago will eventually turn us off). Did you know that 80% of the ocean's contaminants come from ground pollution running into rivers? Now we can't even eat (what's left of) the fish!
So, our consumerism drives the economy but these products make us sick by ruining our health and the environment. We're running at an accelerated pace towards cheaper, more disposable goods but also stopping along the way the admire a new model of goods - ethically produced, better for the environment and maybe even more desirable.
Ultimately, the consumer has to DEMAND the products we want, produced the way we can be happy about, and the corporations will HAVE TO care as much about responsibility as profit.
While hybrid cars increase in popularity, so do Hummer sales. While we are more conscious of recycling, we also create more trash. While the oil industry is stepping up to be more green, they're also illegally dumping tons of toxic waste in the ocean. Are we going in two directions or one direction that's so complex, it has yet to reveal itself?
It just may be that we're finally seeing our modern way of life as barbaric: torturing and killing animals and each other, dumping crap into the ocean, burying our trash, paving over the earth, pushing products that kill people. We're capable of so much more and I think we're just now beginning to see our potential to rise above our filthy, greedy past to save ourselves.
Most of my career as a marketer, I've believed that selling product inherently breeds bad behavior. In order to generate more profit, companies have to produce a product more cheaply. To increase market share their product has to be more addictive and/or necessary. And to sell a higher quantity, the product has to be consumed at a faster rate. I challenge you to think of a product that can be made more profitable or increase market share without damaging the environment, the consumer or some other poor creature.
(I tried to think of something that must be innocuous, like raising fluffy little sheep and shearing them for wool. This sounds really harmless but then I read this. Yikes!)
See, sometimes companies make something a customer wants, and then have to figure out a way to make it profitable. But many times, they're making something they've deemed profitable and then hire PR/advertisers to make people want it:
When the disposable razor came along, marketers only had to show women a picture of a naked armpit to sell razors to women wanting to be more fashionable. But they had a tougher time convincing them to shave (and bare) their legs. They tried for years without success until a very famous war-time poster came out featuring a very sexy Betty Grable with shaved naked legs and women were told it was their patriotic DUTY to wear shorter skirts and sheer nylons. And off the hair came! (We're still one of the only countries in the world where women regularly shave their hair off.)
Then there were disposable diapers, not a hit for the first five years. Then the PR people hired a pediatrician and cooked up a story about how damaging it is to potty-train children too early. It would make them "anal" to be separated by their poo at too early an age. Instantly, they extended the life of their product by at least a year as anxious moms allowed their children longer diaper time. (By the way, "disposable" diapers will take about 500 years to decompose.)
Sometimes, to make a product more profitable, they have to decrease it's shelf life.
Electronics and appliances have a shorter lifespan than they ever have despite our advances. It just isn't very profitable to make a device that lasts several years. And if you make them too cheap, it isn't profitable either. A CD player now costs let's say $60, which is cheaper than the $250 I paid in 1985, but it only lasts a year. Printers are now less than $100 but only last six months to a year! Cellphones? They're practically "disposable." (Like the diapers, the hunks of junk ends up in the dump when they stop working and probably never biodegrade.)
Sometimes, to make people want a product again, they have to lie.
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive. Fast food clogs your arteries. How can you increase your market share without telling people otherwise? French fries aren't French fries if they aren't deep fried! Tell the consumer you're using a different kind of oil that isn't as bad. Tell them the alcohol has less calories and the cigarettes don't have additives so they're less harmful. They're all lies but how else can it be done? Since only 10% of smokers start after age 20, they have to get addicted young.
Sometimes, experts are used to show how the product should be consumed.
For the last fifteen years, we've been eating a higher protein diet. We've been told it's the way to be healthy and slim. It's not true. Eating vegetables is much better for you than meat but meat is a booming industry. When it's so cheap and yummy, how can we resist? (Inhumane treatment to animals, declining nutrition of the meat, increased sickness due to bad meat and pollution that was unheard of a few decades ago will eventually turn us off). Did you know that 80% of the ocean's contaminants come from ground pollution running into rivers? Now we can't even eat (what's left of) the fish!
So, our consumerism drives the economy but these products make us sick by ruining our health and the environment. We're running at an accelerated pace towards cheaper, more disposable goods but also stopping along the way the admire a new model of goods - ethically produced, better for the environment and maybe even more desirable.
Ultimately, the consumer has to DEMAND the products we want, produced the way we can be happy about, and the corporations will HAVE TO care as much about responsibility as profit.
While hybrid cars increase in popularity, so do Hummer sales. While we are more conscious of recycling, we also create more trash. While the oil industry is stepping up to be more green, they're also illegally dumping tons of toxic waste in the ocean. Are we going in two directions or one direction that's so complex, it has yet to reveal itself?
It just may be that we're finally seeing our modern way of life as barbaric: torturing and killing animals and each other, dumping crap into the ocean, burying our trash, paving over the earth, pushing products that kill people. We're capable of so much more and I think we're just now beginning to see our potential to rise above our filthy, greedy past to save ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)