30 Mintues of CNN
I think i'm going to shoot myself. Why CBC. Why!!
Wow this New Orleans fiasco is really getting serious. I just started getting interested this morning after hearing a couple of rather shocking rumours; the CBC has been out of order so to speak of late. Pathetic yes, I have to admit I’ve all but stopped watching the news since. Alas, this was the wrong time of all times to stop watching the news. So, since I’m home after a ten hour shift and there’s road crews outside my window preventing me from sleeping, I’ve decided to scan CNN on the web and TV to figure out just what’s going on. HOLY SHIT! What a mess. (I hope this impression has nothing to do with American press sensationalism.) There are people getting shot! Louisiana is turning into a killzone.
Well, let’s put this into a naïve first year undergrads concept of context. I’m a post-structuralist, but I’m also a structuralist, and thus I consider at least some human behaviour to be symptomatic of prevailing social-political-economic conditions: people just don’t go nuts and start looting and shooting people. There is something inherent in the American psyche that creates incentives. In my last post I associate this loosely with capitalism. In this post I’m not going to bother hypothesising on what these conditions are, rather, I’m going to pose questions that set up a compare and contrast. Did this happen when the tsunami hit?” What are the differences? Why?
Note: 30 minutes of CNN and I just about want to vomit at the generic look of their anchors and reporters. God bless the BBC and its appreciation of ugly people. Who would think after watching CNN that hotness and intelligence or perspective don’t coincide.
Note, after note: Oh my god! The more I watch the more I want to puke! They’re praising Coca-Cola and various other fats [fast] food corporates for sending aid to the astrodome. Shoot me! If the hurricane hasn’t killed them maybe we can with fatty foods. (Has anyone else noticed just how many really fuking fat people are victims? I don’t remember seeing any fat tsunami victims.)
Note again: Please! I can’t take it! Somebody shoot the anchorwoman before her chiselled jaw line kills me first. No wait let her over emphasize just one more word!
Note: How many more black people have to die! Seriously, what’s with everyone being black, I thought the US was an egalitarian society. Seriously, that’s what they told me. Why are all the poor people black? Are there no poor white people in Southern US? Ahh! There’s that anchorwoman again!! Expel the demons!
posted by Nicholas @ 2.9.05
7 Comments:
What's My Beef
Is Coca Cola sending cola or needed supplies? Also if a body does not get fluid, in 72 hours the kidneys will shut down. So if all they have is coca cola to give, why not? It is a fluid. Also what's with infatuations rant about cloths? If cloths are needed, who cares if they have a brand label on them. As long as they are free!
And what's wrong with good looking people? You like to brag about how good looking you are!
What has been happening in New Orleans is a tragedy. From this tragedy will come great stories of heroism, and sad stories of criminality. The acts of heroism will tell themselves in individual stories. The acts of criminality will be told by groups, the gang mentality, both at the Presidental level and the street level. So what is the crimainal action at the Presidental level? The failure of the federal government of the USA to act in a speedily manner towards the crisis in New Orleans. The USA has one of the most advanced infrastructures in the world, it is wealthy country, and it has experience dealing with hurricanes, and yet it did not expedite a speedily response to the disaster taking place. This in turn allowed the development of "The Lord of the Flies" mentality among the surviving population trapped in New Orleans. Notice that those individuals who have sucumbed to their aggressive natures are young people, teens to thirty. People older than that have the wisdom to know that shooting at rescue workers, raping, etc. will not address the conditions of this disaster. What I don't understand is this. There are many higher buildings in New Orleans that would not have been completely flooded. Why were the local police, etc. not given permission to temporarily seize this property to provide adequate shelter for the hurricane victims? And because most of these buildings probably had food and water,and cloths stashed in various places, why not give the police permission to seize these goods to distribute the best they could among the victims. And also there must have been drug stores in the area, why weren't these and their contents seized and given to the medical persons left behind to help the victims?
Most of the people left behind were the poor. People who did not have the money to go live somewhere else until the storm blew over. As you mentioned the majority are African-Americans, and yes they make up the bulk of the poor in the USA. Many are also the elderly, who have either no family to take them in or no means to get themselves out. I hope one of the lessons learned here will be "charity beginneth at home." And that Christainity is not just a belief in Christ but a life lived following his example, and that a government that professes to have a Christain leaning must reflect that in its actions.
Love Mom
i think what me and michelle are getting at with the whole brand name thing is: is charity so great if its part of a multinatinal corporations plan for product hegemony. These arn't exactly selfless acts on the corporations part. if it was, i'm almost positive coca cola could just a easily ship abunch of water into the refugee camps.
As for the anrachy and chaos. You're right - there are vitims and this is a tradegy, but had this been another city in another country would a similar outcome take place. I'd be willing to sugest that to begin with, some of the trouble with guns might be avoided elsewhere - like in counrties that have gun laws. I'm trying to imply that there is something inherent in the culture of the united states, something like what micheal moore tries to imply in "bowling for columbine," which produces these kinds of responses.
as for the attractive people on TV, i have now problem with them. I do have a problem wiht the fact that there are no ugly people, as if there are no ugly people with intellegence or perspective.
hey. don't hate on me because i'm sexy.
I think the "Lord of the Flies" is inherent in all cultures. The conditions just have to be right. No culture is exempt from the depravities of men, especially under dire circumstances. I don't know what Americans think concerning whether or not they are capable of such acts, but I would imagine that the learned are well aware of this tendency. Those that are in power are not going to say, if they can help it, anything negative about their own country. It's not a good political move!
I am concerned about your rants, in that there seems to be a lot of anti-American rhetoric in them. The USA is not the only corporate country, nor the first. It just has got to the level of a world power. I believe that the most effect change comes from within, be it an individual or a country. Therefore, I believe that American citizens need to rise up against the abuses in their own country, not foriegners, which you are. Why not focus on how our society in Canada systematically abuses rights of others. Come to think of it, why not become a lawyer? So you can legally try to address some of these issues. Sometimes I have a problem understanding where you are coming from with your concerns. Especially when you voice your concerns, not as an intellectual evaluation of an observed situation, but as a rant against some preceived evil.
There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with having good looking people in front of the camera. Why not ugly people? Because pschological studies show that we preceive good looking people as more friendly and trustworthy than ugly people. CNN is using this knowledge to attract and keep viewers.
You use that knowledge to pick up girls!
Love Mom
So you see Charles, I can rant too! I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
i follow what you're saying about the lord of the flies scenario, but i don't reall think that this is the major issue here. things have to get really really bad before they reach this point. a lot of controlable factors have to go wrong long before this occurs. (i also tend to disagree with human nature arguments. for every example there tends to be counterexamples. i have a bias towards nurture over nature.)
a lot of my "rethoric" stems from a general feeling of helplessness. the particularily over-spiteful stuff is generally a direct response to their over-arrogance. There will be posts that fall into intelectual evalutions but due to time constraints and the need for the occasional vent, there will be others that will fall under rants.
as for us trusting good looking people more than ugly. just because this is the case doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it should stay that way. We need only look to the BBC and the british media, and even the canadian to a great extent, whom at least concerning this issue are exemplar. Personaly, based on my own experiance i'd trust an ugly person first and foremost. i wonder who the heck they asked those questions to. (there's a difference between somebody being good looking, and being clean and well-dressed)
"Because pschological studies show that we preceive good looking people as more friendly and trustworthy than ugly people."
correction: americans perceive this; aparently not brits and others? It's called evolutionary psychology and it's sociobiology in disguise, and hitler used it to justify the extermination of the jews.
ps if the world could be a better place, and i couldn't pick up chicks, i'd rather that be the case. besides i speculate that a lot of my success (lets not read to much into that, i'm no pimp) has more to do with my likeness to a certain celebrity.
Even in "the Lord of the Flies" there are counterexamples, its the classic good versus evil, except unlike most stories, the evil would have won the battle (not necessarily the war) except they were rescued before it happened. If you beleive in nuture over nature, then you would need to beleive in the need to civilize man. Therefore man must be educated, not just learned but also taught to have empathy for the suffering of others, in order to develop a compassionate, caring, and productive man. The USA is a highly educated country and most of its citizens do have empathy with those who have suffered from Katrina, as evidence by the many fundraisers, taking in refugees, etc. The mistake that people make is that they often try to put a human face on government. The government is not a human entity, neither is a corporation, and yet we allow these non-human entities to gain, thru legislation or law, inainable rights, similiar or the same, as human rights. Then when these institutions do not respond the way we would expect a human to, we are befuddled as to why. (This blurb is not excusing the behaviour of governments or other institutions)
I feel for your feelings of helplessness. We all suffer from feelings like that,especially when the situation is a huge one to fix, whether it was created in one moment of time or over a period of decades, man made or nature made. One way to help diminish this feeling of helplessness is to do one little thing to aleviate the situation, like donating a few dollars, putting in some volunteer time, educating oneself about the underlying causes of an issue then using that knowledge to educate those needed to help them overcome it or at least make the situation better. Still I know, it never seems like we can do enough. Especially in our wourld today as media allows us to view so much destruction, desease, wars, pestilence, abuses, environmantal abuses, domestic violence, etc. etc. It wasn't that these things did not exist 400 years ago, they just didn't have their brains being inudated with it, They only had their immediate environmnents, for the most part, to worry about.
I'm afraid I fall under the middle of the road category when it comes to trusting people. I generally do not trust really good looking people but I also generally don't trust really ugly people either. I find the middle of the road, so to speak, more trustworhty, whether they are or not who knows? I'm not going to buy into the idea that girls only want to date you because you look like Matthew M. NO No No They want to date you because you are good looking, and charming. Back on topic, what one society preceives as good looking another society doesn't, so how children are socialized into viewing what is good looking and what isn't seems to play a factor. Those not so good looking people on BBC, are good looking in British culture. We tend to be more heavily influenced by USA standards of beauty. I've noticed this when Rebecca gets fashion magizines from Europe. Often the models (facial features) are not what we generally would preceive as "hot".
Love MOm
Post a Comment
<< Home