Silly Marketing - Medium's Activist Shoe



Welcome to a new, recurring section: Silly Marketing! I think you can guess what these posts will be about...

I came across this shoe on Shop Composition's website. This model, made by the Medium shoe company, is called 'Activist' and retails for $95 (USD).
Extremely silly name for a shoe that is manufactured in a sweatshop and offers perforated suede, and a full-grain leather upper and leather lining. Adding insult to injury are the 'made in China' contrasting yellow stitching and laces, along with the gum rubber soles.
Could it be that it's the cork bedding that makes them appropriate for activists?!
Perhaps 'Uninformed' would be a far better name for these babies.

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Another Chicken or Egg Conundrum


The following headline, 'The Problem is Corporations: Their Purposes, Powers, Wealth, Influence and Control,' graces the top of a website selling and promoting activist literature; books like: Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order; The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization; Corporations Are Gonna Get Your Mama: Globalization and the Downsizing of the American Dream.

These books—along with nearly all others in the over-crowded literature of activism—love to paint corporations as Machiavellian beings, their heartless sentience responsible for all the ills of the planet.
As governments are doing less and less—entities like the WTO, the World Bank, APEC, etc. are making sure of this—the current trend in activism has clearly shifted towards corporation-bashing! Brash people like Michael Moore and, to a lesser extent, intellectuals like Naomi Klein have paved the way, demonstrating that success and recognition is obtainable through the demonization of corporations and corporate ‘beings;’ since the late 90s this genre has evolved into a very important market niche. But are these really aimed at enlightening consumers and shaping change or are they one's attempt at getting their Warhol-ian ten minutes?

It seems to me that the Activists’ foray into conservative media has slowly transformed from being impassioned manifestos aimed at the populace to a formulaic, tabloid-like form of entertainment for the intelligentsia.
Other than in terms of focus, is a show like Idiot Nation really any different from a show like TMZ? Instead of being shown naughty stars and their foolish money-filled ways being caught on tape, the camera is now aimed at corporations, politicians, and lobbyists…

Audiences are presented with well-researched or whistle-blown case studies pinning the label of monster on corporations like Chevron, Shell, Mitsubishi, Ford, Philip Morris, Sony, Bertelsmann, and Citibank, and so forth; rarely do these books focus on the investors and the consumers that have given momentum to these giants and who have made their success possible. It’s easy to complain about Wal-Mart, but it’s also very easy to spend money there! Ultimately, who is responsible for Wal-Mart’s success?

So now we’re inundated with tired slogans like, ‘Multinational (and national) corporations possess more rights and have less accountability than you do.’ But a corporation’s accountability, and therefore its main priority, is to its shareholders for whom they must generate profits and dividends; ultimately, who is responsible for such a disconcerting obsession with the bottom line?

In essence the problem is people! Not corporations; responsibility is currently being shifted away from all the stakeholders who—removing themselves from the decision making processes—care solely about spending less money and/or about seeing big returns on their investments; anything beyond that, they tell themselves, is out of their control. Yet corporations CAN be greatly influenced by customers, suppliers, and all the other stakeholders such as trade unions, etc.
So this attitude, that corporations are the real problem, is but another example of blame displacement. Corporations are easy targets; indeed their behaviour can often be described as Machiavellian and since every fight needs a villain... and given that books and documentaries (including mock-umentaries) that chastise consumers and the public at large are not only self-defeating, they are also hard to market...

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

My Street is Better, Up Yours Too.


Doesn’t ‘Down My Street’ look better? It got a new look! And more focus… which now means more of that 'Up Yours' attitude!

This blog was originally started as a means to get me back into the discipline of writing. Life had decided to challenge me with a slew of harsh, disillusioning events; as a consequence, and despite trying very hard to fool myself into thinking all was swell, I woke up one morning and simply stopped writing. Entirely. I couldn’t do it. The thought of piecing words together into ideas had me reaching for Rolaids. Since I earned my living writing for corporations and newspapers at the time, this sudden and utter disgust for my trade pushed me further down into a pit of depression, which, combined with more ‘challenges,‘ helped to stretch what was then meant to be a small sabbatical into two years of unproductive anger and acrimonious thinking…

So, once I finally found the strength to peep out of my 'hole,' I did what (then) seemed like a sane thing to do... I jumped on the ‘blogwagon!’ I figured that the ‘published’ and public aspect of a blog would provide enough pressure to keep me honest and productive in regards to the content, and would thus get me back into that journalistic mode of thinking and writing.

But then I got slightly distracted…of course being me…I experimented (to the extreme!) with a whole whack of anonymous blogs on various subjects; I tested and tried and learned and observed and studied up on things like SEO and XML and upgraded my coding skills…
That phase began the day after—some 6+ months ago—the 'right' synaptic connections occured and there I was! me; my good ol’ jolly albeit overly cynical workaholic self, again.

So the original idea behind ‘Down my Street and Up Yours’ was definitely Seinfeld-esque i.e. a blog about nothing. I hadn’t it seen it for more than structured space where I could productively vent my anger – a modern version of the therapeutic diary if you will. But I didn’t want it to be about my cat’s neurotic quirks or the tulip that broke ground in my backyard or my nephew’s close-encounter of some strange kind with Lego… why the hell should anyone—except, of course, Facebook friends (and even then)—care about that?
With time, and thanks to extreme periods of self-flagellation and a few successful nibbles on the dangling carrots that encouraged me to ‘write on,’ this got me back into professional writing; but more importantly, it gave me a voice and some focus. Essentially: to inject common sense into senseless ideas and actions so that change WILL occur. I’ll define this in greater detail in the section ‘site’s philosophy,’ which will soon be added, but for now I think the following best describes my attitude: left-wing ideals through right-wing techniques for real changes down the line.

This new version now marks phase 2 of what may be a 4-phased adventure… only time will tell! Certainly, this is where much of my free time will now be directed. Why do it? Because I wouldn’t be living if I wasn’t!

Thanks for your support (and an even bigger thanks for donations...)!

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

But Enough Brandless Animals Also Form a Herd



Here is an interesting design created by liam.jon_d
But, although I try very hard to be that 'check-less' sheep, I am continually faced with the fact that this simply places me in a different herd for which different labels apply and on whom different marketing techniques are used; try as we may, some things are inescapable. Or, as I like to say, "even the recycling plants pollute."
.
An anonymous Flickr user reminds us of Monty Python's Life of Brian when he comments on this pic: "[they] summed up the conundrum beautifully when Brian addressed the crowd telling them they were all individuals. Funny enough just like that, but they went further when one lone individual peeped up in a sheepish voice - 'I'm not.'"

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credits: 'Go Cleanskin!' by liam.jon_d
.

Is 'Green Earth Day' an Oxymoron?


Yesterday was Earth Day!
Which, in the end, means what?
Like Halloween, Christmas, St. Valentine’s Day, Easter, Mother’s Day, Canada Day, and so on, Earth Day has become yet another important promotional event that’s highlighted on nearly all retailers’ campaign calendar.

Lowe’s encouraged everyone to plant a tree—they had saplings on sale, along with other ‘green’ must-have products to decorate your home...
Wal-Mart pushed Nature’s Source™—a new line of biodegradable plant-based cleaners from the makers of Windex® and Scrubbing Bubbles®…
Yahoo’s main Earth Day article was in their Shopping section, sponsored by Canadian Tire and Home Depot amongst others…
eBay featured Earth Day items…
Every bookstore imaginable promoted 'green' books, CDs, and DVDs...
All the ‘green’ organisations encouraged us to make a difference by buying their special Earth Day T’s and caps and cups and…
Thrift and used stores loudly advertised that buying second-hand goods helps to reduce our carbon footprint…
I could go on and on but you get the point!

And sales, promotions, and special event campaigns means changes at the point-of-sale, ticketing, in-store and window displays, posters, leaflets and…

Does it come as a surprise that I found the following picture accompanying at least 6 different pro-Green Day posts on 4 different sites?! (Of course posting it here now makes it 7 and 5...)


Humankind being what it is and occidental culture being what it is, I wonder if perhaps—in keeping with the overall theme of Earth Day—the most appropriate 'earth friendly' act would be for us all to rally together in protest of Earth Day, but without the usual posters and banners and pamphlets and…

Celebrating Earth Day is a bit silly in a sense; from my point of view it's similar to having a 'Breathing Day' or a 'Clothes Day' i.e. an homage to simple actions we all need to do in order to survive...
But, I suppose, until thinking 'green' becomes and autonomic action similar to breathing...

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo: iStockPhoto
.

Tax Dollars Spent to Spend More Tax Dollars


Frustration fuels me and so, despite any anger I am occasionally made to feel, I absolutely love to complain about the ridiculous activities or decisions made by governments and groups around the world. Sometimes though, they make my job too easy.
Speaking of which, I received a news wire late yesterday afternoon from The Canadian Press; it’s as if they’re feeding me straight lines…

It would appear that a branch of the Canadian federal government is having a hard time controlling, of all things, the same branch of the federal government.
Sounds bad? The details make it sound worse!
Passport Canada and their Web police are having a hard time eliminating an application form from the Internet, and the department responsible for the availability of this form on the Internet is Foreign Affairs; Foreign Affairs is the parent department for Passport Canada.
Uh?!?
Yes…that’s right! So now the federal government is spending how much on fighting itself?!

The form in question is PPTC-132 which is intended for people—often already overseas—who need to apply for a passport but can’t find a guarantor to confirm their identity. According to Passport Canada guidelines, all applicants should only be offered this form as a last resort once they’ve presented their case to a passport officer in person. Passport Canada always keeps all copies under lock and key and insists that having blank forms in circulation presents a significant security risk.

But an Albertan, Darren Enns, made the form available on his website as a service to other Canadians after he had a tough time obtaining it while abroad. Passport Canada swiftly told him to remove it; he complied, and instead provided links to other sites where the form was available to download… all the links point to Foreign Affairs websites.
Foreign Affairs has been advised by its daughter department about the risks and told to remove any post making this form obtainable. Six months later, the form is still available on many Canadian government websites.

So why did the federal government invest all that money into reviewing and improving passport applications to make them more secure when the federal government is simplifying things and opening up a security risk? Confused? How can you not be…

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

The U.N. Y'all... What is it Good For?


Barack Obama has now been in office for several months and again I ask: has there really been a change?
The Obama administration’s decision to boycott the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva is another indication that true change is yet to come… I mean change with a capital C. In essence, this is the reverse of that ‘anti-vandalism rally that ends in vandalism’ metaphor I brought up in another post; in this case the U.S., and now other countries, are refusing to attend an anti-racism conference because they claim that racism is involved.

In fact, Canada also has said that it will not attend next week’s conference “because of fears of a repeat of the ‘Israel-bashing’ that occurred at the last conference.”

President Obama mentions being not entirely content with the final drafts of the meeting’s declaration and states that certain new additions "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."
Ironically, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be at the forum! He is mostly remembered for his ‘Israel should be "wiped off the map"’ comment and for questioning whether the Nazi Holocaust actually happened… and he will also be holding a news conference tomorrow; tomorrow is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Unfettered free speech doesn't appear to be a problem, Mr. Obama, so what's the real deal?

It seems to me that just about the only thing more counterproductive than the decision not to attend would have to be showing up to such a conference with swastikas scarred into their foreheads.
What good can possibly come out of this action? This decision de-legitimizes the role of the U.N. and makes a farce out of its very name; it demonstrates intolerance and a lack of flexibility and it undervalues any significant importance played out by the U.N. in actually uniting countries; further, U.N. credibility in handling these sensitive issues is greatly lowered in the public-eye. Lastly, it reduces diplomatic gravitas and gives more room and more voice to the likes of Ahmadinejad…

This conference should easily be able to adapt to a change in its scheduling to be used as the perfect venue to resolve any conflicts participating countries have in regards to its topics, especially if that topic deals with allegations of racism… and even if the entire conference is used up to this end, then hey! the next conference will be all that much more productive.

If these countries which are choosing to boycott the conference really wanted to resolve matters and fervently believe that the whole issue concerning the Israelis promotes racism, wouldn’t they be doing the smart thing? which is uniting together to debate this issue and bring about changes at a place and at a time where it definitely should matter… a U.N. Conference on Racism???

Here is what the Congressional Black Caucus had to say about this in a statement they released today:
"Had the United States sent a high-level delegation reflecting the richness and diversity of our country, it would have sent a powerful message to the world that we're ready to lead by example. Instead, the administration opted to boycott the conference, a decision that does not advance the cause of combating racism and intolerance, but rather sets the cause back."


Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Another Post About the Seal Hunt that’s not Really About the Seal Hunt


I’ve been busy on other projects and as I am still awaiting answers from a few organisations involved, I will hold off from discussing some of the questions vis-à-vis PETA that I previously raised in my last post but as promised, this entry will continue on the subject of the controversial seal hunt; instead I’ll provide examples of some of the zealous attitudes I’ve brought up and question their validity.

Below are two comments that had been posted in response to a pro-PETA article and their recent activities against the seal hunt. I’ve chosen these since they plainly represent two extremes of the flawed ‘emotional’ thinking I previously talked about.

1. the sealers are sick people, who need to be clubbed in the head once and awhile, maybe they would think twice about doing it to a helpless animal. It's worst then watching the chain saw mascara! Jesus Christ said: "the love of money is the root of evil". That's what the seal hunt is, evil straight from hell, this is not from God! Be sure that, their evil will not be overlooked by their Creator, He will judge them some day and punish them for what they are doing. It would be best if they where to stop now!

2. How do you think these people feel when they find out a source of income has been taken away by someone who has seen only pictures and heard stories from other people about what goes on there? Or do you care solely about how the animals feel?. To quote Penn from Penn and Teller "I would kill every chimpanzee in the world, if it could save one person with AIDS or MS."

The first one particularly annoys me; there’s no logical argument being presented here. Putting my own religious views aside, this comment nonetheless demonstrates ignorance and I seriously question anyone that invokes religion while in the same breath, voices a clear lack of tolerance; Jesus Christ certainly would not have said anything about anyone needing to take a beating once in a while (nor “once and awhile”)… I do however recall him saying something about “turning the other cheek,” and I’m quite certain that if one were to bother, at least five biblical quotes to contradict hers could be dug up within ten minutes
My question to this person is: Do you eat meat or eggs, drink milk or coffee, wear wool, leather or fur, use cosmetics, and support brands with manufacturing plants in third-world countries? When this person cooks her Thanksgiving turkey, roasts her Christmas lamb and boils her Easter ham, is she willing to admit that she’s encouraging others to act in an even more vile way than what the sealers are doing? When she buys that pack of chicken breasts, is this person aware that she’s supporting an industry that mistreats animals from the time they are born right up to their death. Do I need to say more? By her own logic, should vegans pump her full of steroids, force her to live in her own excrements, burn off her nose and cut portions of her skin and… once in a while so she’d think twice about encouraging industries that do all that for her?
Plus, the “watching the chain saw mascara” bit is really funny! So much I could say about that, but I’ll assume it’s just a typo…

The second comment raises some of the points forcing me to re-question my stance on this topic and the arguments seemed fairly coherent until I read that last sentence—I should mention here that I included only the last half of the comment just to give you an idea of the context in which it was stated. In the first place, can we really compare the seal hunting communities’ economic situation to that of an Aids or MS sufferer’s? More importantly, such a belief, that an entire species of animals is worth sacrificing just to save one human, is the kind of raciocentric thinking that is a keystone to attitudes that have permitted hate crimes and genocides throughout history. Why?
Anyone who believes in the viability of such an action cannot possibly assign any importance to theories of symbiosis and that a drastic shift in our flora or fauna can severely affect our fragile eco-equilibrium; rather than seeing humans as an integral part of a life-supporting system, humans dominate a linear hierarchy of increasingly less important sub-classes. Unfortunately, this way of thinking usually implies a belief in further hierarchical divisions within the classes themselves that lends itself well to theories of racial superiority.
As such, our general definition of well-being increasingly confuses superficial needs—any heightened mental state we’ve come to associate with the possession of material goods—with those vital, basic Maslow-nian needs; the richer and more technologically advanced a population is, the more this seems to be the case. As such, this stance is also greatly responsible for the deplorable living conditions we’ve created for ourselves through the slow replacement of our natural environment in lieu of an increasingly synthetic one.
Notions of superiority are also brought up to justify self-destructive attitudes as well as callous, intolerant behaviour towards members of our own species, which are usually motivated by greed and jealousy.
Further, this comment goes beyond ignorance to be just plain silly when you consider the context in which it is made. This person complains that others do not understand the economic importance seal hunting represents to these communities… and sees it fit to strengthen his point with a comment that clearly shows a lack of understanding in regards to the economic affects the annihilation of chimps would surely bring on!

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

The Easter Seals and that Bloody Hunt!


It’s that time of year again. And no, I'm not asking for donations.

The London, On. chapter of PETA just recently staged a protest against our national seal hunt. Toy seals were heaped on the sidewalk at a busy street corner, their fury white (fake) fur smeared with simulated blood (if it was ketchup, I do hope it was the certified bio stuff); someone dramatically bludgeoned the pile with a bat while some showed bystanders brutal pictures of mutilated carcases and others of seals being skinned alive…

Apparently, ‘shocking’ was the key word! The ol’ but revamped adage that in order to raise awareness and funds for a cause (or as I like to say: to sell an opinion and guarantee a salary for doing it…), if you can’t connect sex to your topic, the next best thing is recreating the feel and ambiance of the Saw movies!

I’ll be frank; this is one topic on which I still swing both ways; don't know what to tell you! All the arguments, pro and con, are available within a few clicks so I won’t rehash them here; I’ll rely on readers to find sources and make sure they get both sides of the story…

However, this is what I do know and can tell you:

I do know that I don't like the idea that seals are suffering, both as the result of hunts or its opposite, starvation due to overpopulation and the subsequent lack of food (taking into account the melting ice caps and its effect on food supplies).
I also know that, for all it's worth, Canadians are getting an entirely different story from its government and those communities participating in the seal hunts; though we also do not like to see the images, the majority seems to accept that 'clubbing' is the best possible course of action for all... as long as the seals don't suffer!

Another thing I do know is that this issue has forced me to admit that it really irks me when rich and snooty Europeans—Bono, Bardot, McCartney, and the likes...and yes, I've also got DeGaule in mind—meddle directly in any of our affairs. Canadians (I know I'm not alone on this) apparently have a hard time swallowing outside pressure, especially when it’s coming from England, France, that one Irish dude (you know who I mean), and the U.S. I’m not entirely sure why that is (except for the Irish dude); hmmm…perhaps a subject worth investigating in a future post. Anyhow…

Something else that I do know is that this subject clearly brings to light hypocrisy from everyone, including supporters! I also know that the seal hunt is proving itself to be great food for propaganda on both sides of the battle, and I also know that I have heard way too many allegations from varied sources regarding false, falsified and manufactured material being used in anti-seal hunting campaigns to overlook this aspect. And PETA does have a reputation for...well...you know... wanting to 'win at all cost!'

Lastly, the most important thing that I know is that winning this fight (which for me implies a course of actions that would resolve all facets of this issue while also ensuring that only the dying seals are 'put out of their misery' and their 'bounty' used up entirely) would be a pointless victory if we all don't change our general attitude. Why?
Because I also know that everyone needs to know the following: presently, everyone is fighting this cause à la James Dean... without a cause! Unfortunately, except for most of the people who 'work' for the organizations and humane groups, almost all supporters who are fervently against the seal hunt are entirely letting feelings make their decisions while barely leaving any room for logic. In this context, this would be right if things weren't so wrong! And since things are so wrong, present generations can't afford to let emotions dictate too many more of our big, 'earth' related decisions.
This will be fully explained in my next post, but keep in mind at this point that one of the reasons I say this is because certain 'feelings' have clearly been warped and weakened for us and by us; society is incredibly desensitised. Now is the time for logic to take over for a while to get our 'hearts' back in shape and to get that blood flowing to the brain again...

Logically, I feel that this is the biggest problem:

If done humanely and within strict regulations over the target types and their numbers, killing seals is, by far, no worse than killing chickens, cows, bulls, pigs, sheep and their lambs, or dragging in a net full of fish... I am by no means trying to imply that killing all these animals is honky-dory and necessary, however, people definitely need to keep this comparison in mind and need to be honest with themselves before taking a firm stance on the topic of seal hunting!

Here’s a little test I like to perform on people:What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when I say the words: chicken, fish, and lamb?

The context in which this is being asked may have affected your own answer, but otherwise, 9 out of 10 people** give me a ‘food’ answer (anything that relates to food i.e. the name of a dish or words like ‘lunch’ or ‘tasty,’ etc.) over an ‘animal’ one (anything that actually relates to a living creature). This simple test reveals much about our society!!!
So, if you’re a ‘food’ person and you’re seriously against seal hunting, maybe you really need to review why and hope that “they’re just so cute,” is not the only answer you can provide. Lambs are also cute and I’m sure there are people out there who think that cows are sexy and I’m also fairly certain I read a story somewhere about some man marrying a chicken… So what?! After being stacked, packed and forced to grow ASAP, are they spared from the slaughterhouses when you're hungry?
And what about the whopping big death tolls that are fed to us by all the ‘anti-hunt’ groups? Although they may seem like overwhelming numbers, strict quotas are established to insure a healthy population and sure, I hate to have to go back to my chickens on this but… truth is, more chickens get their necked snapped or chopped throughout the world on any single day, year round! And what about cows and...

So I also know that until we hear of the existence of seal farms that behave and operate with the same vile mentality demonstrated by the commercial farms and slaughterhouses that drive our food industry, shouldn’t seal hunting be the least of our problems? Shouldn't consumers focus on their eating habits first?

So why is PETA so intensely involved on this one particular campaign (or are they?) and why are they focusing their efforts in Europe? And what about those allegations?
I’ve got more to say on this, so I will have more double-edged questions put forward in the form of answers for you to question in the next post…
Until then, please enjoy this happy seal (not to be confused with Happy Meal™):


Keep on clicking!

PDL
**Numbers given have been attained through informal testing done outside of a controlled environment and as such, although interesting, do not constitute meaningful scientific data. Actual results: 64 in total; 56 (87.5%) - food response; 5 (7.8%) - animal response; 3 (4.7%) - n/a answer or too long a response time to consider the answer as spontaneous.
© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credits: unknown - stock image.

The Paradox We Buy Into


Among my favourite paradox:

The Grelling-Nelson paradox: Is the word ‘heterological’, meaning "not applicable to itself," a heterological word?
Hempel's Raven paradox: Observing a green apple increases the likelihood of all ravens being black.
Condorcet's paradox: A group of separately rational individuals may have preferences which are irrational in the aggregate.
This unavoidably leads me to the one I call the Tight-Budget paradox: Every one hates Walmart; they have a great selection at the lowest prices.

I bring up Walmart because I just heard on the news that employees at the St. Hyacinthe, Que. store ‘won’ their case and the right to unionize this morning.
According to the Wal-Mart spokesperson, “It’s an empty deal.” And the fairly right-wing National Post agreed; this is a victory for Walmart!
Of course the union-rep had a different spin on this, but its own emptiness only seemed to validate Walmart’s angle…

And what is it with Quebec and our unions? Is that hush-hush marriage they made with politics back in the 70’s still holding strong?
And who initiated all the work and paid for all the costs that made this union possible; the store employees or the union itself? Of course, the right pockets were greased and the right buttons pressed and the employees now had a target for all their anger and someone who was willing to lend a viable voice… but in the end, it’s the union that stands to profit the most, and not the employees. One Walmart down… thousands and thousands of new union membership dues to come…
Paradoxically, these employees will now be paying more in union dues than the $0.30 per hour increase (new employees won’t be eligible for this wage increase) their new collective agreement promises them, and a big zip in regards to group benefits.
But union leaders urge us to believe that this is a moral victory! They tell us that employees can no longer be bullied; the new collective agreement protects employees from not being fired unjustly.
My question is this: don’t we have La commission des normes du travail to protect these rights??? Seems to me that if just half of all those membership dues and resources were redirected to the provincial body officially appointed to assure that certain rights are being enforced in the workplace, they’d actually have the power and money necessary to do their job!
So what did the employees really win? The right to say: Yo man, I can’t do that…it’s not in my job description!?
And so ‘winning a union’ is not amongst those paradox that tickle my mind…

Although I personally hate Walmart, this for me, is far from being a victory against the giant!

Will this one last longer than the Jonquière, Que. and Gatineau, Que. stores for which Walmart simulated a loss thus manufacturing a legal reason to close down the stores within months after employees there had won their union? Of course these closures had a huge economic impact on these cities, what was the union doing then?

What do you think?

1. Walmart will eventually close the St.-Hyacinthe store.
2. The Walmart Empire is crumbling! Today Quebec, tomorrow Wal-Mex!
3. I don’t care; I prefer shopping at Zellers!
4. Walmart doesn’t care. Their Mumbai research facility is on the verge of a breakthrough and so one of their Chinese plants will begin manufacturing obedient cybernetic employees within 2 years.

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Just How Bad Do We Want It?


It seems like so much has happened while I was away from my PC; where to start? What subject should I tackle as my first post after a lengthy pause?

Perhaps that the day I chose to leave the city for the slow comfort of the country was marked as the day thousands marched through Montreal to manifest against police brutality, which, ironically, resulted in brutality… leaving millions of dollars in damages in its wake… and hundreds of brutal arrests.
As an event, this was a prime example of failure at its best.
Certainly it can be argued that the “oppressive” police presence is what triggered anger in some supporters but in my opinion, taking this view is just playing the superficial blame-game to profit from what was to be an inevitable (and perhaps even desired?) consequence since, in my mind, the rally clearly involved a mob even though no-one seemed to be mindful of this. I know; this is where I have to explain my view…

Now, according to R. W. Emerson: “A mob is a society of bodies voluntarily bereaving themselves of reason;” this definition appears to be the one used in the jargon belonging to sociology and psychology; even Max Weber’s treatment of the subject is in line with this. Although I agreed with it at first, further reflection led me to conclude that this definition, as it applies to this sense of the word, needs to be reviewed. Firstly, the idea of voluntarily giving up something, as presented in Emerson’s definition, implies a “united consciousness” and I fervently believe that any concept of a “collective or uniting goal” unfortunately needs to be excluded from the definition of mob adopted by the authorities and organizers; although people may unite under one given theme does not mean that they are all present for the same reasons…
Facts are that in many “riots,” the damages are often caused by a very small percentage that sees such gatherings as opportunities to go wild, to justify violent urges, and to make off with a TV or two… The words 'Stanley cup' and 'Montreal' should suffice to illustrate this idea.

As such, I believe that a proper definition of the term applicable in a sociological and/or psychological context should be: a mob is a society of bodies, gathered under the guise of a uniting factor, for whom particular events may trigger a collective loss of individual responsibility i.e. big crowd = mob.
In other words, if a 'trigger' which may potentially result in negative societal behaviour en masse can be discerned, we are hence dealing with a mob; this is true for almost any large group of people (hence 'mob effect'). Think about it, one wrong turn of events and even something as joyful as the Just for Laugh Festival has the potential to turn into a bloodbath…

This new definition I am proposing may seem pointless, but it should be noted that it distinguishes itself from the original in that it refers to an event in stasis rather than to one that is already set in motion; my definition would thus embody the potential side of the potential versus kinetic energy dichotomy found in physics. Therefore, the sense we normally attribute to a mob should eventually concretize in our minds as a 'thing' for which rioting represents only one mode of expression, instead of a 'thing' that is expressing rioting… From this p.o.v., it should now come as no surprise that even an anti-vandalism rally can produce record breaking acts of vandalism if that 'energy' is improperly triggered…

And why go through all that linguistic hoopla and an anal redefinition of a definition? Why take that semantics tangent to focus on such a minute part—a particle, a word—of the problem i.e. mob. It’s simple: simply, to simplify complexly simple matters…

Of course, this is just my way of poking fun at the 'twits' I generally see in charge on both sides of these types of events—those leading the 'cause' and those responsible for public 'security'; I am too often made to feel that certain basic tenets and tautologies need to be explained to them. How else can we reinforce the idea that they should be acting in a manner that actually befits their cause? Although there have been many worthwhile, well-organized, and efficient manifestations throughout history, unfortunately, most give the air of having been planned in between several Martinis and a greasy, early-afternoon breakfast at the local diner. Good intentions aren’t enough to produce a change, and so all too often what I see is behaviour that does nothing but hinder most causes. I couldn’t have asked for a better example for all of this than the March 15th "March Against Police Brutality."

In this case, had the law applied my definition whilst planning security measures, they surely would have asked themselves: hmmm…what type of thing can act as a trigger setting off this mob into riot mode? The most obvious answer possible, an oppressive and intimidating police presence, would no doubt have crossed their minds.The fact that police confronted the crowds in the manner in which they did, manipulating them into smaller more manageable groups, clearly points towards stupidity and makes me entirely question whether or not they actually wanted to avoid a confrontation.
Having a large number of officers dressed in civvies, aiding organisers and acting as supporters for the cause would no doubt have procured a greater and more efficient control and would have greatly enhanced police image. And what better way to diffuse a cause then by a show of support from the targeted members?
But no, instead the police showed up wearing the latest in fascist chic; evidently, they were taking a stand. They were being used as a political tool rather than functioning within the confines of what should be their primary roles, i.e. ensuring public safety and enforcing the law; the people behind this clear and deliberate choice to use the police this way should be fired!
Do we also need to redefine for them what the role of the police should be and why there was such a march???

So why did I previously say that putting the blame on the police was just a lame way to divert some of the responsibility?

Because, if those responsible for the march had been earnest in their proclaimed efforts, they certainly would have organised things differently; they would have applied pressure before the event to ensure an entirely different kind of police presence—that of supporters rather than oppressors—and consequently encourage change through positive efforts all the while avoiding a repeat of last year’s events. All sorts of (media) tactics could have been applied to guarantee a productive, sensitizing collaboration from Montreal’s police force, so the question begs to be asked: are organisers happy things turned out the way they did since this gave validity to their cause (and also enhanced any sense of importance they may derive from this)?
This leads to more question begging: Was the idea to gather a horde of easily angered citizens in a period marked by financial difficulties and violent upheavals against totalitarian acts around the world really the best way to go?
The logic and planning that was demonstrated by the people that organised this event greatly makes me question their true intentions and whether or not they actually do want to attain their goal.
Manifestations shouldn’t be a part of a marketing campaign and a way to sensitise people to a cause; they should be tools to indicate that a clear change is being demanded by a strongly united portion of the populace…

So perhaps if supporters, organisers, and the authorities realise that they’re dealing with a mob—to which we seem to assign more importance and power than a crowd—at the onset of the event rather than at the onset of rioting, this small shift in perception will instil a greater sense of responsibility in all those involved, as well as a more focused participation, and a greater achievement of all’s intended goals that can only result from better planning. This shift should also force leading members to re-question their respective approaches, as well as force some sort of introspective reassessment of one’s personal values and… (OK, now I’m off into La La Land.) In many cases, for many causes, I really don’t think that marches and manifestations are the best ways of producing change, although they certainly are the easiest to organise and to feel good about (I walked therefore I really care… yeah! Right!)…

Essentially, I’m hoping this new definition will  move people towards proactive modes of thinking and away from re-active ones.
Why do I care? Because I am genuinely upset by the many results I witness due to so much counter-productive energy and the painfully slow changes this produces, just as I am upset by the fact that present conditions necessitate the very existence of so many of these causes.
I’m all for positive change but the best way I have found to support 'my causes' is at the individual level – it has nothing to do with collective chants but everything to do with the way I choose to live my life on a daily basis…

Conversely, I’m also hoping that enough people will eventually clue in to the idea that if big crowd = mob, that once properly united, awesome changes could in fact be applied through modes of communications other than rioting – what’s important to remember is the potential, raw energy (power) that a mob represents. Now it may be true that in North America, the top 2 % now have more wealth than the bottom 94% combined, but we also seem to be forgetting that this 94, if properly “energized” does have the potential to apply a greater control over that 2%. If we all apply certain changes in our individual lives, big collective ones are bound to come… And just imagine if we all actually channelled that potential energy through proactive protests rather than shift the burden and still rely on the militant few who will always be willing to march on…

Well… I guess that this will be the topic for this first-in-a-while post after all! I had originally intended on putting together a list-like description of all the events that had caught my attention since my last tirade but it looks like I lost “it” on the first topic alone…


Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Down My Street and Up Yours. Copyrights © 2008 - 2011 by pdl com. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, no part of this blog may be used in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the owner. For information contact: pdlussier[at]downmystreetandupyours.org