And Silly Gets Sillier


And if you thought silly couldn’t get sillier, voila, more silliness in the world. Here’s the story:

As you all know, the Copenhagen Climate Conference is currently underway (Dec. 6 - 18). This is the last time parties of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) will meet at the government level to discuss proposed changes for the new agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol once it runs out in 2012.

Here’s the bug:
“Ecocity World Summit 2009, the 8th International Ecocity Conference: Urban Ecological Foundations for Climate Solutions” is running from December 13 to the 15 in Istanbul, Turkey.

Here’s the blurb:
“The International Ecocity Conference Series brings together the key innovators, decision makers, technologists, businesses and organizations shaping the conversation around ecological and sustainable city, planning and development.”

Here's my say:
Why the f*ck isn’t this happening in Copenhagen or Copenhagen in Istanbul?!? Couldn’t they combine the two? Shouldn’t they combine the two?!?! Or shouldn’t this have occurred before the Copenhagen Conference at the very least? So government officials are in Copenhagen making the big decisions that impact our planet, good or bad, while the people qualified and passionate about those decisions—the people who supposedly really care—are 2024 Kilometres (1258 miles) away???

And things are going to change how?

Keep on clicking!

PDL


© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credits: "Blindingly Forward" by PDL

.

The Corporation... On Our Street


Because everyone should see this at least once... All 23 parts are available through
the YT viewer. I have some complaints, but...
Enjoy.



Keep on clicking!

PDL


.

Bank Profits High, Bewilderment Higher


Economics is one of those things I really have a hard time wrapping my brain around. I have a much easier time understanding complex neurolinguistics theory or mind-numbing philosophical treatise than I do finance and the money market. But I don't feel bad about that, 'cause when I really listen to economists and analysts and I look at events and markets around the world, it's clear to me that no one else, not even those who make it their field of study, seem to really know what's going on. Case in point, here was an expert opinion on our bank's expected 2009 fiscal-year-end (which ended Oct. 31): "It is less clear if the overall profit will outshine that of the fourth quarter of 2008. Some say earnings will be a bit better than a year ago; others think they may be a bit worse" (Canadian banks to cap 2009 with decent quarter, The Globe and Mail).

So the numbers are coming in, and what are we to make about everything being "down", that we're in the middle of a recession complete with cut-backs, lay-offs, and fee hikes, while Canadian banks are closing their fiscal year with "better than expected" lofty profits?

Our banks are receiving international praise for what turned out to be prudent management that helped them to weather the recent global financial crisis better than all their international peers, especially those south of the border, which makes a strong argument for better banking regulations in the United States, but I digress...

So times are tough and money is hard to come by... which basically translates to household incomes being hit hard. Funny that our banks are quick to point out that their retail and branch operations—those operations that handle our household incomes—is what lost them loads of money, and that it was in fact their financial markets sectors which allowed them such gains... It’s as if banks want Canadians to feel guilty so that their profits aren’t questioned. And nonetheless:

- CIBC's net profit for the fourth-quarter rose to $644 million from $436 million a year earlier. A difference of $208 million.

- TD said its investment banking division had a record quarter earning $372 million compared with a loss of $228 million in 2008.

- National Bank, the sixth-biggest lender, said fourth-quarter profit came in at $241 million, from $70 million last year.

- BMO, RBC, and Bank of Nova Scotia haven't yet released their numbers (today for RBC; next week for Scotiabank) but they are expected to show strong profits that far exceed Street estimates.

And yet our Canadian debt is expected to jump to $630B by 2014 and the average household debt level keeps rising and rising... Poverty levels increase each year as does famine and homelessness... as does the number of homes repossessed by banks.

How much is enough for banks? How can they possibly justify those kinds of profits and then rag about bad loans??? And when our economy is going well and they’re making money on all fronts? What kind of profits then? And how much did they already stow away in over-seas and tax-free foreign accounts?

And still, our fees keep increasing and our returns dwindling. Seems like the wisest thing to do with one’s money is to put it in bank shares, not bank accounts, providing that one has any money left to invest...

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credits: "Canadiana 3" by PDL
.

Taking the Myth Out of Adverts - Pt. 1 - Intro


I'm often accused of reading too much into ads; conversely, I find that people read way too little into them. How else to explain people's convoluted desires to satisfy futile needs they wouldn't otherwise have, along with the stubborn persistence of certain stereotypical ideals?

Through this series, I'll try to demonstrate using real-world examples just how and why marketing plays a much bigger role in our lives than any of us would like to admit; it dominates the ideas of all those in developed countries, and impacts on those in developing ones. I'll take a semiotics approach--focusing on signs and our relation with them--to show that advertising is one of the most potent socializing forces out there, and that, given the shallow culture it tends to promote and propagate to its own end, it is in the interest of advertisers to cultivate all types of delusions and negative stereotypes, all in the name of Consumerism (the capital 'C' kind).

Since I barely watch any TV, I actually get a kick out of watching the commercials. They are positively great indicators of the mores of any society - there's so much to learn from them, providing you're willing to read beyond the product's gleam. But TV ads aren't the only interesting ones. These days, it's easier to name the spaces that don't contain advertising in one form or another than doing the reverse. Incredible sums of money go into studying people using highly refined research methods and tools, all with the aim of developing the most efficient ways of conveying a message to targeted members of society through various media.
And advertisers care about one thing, getting the message out there and into our brain, and they'll do whatever it takes. However, no matter what punches they'll pull or what fireworks they'll use to blind us, successful advertisers invariably rely on two things, myth and ideology. And how we are sold these, myth and ideology, through a careful consideration and packaging of symbols and signs sure says a lot about humans...

In a future post, I'll offer an in-depth definition of what I mean by 'myth' in this context and discuss how advertising forges our collective consciousness of reality by reformulating, establishing, exploiting and perpetuating myths and ideologies, which are useful in that they can make particular ideas seem natural. And natural notions are easier to accept and harder to resist, and can therefore give certain social meanings the allure of common-sense truths about the real world. According to Roland Barthes, myths usually serve the ideological interests of 'the bourgeoisie' , which he uses to refer to "the class of people who own or control the industrial, commercial, and political institutions of society, in order that their ownership, power and control can remain unchanged and unchallenged" (Mythologies, 1973: 137).

On a bi-weekly basis (or whenever I get the chance), I'll explore the why's behind why we buy what we buy and live the way we do according to myths which usually have historical and psychological realism that isn't even based on reality, but on convention.

The best way to break these myths then is to remove the impression of naturalness by understanding how the myth is constructed, and how it promotes one way of thinking while seeking to eliminate all the alternative ways of thinking.

Feel free to contribute to this discussion in whatever way you chose. Interest will determine the depth to which I will explore the subject...


Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis
Lussier
.

Cheerios and Genocide? Who'd a Thunk It?!



Have you heard and/or seen this new--new, meaning that I saw it for the first time last night--slogan for MultiGrain Cheerios?
They probably spent millions developing this slogan, and it's clear that the Cheerios people want consumers to think about "fat" and a healthier lifestyle... or so that's what their lawyers will assure us. General Mills is clearly positioning this product to compete head-on with Kellog's Special-K, by targeting the same mid-twenties to early-forties college educated, middle-class women who, like all women, are weight conscious.
And how can women not be weight obsessed these days, right? And this is the type of ad campaign that both aims to profit on, as well as contribute further to women's obsession with weight. And why not? It's an incredibly profitable industry generating billions and billions of dollars worldwide. Americans alone spend between $34 billion and $50 billion a year on diets.
Incredible numbers when considering that the entire industry relies on manufacturing a lack of confidence in order to create false needs, by instilling a desire to attain an unrealistic (and unattainable) version of one's self. The role assigned to women throughout history seems to make them more vulnerable to all sorts of products and tactics that feed on and perpetuate the inequality issues that concern feminists, but advertisers are increasingly finding new ways to target men as well; anorexia is no longer just a "woman's disorder". Cheerios is careful how they go about it, and they can easily argue that they are merely trying to promote a healthier lifestyle, but the ad I saw did feature two women doing laundry... all the elements were there... And here's their product page. The text is pure conjectures about grains and weight "control".
But think about it. "More Grain, Less You." How does that make you feel? What if a lover, a friend, or family were to tell you, "I wish I saw less of you," or, "you'd be better if there was less of you"? How would you react to that? And yet you accept it from anonymous breakfast cereal pushers?!
"Less You" on its own is not all that surprising to hear in this epoch marked by the loss of individuality, just surprising that a company would be so forward about it. Should I say more?
But "More Grain, Less You" is an especially odd slogan considering the current worldwide food crisis and the devastating effects continually rising grain prices are having on impoverished populations around the world. Droughts and natural disasters; a sudden need to produce major amounts of ethanol; trade policies; the causes are varied, but according to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), the price of grain staples increased by about 132% since March 2007. The price of wheat increased by 181% over a three year period. The price of rice, already swelling, grew by 50% over a three month period in 2008, and hasn't stopped rising since....
Entire third-world populations are on the brink of famine, unable to buy food because of the growing price of grain, while North Americans are suddenly having it beaten into their heads that they need as much grain as possible in their diets. Breads, noodles, breakfast cereals, snacks, granola bars, chips, etc.; all the smart companies now offer a healthy alternative multi-grain version. Clearly, and despite their claims, corporations are getting fatter off of these price hikes... but could there be more behind all this? The rising prices and the World Trade Organization are allowing foreign governments and companies greater control in poorer, developing countries, while proposing a de facto instrument of population control by "eliminating the poor" through "starvation deaths". In the words of Henry Kissinger: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."
According to Brahm Ahmadi, an advocate with Food Justice, "in order to discuss issues of hunger, one must also discuss the underlining issues of racial and class disparity and the inequities in the food system that correlate to inequities to economic and political power."
Gives a new definition to "More Grain, Less You".

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