wrapping your borrowed head around

As these things often go, the creative impetus goes through a cycle of waxing and waning. Currently it is in a state of wane. It's a time of alacrity dawdling tendencies. Affirmation of how oxymoronic life is.

This site offers a window into only so much I can or may feel the need to tell you. It seems maybe that as the seasons teeter on the brink of change, by many, life itself is questioned for some kind of direction to be established. Don't get us wrong - there is definitely activity. The dilution of democratic freedoms and civil liberties under the auspices of national and economic security. The new fiscal year. Altogether it offers many office groups gossip and speculation as to what the hell resolution necessarily means. Does it really mean management of a new infrastructure? Does it really mean better facilitation? Does it really involve meeting socio-economic needs? Does it really set new challenges with more fluency? Does it really mean policy reform in conjunction with new strategy? Plenty of discombobulated words with axis, charts, and graphs to go around. It may all as well mean a cosmetic change. But of course, I imagine for most public servants, all of it most importantly begs the question, does it mean better accommodations for you know who, if you know what I mean? The unfortunate thing is that all of this falls outside of the mandated subject matter, and as such, my discussion is completely verboten.


During a speech the day before, President Bush said “First of all, the globe is warming. The fundamental debate — is it manmade or natural?” Actually, that’s no longer a debate, at least among the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. In a report to the United Nations, the Environmental Protection Agency says that man-made greenhouse gases in the US will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. And while acknowledging some scientific uncertainties, the EPA says that the recent warming trend “…is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years … due mostly to human activities.”

How much longer will Bush keep his head in the sand? For Sean O'Grady, he wrote recently in the ad-filled motoring supplement of The Independent: "...in answer to the many letters we get criticising some of our coverage, we don't make cars. We just write about them. [...] We try to concentrate on telling our readers about the many ways you can enjoy motoring without costing the earth (in any sense)." (O'Grady, 'Sport Utility Vehicles: Don't shoot the messenger. The people who buy SUVs are the problem, not the industry that makes them, or even the motoring press', The Independent, March 7, 2006)

O'Grady went on:

"Why so defensive? Because so much of the criticism dangerously misses the point. Almost every one of us wants to help to save the planet and almost every one of us wants personal transport.

So who, according to the Independent motoring journalist, is to blame?

"The enemies of the planet, the hypocrites if you will, are not the oil companies that refine the petrol or the car companies that make the vehicles, or the journalists who write about them or the advertising industry that markets them or the bankers who lend us money to buy them. The people to blame are the people who buy cars in the first place, without whom none of the vast industry would exist. Now you know who to write letters to."

This is a facile argument on many levels. For instance, consider that corporations spend billions annually to promote their products and to create new markets around the globe. As a philosopher one notes:

"From the point of view of the corporation, the ideal citizen is a kind of insanely rapacious consumer [driven by a] kind of psychopathic version of self-interest." (Quoted in Joel Bakan, 'The Corporation', Constable, London, 2004, p. 135)

Corporations also 'externalise' the environmental and other costs of their products, minimising or avoiding regulation with government connivance - so that society as a whole, and the planet itself, bears the burden. However, O'Grady's article is quite a significant piece of journalism in that, until very recently, any discussion linking advertising, the media, corporations and environmental collapse was simply off the media's agenda. It is a promising sign that the public recognises that those issues are linked and that the media had better take note.

"But we don't talk about that. And, of course, they're very often the people [i.e. the corporations] advertising in the press and in the newspapers in the first place. It's very interesting, the kind of lack of debate at a time, for instance, about the car industry and the future of the car industry. Then you look at the number of car adverts and you begin to wonder, is there a connection? …I shouldn't say that, probably." ('Start The Week', BBC Radio 4, January 16, 2006)

Indeed, you are to be well-rewarded in a media career. If you’re interested in pursuing such a prestigious stint, best to learn not to dwell on such topics or else the sparks of sanity will quickly snuff you out. Referring to the argument that rejecting advertising would almost certainly drive you out of business.

People are readily eased for the dismissal of certain uncomfortable facts, especially those who have not escaped the attention heavy reliance to the crème de la media - indeed all the 'quality' press – advertising let alone produces revenue around 75%. Such dependence only produces one of a series of news filters protecting the public from unpalatable truths about state-corporate power in society. The propaganda model of mainstream media is rarely been mentioned, far less discussed seriously. So why not? From a moral perspective, some would see it as indefensible to be propping up pensions by polluting the planet.

The continued curiosity of utopian thinking hasn't yet grasped that of what the market provides for the best possible hope of eventually achieving ends. More money is already being thrown at renewable energy efficient technologies than the system can possibly cope with or is ever likely to produce a return, a state of affairs that will only be accentuated by President George Bush's State of the Union commitment to end America's addiction to oil [i.e. that of when every lost drop runs out].

Taking the statements of political leaders at face value is a defining characteristic of the corporate media. So too are the bizarre notions that corporations and 'free' markets, heavily skewed to serve the corporate interest, will 'save humanity'.

Law professor Joel Bakan interjects a note of rationality:

"The 'best interests of the corporation' principle, now a fixture in the corporate laws of most countries [compels] corporate decision makers always to act in the best interests of the corporation, and hence its owners. The law forbids any other motivation for their actions, whether to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money." (Bakan, op. cit., p.37)

The last despairing hope of blinkered media is that shifting a few chairs around at the top of the establishment will save the planet. Market 'sovereignty', an unhealthy fixation on economic 'growth', and the benign intent of corporate and political leaders are unshakeable articles of faith for profit-led media editors and journalists. It is little wonder that such media professionals will forever dispel any critical discussion of present policies, and possible sane alternatives, to the realm of utopian thinking. Utopian worlds as far as some acknowledge, will not and cannot exist but only in ones mind... of course. So continues the warming glow of commerce.