On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:20:11 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
 wrote:

>In article  , Grizzlie 
>Antagonist   wrote:
>



>>>
>>>My thoughts on the ANWR reserves is to leave it: It's not going anywhere,
>>>and if it's never disturbed, it will only increase in value
relative to the
>>>miles per gallon that can be utilized from it. There is also
the point that
>>>at some time in the future, the cost of oil may go so high, given China's
>>>demands on the markets (they are only going to buy our debt for
so long, and
>>>when they decide it's time to use their yuan for oil purchases instead,
>>>we're screwed), that it may have the ability to impact the
military's cost
>>>in buying the fuel it may require. At what point does a bit of
foresight go
>>>into looking at what the markets can do and how it may affect
our ability to
>>>protect ourselves and actually become policy? I'd like to see
it only used
>>>for emergency military purposes - a national reserve for our
defense and not
>>>for women named Tiffany to tool around going shopping in their Hummers
>>>with..
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe, but the high price of gas has got to be strangling the economy
>> right now and impacting people not as able to pay for it as Tiffany
>> is.
>>
>> I don't know why I should give a shit though.  I'm a fatalist who
>> thinks that Western civilization is coming to an end - and maybe
>> SHOULD come to an end.
>>
>Western Civilization? No. There's some fine points to it, but American
>shallow consumerist culture? God, I sincerely hope so. This country needs an
>enema.



To my mind, "shallow consumerist culture" or however you would
describe it has swallowed Western civilization and digested it.

There's nothing left of Western civilization to save except...well,
you get the picture.




>>>> But plenty of businessmen traded with and made profits
from trade with
>>>> the Worker's Paradises that were the old Soviet Union and
Eastern bloc
>>>> states.  Funding communism doesn't sound like a particularly
>>>> "conservative" thing to do but that was what was
necessary given the
>>>> requirements of THAT moment.
>>>>
>>>> A large number of cultural conservatives decry the
McDonaldsization or
>>>> the Starbuckization or the Wal-Martization of the country.  When a
>>>> part of a large chain makes its presence known in a small
town, local
>>>> businesses are very often threatened and very unconservative
>>>> population upheavals and economic dislocations result.
>>>>
>>>> Big Business tends to support the unconservative policy of
affirmative
>>>> action.
>>>
>>>Believe me, it's only done because an EOE rating for a company means that
>>>they can do business with the government. I spent many years as the token
>>>tit in the work crew, so the contractor could get the plum DOD contracts.
>>>That EOE rating applies to every aspect of business, including sales and
>>>Uncle Sam is a huge purchaser.
>>
>>
>>>> There are costs associated with affirmative action that Big
>>>> Business - with the advantages of large market share - can pass onto
>>>> their consumers with relative impunity.  This has the desired effect
>>>> of squeezing out smaller competitors who can't afford to
absorb those
>>>> costs OR pass them onto consumers.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of election results, the overwhelmingly dominant cultural
>>>> motifs are liberal (often nihilistically so), feminist, activist,
>>>> pro-gay rights, etc.  That's what Big Business sees when it surveys
>>>> the marketing landscape.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, people who are NOT liberals or feminists or activists or
>>>> pro-gay rights represent a significant share of the population and
>>>> obviously those people are consumers too - but those people don't
>>>> purchase consumer goods as a bloc.
>>>
>>>That's not quite true. Those consumers DO purchase in blocs,
it's just that
>>>the data isn't collected to show that. I'm still in the Nielsen Homescan
>>>Survey - 5 years now - and as I have over time changed the purchases I've
>>>made, and shifted to more locally produced, organic or handmade
(just higher
>>>quality overall), I've also lost the ability to record those
purchases - no
>>>bar codes.
>>>
>>>I went as far as recording for an entire week, all the things I bought,
>>>where, how much and how many and what the cost was. All the data that is
>>>taken by the scanner. I sent in the e-mail journal and within a
week got a
>>>response back from Nielsen. They didn't WANT to know really, what I was
>>>buying, if it didn't have a bar code on it. The rep on the phone was very
>>>nice, and she completely understood what I was doing and why,
but they were
>>>only interested in providing sales data to the major producers about what
>>>was selling and why.
>>>
>>>This is supposedly an impartial 50,000 plus household survey of
the things
>>>that Americans buy, but if it's handmade, or locally grown or
manufactured,
>>>don't bother. It was an eye opener to how much status quo is
maintained by
>>>selecting the parameters of the data collection. It virtually guarantees
>>>that large businesses and goods and food producers will appear to be the
>>>only ones in the markets and it's just not so.
>>>
>>>Their marketing and data collection is off the rails. I won't
even get into
>>>the inanity of the surveys and the questions and how they are phrased.
>>
>>
>>
>> You did all this as an individual though.
>
>Of course, but there are many, many other individuals in the same place, in
>both what they purchase and watch on teevee.  Ancillary to this, I'm often
>asked about movie viewing habits and because I do NOT go to a minimum
>predetermined number of films in a year, the reasons WHY I eschew them,
>which the producers would want to know, are again, not considered. The end
>result is those who consume the highest product amount get to set the tone
>of what everyone else watches. It's not at all about qualitative issues, but
>quanititave ones.
>
>The corporate business model blows. Nowhere does excellence play a factor
>beyond the dividend. The manufactured good? That's a means to and end, and
>it's all shite.
>
>>  You didn't organize or
>> respond to anyone who organized you.  You didn't receive input from
>> any klatch.  So I think that my point still holds.
>
>It does and it doesn't. The producer is so dependent on a relatively quick
>informational turnaround that they don't really know what the consumer wants
>but in a most general way. The largest group, representing the lowest common
>denominator is the only thing that matters and it is truly unfortunate for
>those interested in supporting excellence.
>>
>>
>>>> They don't organize in the same hive; they don't take cues from one
>>>> another on what is and is not politically correct.  Liberals,
>>>> activists, feminists, etc DO organize and DO act as a bloc
and are the
>>>> most readily identifiable consumer group that Big Business sees when
>>>> it surveys the marketing landscape.
>>>>
>>>> So Big Business largely caters to these people.  It doesn't somehow
>>>> suppress conservative distaste by making money from these people
>>>> because it has no conservative distaste to suppress.  Big Business
>>>> again is all about profit and market share.
>>>>
>>>> So yeah, people who argue that the news media and the entertainment
>>>> media can't possibly be liberal because they are owned by
Big Business
>>>> are indeed missing the point entirely.
>>>
>>>Business is conservative in it's dedication to buying
politicans. That's the
>>>truest hallmark of the liberal power sport known in the old days as
>>>'patronage'. Basically, there is no conservative or liberalism, there are
>>>only those who have enough in their lives and those who'll NEVER have
>>>enough.
>>
>>
>> That's my point.  I think.
>
>It's the only one that matters. Now let's go be mean to the shallow
>materialistic twits of the world and watch them squirm. ;)
>
>Gigantic Attitude indeed.
>
>Deb.



Don't forget; it's "Grizzlie Antagonist" now.

Not "Giant" or any form of the word (such as "Gigantic").

I will never forgive the San Francisco Giants for the 2002 World
Series.  Never.



>>>I like teasing the latter category, they're so neurotic about
becoming poor
>>>it's fun to watch them twitch.
>>>
>>>Deb.



------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 4:46:41 AM ---