Posts Tagged ‘public relations’

I pause periodically to contemplate deep time, ancient history, and other subjects that lie beyond most human conceptual abilities. Sure, we sorta get the idea of a very long ago past out there in the recesses or on the margins, just like we get the idea of U.S. sovereign debt now approaching $20 trillion. Problem is, numbers lose coherence when they mount up too high. Scales differ widely with respect to time and currency. Thus, we can still think reasonably about human history back to roughly 6,000 years ago, but 20,000 years ago or more draws a blank. We can also think about how $1 million might have utility, but $1 billion and $1 trillion are phantoms that appear only on ledgers and contracts and in the news (typically mergers and acquisitions). If deep time or deep debt feel like they don’t exist except as conceptual categories, try wrapping your head around the deep state , which in the U.S. is understood to be a surprisingly large rogue’s gallery of plutocrats, kleptocrats, and oligarchs drawn from the military-industrial-corporate complex, the intelligence community, and Wall Street. It exists but does so far enough outside the frame of reference most of us share that it effectively functions in the shadow of daylight where it can’t be seen for all the glare. Players are plain enough to the eye as they board their private jets to attend annual meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, or two years ago the Jackson Hole [Economic] Summit in Jackson Hole, WY, in connection with the American Principles Project, whatever that is. They also enjoy plausible deniability precisely because most of us don’t really believe self-appointed masters of the universe can or should exist.

Another example of a really bad trip down the rabbit hole, what I might call deep cynicism (and a place I rarely allow myself to go), appeared earlier this month at Gin and Tacos (on my blogroll):

The way they [conservatives] see it, half the kids coming out of public schools today are basically illiterate. To them, this is fine. We have enough competition for the kinds of jobs a college degree is supposed to qualify one for as it is. Our options are to pump a ton of money into public schools and maybe see some incremental improvement in outcomes, or we can just create a system that selects out the half-decent students for a real education and future and then warehouse the rest until they’re no longer minors and they’re ready for the prison-poverty-violence cycle [add military] to Hoover them up. Vouchers and Charter Schools are not, to the conservative mind, a better way to educate kids well. They are a cheaper way to educate them poorly. What matters is that it costs less to people like six-figure income earners and home owners. Those people can afford to send their kids to a decent school anyway. Public education, to their way of thinking, used to be about educating people just enough that they could provide blue collar or service industry labor. Now that we have too much of that, a public high school is just a waiting room for prison. So why throw money into it? They don’t think education “works” anyway; people are born Good or Bad, Talented or Useless. So it only makes sense to find the cheapest possible way to process the students who were written off before they reached middle school. If charter schools manage to save 1% of them, great. If not, well, then they’re no worse than public schools. And they’re cheaper! Did I mention that they’re cheaper?

There’s more. I provided only the main paragraph. I wish I could reveal that the author is being arch or ironic, but there is no evidence of that. I also wish I could refute him, but there is similarly no useful evidence for that. Rather, the explanation he provides is a reality check that fits the experience of wide swaths of the American public, namely, that “public high school is just a waiting room for prison” (soon and again, debtor’s prison) and that it’s designed to be just that because it’s cheaper than actually educating people. Those truly interesting in being educated will take care of it themselves. Plus, there’s additional money to be made operating prisons.

Deep cynicism is a sort of radical awareness that stares balefully at the truth and refuses to blink or pretend. A psychologist might call it the reality principle; a scientist might aver that it relies unflinchingly on objective evidence; a philosopher might call it strict epistemology. To get through life, however, most of us deny abundant evidence presented to us daily in favor of dreams and fantasies that assemble into the dominant paradigm. That paradigm includes the notions that evil doesn’t really exist, that we’re basically good people who care about each other, and that our opportunities and fates are not, on the whole, established long before we begin the journey.

This is a continuation from part 1.

A long, tortured argument could be offered how we (in the U.S.) are governed by a narrow class of plutocrats (both now and at the founding) who not-so-secretly distrust the people and the practice of direct democracy, employing instead mechanisms found in the U.S. Constitution (such as the electoral college) to transfer power away from the people to so-called experts. I won’t indulge in a history lesson or other analysis, but it should be clear to anyone who bothers to look that typical holders of elected office (and their appointees) more nearly resemble yesteryear’s landed gentry than the proletariat. Rule by elites is thus quite familiar to us despite plenty of lofty language celebrating the common man and stories repeated ad naseum of a few exceptional individuals (exceptional being the important modifier here) who managed to bootstrap their way into the elite from modest circumstances.

Part 1 started with deGrasse Tyson’s recommendation that experts/elites should pitch ideas at the public’s level and ended with my contention that some have lost their public by adopting style or content that fails to connect. In the field of politics, I’ve never quite understood the obsession with how things present to the public (optics) on the one hand and obvious disregard for true consent of the governed on the other. For instance, some might recall pretty serious public opposition before the fact to invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Bush Administration’s propaganda campaign succeeded in buffaloing a fair percentage of the public, many of whom still believe the rank lie that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and represented enough of an existential threat to the U.S. to justify preemptive invasion. Without indulging in conspiratorial conjecture about the true motivations for invasion, the last decade plus has proven that opposition pretty well founded, though it went unheeded.


/rant on

With a new round of presidential debates upon us (not really debates if one understands the nature of debate or indeed moderation — James Howard Kunstler called it “the gruesome spectacle of the so-called debate between Trump and Clinton in an election campaign beneath the dignity of a third-world shit-hole”), it’s worthwhile to keep in the front of one’s mind that the current style of public discourse does not aim to provide useful or actionable information with regard to either the candidates or the issues. Rather, the idea is to pummel the hapless listener, watcher, or reader into a quivering jangle of confusion by maintaining a nonstop onslaught of soundbites, assertions, accusations, grandstanding, and false narratives. Our information environment abets this style of machine-gun discourse, with innumerable feeds from InstaGoogTwitFaceTube (et cetera), all vying simultaneously for our limited attention and thereby guaranteeing that virtually nothing makes a strong impression before the next bit of BS displaces it in a rapid succession of predigested morsels having no nutritional content or value for earnest consumers of information (as opposed to mouth-breathers seeking emotional salve for their worst biases and bigotry). Many feeds are frankly indecipherable, such as when the message is brutally truncated and possessed of acronyms and hashtags, the screen is cluttered with multiple text scrolls, or panel participants talk over each other to claim more screen time (or merely raise their asshole quotient by being the most obnoxious). But no matter so long as the double barrels keep firing.

I caught Republican nominee Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyann Conway being interviewed by some banal featherweight pulling punches (sorry, no link, but she’s eminently searchable). Conway proved adept at deflecting obvious contradictions and reversals (and worse) of the Trump campaign by launching so many ideological bombs that nothing the interviewer raised actually landed. Questions and conflicts just floated away, unaddressed and unanswered. Her bizarre, hyperverbal incoherence is similar to the candidate’s stammering word salad, and ironically, both give new meaning to the decades-old term “Teflon” when applied to politics. Nothing sticks because piling on more and more complete wrongness and cognitive dissonance overwhelms and bewilders anyone trying to track the discussion. Trump and Conway are hardly alone in this, of course, though their mastery is notable (but not admirable). Talking heads gathered in panel discussions on, say, The View or Real Time with Bill Maher, just about any klatch occupying news and morning-show couches, and hosts of satirical news shows (some mentioned here) exhibit the same behavior: a constant barrage of high-speed inanity (and jokes, omigod the jokes!) that discourages consideration of an idea before driving pellmell onto the next.

Thoughtful persons might pause to wonder whether breathless, even virtuoso delivery results from or creates our abysmally short attention spans and lack of serious discussion of problems plaguing the nation. Well, why can’t it be both? Modern media is all now fast media, delivering hit-and-run spectacle to overloaded nervous systems long habituated to being goosed every few moments. (Or as quoted years ago, “the average Hollywood movie has become indistinguishable from a panic attack.”) Our nervous systems can’t handle it, obviously. We have become insatiable information addicts seeking not just the next fix but a perpetual fix, yet the impatient demand for immediate gratification — Internet always at our fingertips — is never quelled. Some new bit will be added to the torrent of foolishness sooner than it can be pulled down. And so we stumble like zombies, blindly and willingly, into a surreality of our own making, heads down and faces blue from the glare of the phone/tablet/computer. Of course, the shitshow is brightly festooned with buffoon candidates holding court over the masses neither intends to serve faithfully in office. Their special brand of insanity is repeated again and again throughout the ranks of media denizens (celebrity is a curse, much like obscene wealth, or didn’t you know that?) and is seeping into the ground water to poison all of us.

/rant off

I’m not paying close attention to the RNC in Cleveland. Actually, I’m ignoring it completely, still hoping that it doesn’t erupt in violence before the closing curtain. Yet I can’t help but hear some relevant news, and I have read a few commentaries. Ultimately, the RNC sounds like a sad, sad nonevent put on by amateurs, with many party members avoiding coming anywhere near. What’s actually transpiring is worthy of out-loud laughter at the embarrassment and indignities suffered by participants. The particular gaffe that caught my attention is cribbing from Michelle Obama in the speech delivered on Monday by Melania Trump. The speech writer, Meredith McIver, has accepted blame for it and characterized it as an innocent mistake.

Maybe someone else has already said or written this, but I suspect innocent plagiarism is probably true precisely because that’s the standard in quite a lot of academe these days. Students get away with it all the time, just not on a national stage. Reworking another’s ideas is far easier than coming up with one’s own original ideas, and Melania Trump has no reputation (near as I can tell) as an original thinker. The article linked to above indicates she admires Michelle Obama, so the plagiarism is from a twisted perspective an encomium.

The failure of Trump campaign officials to review the speech (or if they did review it, then do so effectively) is another LOL gaffe. It doesn’t rise to the level of the McCain campaign’s failure to vet Sarah Palin properly and won’t have any enduring effects, but it does reflect upon the Trump campaign’s ineptitude. My secret fear is that ineptitude is precisely why a lot of folks intend to vote for Trump: so that he can accelerate America’s self-destruction. It’s a negative view, and somewhat devil-may-care, to say “let’s make it a quick crash and get things over with already.” Or maybe it’s darkly funny only until suffering ramps up.

I received an e-mail with the usual ranting about some travesty by an anonymous Internet troll. These are always forwarded to me by a family member. I can’t decide whether this rant (grammatical and punctuation errors uncorrected) is more nearly economic or social. We should have a word like socioeconomic to cover both. Oh, wait … My counter-rant follows.

This is why  people are supporting TRUMP! From a Florida ER doctor:

I live and work in a state overrun with Illegal’s. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time.

Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids – that’s right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math.

I used to say, “We are the dumbest nation on earth,” Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution,

If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there’s a ‘catch 22’ (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees!

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU  KNOW! We need a real change that will be healthy for America!

No way was that penned by a Florida ER doc. Educated, licensed professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, CPAs) do not speak or write incoherent screed and straight-up lies like that — at least until they become presidential candidates. The mention of Florida should invalidate that bogus appeal to authority all by itself, considering what sorts of craziness come out of that state. It’s far more likely that it was written by some anonymous Tea Party supporter, typically a cranky old white person who can feel him- or herself being overwhelmed by an unstoppable demographic wave (just like the rest of us).


The phrase enlightened self-interest has been been used to describe and justify supposed positive results arising over time from individuals acting competitively, as opposed to cooperatively, using the best information and strategies available. One of the most enduring examples is the prisoner’s dilemma. Several others have dominated news cycles lately.

Something for Nothing

At the Univ. of Maryland, a psychology professor has been offering extra credit on exams of either 2 or 6 points if no more that 10 percent of students elect to receive the higher amount. If more than 10% go for the higher amount, no one gets anything. The final test question, which fails as a marker of student learning or achievement and doesn’t really function so well as a psychology or object lesson, either, went viral when a student tweeted out the question, perplexed by the prof’s apparent cruelty. Journalists then polled average people and found divergence (duh!) between those who believe the obvious choice is 6 pts (or reluctantly, none) and those who righteously characterize 2 pts as “the right thing to do.” It’s unclear what conclusion to draw, but the prof reports that since 2008, only one class got any extra credit by not exceeding the 10% cutoff.

Roping One’s Eyeballs

This overlong opinion article found in the Religion and Ethics section of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) website argues that advertizing is a modern-day illustration of the tragedy of the commons:

Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of twenty-first century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck.

I practice my own highly restrictive media ecology, defending against the fire hose of information and marketing aimed at me (and everyone else) constantly, machine-gun style. So in a sense, I treat my own limited time and attention as a resource not to be squandered on nonsense, but when the issue is scaled up to the level of society, the metaphor is inapt and breaks down. I assert that attention as an exploitable resource functions very differently when considering an individual vs. the masses, which have unique behavioral properties. Still, it’s an interesting idea to consider.

No One’s Bank Run

My last last example is entirely predictable bank runs in Greece that were forestalled when banks closed for three weeks and placed withdrawal limits (euphemism: capital controls) on what cash deposits are actually held in the vaults. Greek banks have appealed to depositors to trust them — that their deposits are guaranteed and there will be no “haircut” such as occurred in Cyprus — but appeals were met with laughter and derision. Intolerance of further risk is an entirely prudent response, and a complete and rapid flight of capital would no doubt have ensued if it weren’t disallowed.

What these three examples have in common is simple: it matters little what any individual may do, but it matters considerably what everyone does. Institutions and systems typically have enough resilience to weather a few outliers who exceed boundaries (opting for 6 pts, pushing media campaigns to the idiotic point of saturation, or withdrawing all of one’s money from a faltering bank), but when everyone acts according to enlightened self-interest, well, it’s obvious that something’s gotta give. In the examples above, no one gets extra points, no one pays heed to much of anything anymore (or perhaps more accurately, attention is debased and diluted to the point of worthlessness), and banks fail. In the professor’s example, the threshold for negative results is only 10%. Different operating environments probably vary, but the modesty of that number is instructive.

More than a few writers have interpreted the tragedy of the commons on a global level. As a power law, it probably functions better at a feudal level, where resources are predominantly local and society is centered around villages rather than megalopolises and/or nation-states. However, it’s plain to observe, if one pays any attention (good luck with that in our new age of distraction, where everyone is trained to hear only what our own culture instructs, ignoring what nature tells us), that interlocking biological systems worldwide are straining and failing under the impacts of anthropomorphic climate change. Heating at the poles and deep in the oceans are where the worst effects are currently being felt, but climate chaos is certainly not limited to out-of-sight, out-of-mind locations. What’s happening in the natural world, however, is absolutely and scarily for real, unlike bogus stress tests banks undergo to buttress consumer sentiment (euphemism: keep calm and carry on). Our failure to listen to the right messages and heed warnings properly will be our downfall, but we will have lots of company because everyone is doing it.

Before continuing with my series on “Pre-Extinction Follies,” I want to divert to an idea I’ve struggled with for some time, namely, that by virtue of socialization and education (and especially higher education), we train our minds to think according to a variety of different filters. Which filter is most powerful and for what objectives is a question that leads to many potential answers, such as, just for example, (1) the scientific worldview and its follow-on power to manipulate (and pollute) the land, sky, and oceans of the planet, (2) the spiritual worldview and its power to transfix the human psyche, (3) the artistic worldview and its power to resonate with emotion and intuition, or (4) the sportsman’s worldview and its power to construe the world in terms of pointless endless cycles of competitions, games, and championships. As I observed here, there is considerable overlap that makes distinguishing between competing worldviews somewhat questionable, but considering how depth and nuance is driven out of most points of view, keywords, soundbites, and dogma function just fine to separate and define people according to classes, races, demographic groups, etc.

The idea of twisted minds, never far from my thinking, came to the fore again recently because of two experiences: reading (at long last) Joe Bageant’s Rainbow Pie and getting HBO, which granted access to comedy shows (Real Time with Bill Maher and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) that rework political and cultural news to make it palatable to and digestible by the masses. Having been a viewer of The Daily Show for some time and long before that a variety of Bill Maher’s exploits, I appreciate the acumen it takes to transmit (some of) the news comically. That particular filter is precisely why I go there. Along the way, I get exposure to lots of ideas I normally avoid (yes, I practice a form of information aversion at the same time I’m an information sponge, though not a political junkie or news hound), but I don’t kid myself as hosts of those shows sometimes chide their own audiences that I’m getting all of the news there.

Still, I can’t help but feel frustration at the way various media folks twist the news. In unscripted interviews and panel discussions in particular, ask a question of an economist and an economics answer results. The same is true, respectively, of news anchors, magazine and blog writers, and celebrities (mostly actors). They may have excellent command of the issues, but their minds reshape issues according to their training and/or vocation, which makes me want to hurl things at the screen because opinions and policy are frequently so constrained and twisted they become idiotic. An economist who promotes growth is a good example (more of what’s destroying us, please!). The worst, though, are politicians. Career politicians (is there any other kind?) are conditioned to distort issues beyond recognition and to deal with people (and their issues) as demographics to be shuffled in the abstract around the imaginary surface of some playing field. Dedication to service of the commonweal is long gone, replaced by theater, spin doctoring, and perpetual campaigning.

In contrast, someone comes along infrequently who has the wit and god’s eye view necessary to contextualize and synthesize modern information glut effectively and then tell the truth, the latter of which carries a very high value for me. That would be Joe Bageant, whose writing and perspective are fundamentally alien to me yet communicate with power and clarity, cutting through all the manufactured bullshit of trained and twisted minds. Writing about literacy, Bageant has this to say about the redneck folks (the white underclass) he knew and was part of growing up:

  1. They do not have the necessary basic skills, and don’t give a rat’s ass about getting them;
  2. Reading is not arresting enough to compete with the electronic stimulation in which their society is immersed;
  3. They cannot envisage any possible advantage in reading, because the advantages stem from extended personal involvement, which they have never experienced, are conditioned away from, and is understandably beyond their comprehension; and
  4. Their peers do not read as a serious matter, thereby socially reinforcing their early conclusion that it’s obviously not worth the time and effort ….

Elsewhere, Bageant writes about the unacknowledged lessons of class warfare that his brethren knew as a matter of intuition from living through it rather than through abstract instructions of some sociology text or teacher. We all possess that intuition about a wide array of issues, but we suppress most of it as a result of educational conditioning and conformity (the rightthink or political correctness for which we congratulate ourselves on issues such as sexism, racism, and LGBT rights). So we prefer the happy lies and fables of politicians, entertainers, and educators to the awful truth of what’s really happening all around us, plain to see. It’s a systemic fraud in which we all participate.

What strikes me, too, is that education (or literacy) does not function as a panacea for the masses. Over-educated Icelanders made that clear roughly a decade ago. Bageant decries the ignorance (“ignernce”) of his social stratum and their continuous knuckling under to their supposed betters, yet he admits they flee into the middle and upper classes when opportunity arises, social mobility usually resulting from educational accomplishment. The unspoken conclusion, however, is that the educated elite conspire (albeit sometimes unwittingly) to perpetuate and intensify class warfare and to preserve their enhanced position on the scale. And they do so with the armature of education.

In his defense of the canon of English literature published in Harper’s (March 2014), Arthur Krystal wrote that traditionalists argue “its contents were an expression of the human condition: the joy of love, the pain of duty, the horror of war, and the recognition of the self and soul.” I would add to these the exhilaration of understanding, the transcendence of beauty, the bitterness of injustice, and the foreknowledge of death. Ranking or ordering elements of the human condition is a fool’s errand, but I contend that none possesses the power to transfix and motivate as much as knowing that one day, each of us must die.

Thus, we develop narratives of a supposed afterlife, in effect to achieve immortality. The most typical are religious dogma regarding eternity spent in heaven, hell, purgatory, or limbo. Another way to cheat death, or more simply, to be remembered, is passing one’s genes to another generation through procreation and achieving a small measure of proxy immortality. Other examples include acquiring fame and wealth to make a mark on history, such as having one’s name on buildings (like the $100 million presidential library and museum being discussed for siting in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood honoring Barack Obama), or having one name inscribed in one of many sports record books, or being preserved on celluloid (which is now increasingly archaic, since everything is going digital). For creative arts, the earliest works of literature to have achieved immortality, meaning that they are still widely known, read, and performed today, are the plays of William Shakespeare. For musicians, it would probably be J.S. Bach. I discount the works of the ancient Greeks or those of the Middle Ages throughout the rest of Europe because, despite passing familiarity with their names, their legacies lie buried deep below the surface and are penetrated only by scholars.

And therein lies the rub: for posterity to supply meaning to an earthly afterlife by proxy, culture must retain historical continuity or at least some living memory. Yet wide swathes of history have been rendered both mute and moot, as Shelley makes clear in his sonnet Ozymandias, with its memorable interdiction, “Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!” Who among us can claim to know much if anything about ancient Egyptian or Chinese dynasties, or indeed any of the other major civilizations now collapsed? Our own civilization, grown like a behemoth to the size of the globe, now faces its own collapse for a host of reasons. Even worse, civilizational collapse, ecological collapse, and depopulation present the very real possibility of near-term human extinction (NTE). All the assiduous work to assure one’s place in history won’t amount to much if history leaves us behind.


Readers have recently been registering hits on my blog backlog (evidenced by stats kept by WordPress in the backstage), which has prompted me to revisit a few of my older posts. (I’d say they’re “gathering dust” except that this blog is entirely virtual. Do electrons have dust?) One post particularly worth revisiting is “Doomsday Creeping Closer” about the Doomsday Clock found at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. My original provocation to blog about this was a 2007 news report of an adjustment to the clock from 7 before midnight to 5 before midnight. The metaphorical hands were adjusted back in 2010 and forward in 2012, now sitting again at 5 before midnight.

My original post was written before I had become fully collapse aware. Although already a pessimist, fatalist, misanthrope, and sometimes harsh critic, I shared many of the same illusions as the public, foremost among them the idea of a future based on historical continuity still stretching out a long way in front of us. Since then, considering how bad news (scientific findings, political gridlock and infighting, and geopolitical stresses, but most of all, accelerating losses in animal and plant populations as climate change ramps up in all its awful manifestations) keeps piling up, my time horizon has shortened considerably. Thus, I find it curious that the esteemed atomic scientists provide the following reasons for moving back the doomsday clock in 2010:

6 minutes to midnight
2010: “We are poised to bend the arc of history toward a world free of nuclear weapons” is the Bulletin’s assessment. Talks between Washington and Moscow for a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are nearly complete, and more negotiations for further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal are already planned. The dangers posed by climate change are growing, but there are pockets of progress. Most notably, at Copenhagen, the developing and industrialized countries agree to take responsibility for carbon emissions and to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.
Armageddon resulting from global nuclear war has always been regarded as a serious threat to the Bulletin going all the way back to 1947. However, I wonder what “pockets of progress” have been made on climate change? My appreciation is that, in high distinction from the usual political theater, none of the various climate talks and publications throughout the years have yielded anything other than some quasi-hysterical shrieking (handily invalidating the message) and delegates leaving without forming agreements or signing treaties. No one wants to give up the bounties of industrialism. The default is then business as usual (BAU), which ironically has historical continuity — at least until is doesn’t anymore for reasons quite beyond anyone’s control. Reasons for moving the doomsday clock forward in 2012 fare better:
5 minutes to midnight
2012: “The challenges to rid the world of nuclear weapons, harness nuclear power, and meet the nearly inexorable climate disruptions from global warming are complex and interconnected. In the face of such complex problems, it is difficult to see where the capacity lies to address these challenges.” Political processes seem wholly inadequate; the potential for nuclear weapons use in regional conflicts in the Middle East, Northeast Asia, and South Asia are alarming; safer nuclear reactor designs need to be developed and built, and more stringent oversight, training, and attention are needed to prevent future disasters; the pace of technological solutions to address climate change may not be adequate to meet the hardships that large-scale disruption of the climate portends.
Notice the tiny change in position of the hands on the clock? Neato! (I need a SarkMark () or an interrobang () there ….) The 2012 assessment is far more sober and honest, asking quite plainly “whatcha gonna do?” Inadequacy weighs heavy on our institutions and leadership, though incompetence and corruption might be just as applicable. Also, the (ongoing) Fukushima disaster has (re-)raised the specter of a nuclear Armageddon arising from something other than war. It’s notable here, too, that it’s scientists who hedgingly admit that technology may not rescue us. Further, the prospect of near-term human extinction (NTHE or NTE) as part of the Earth’s sixth great (or mass) extinction event (a process rather than a date) might be cause for the Bulletin to reevaluate the more likely cause of doomsday. Indeed, one wonders if the clock will ever register true time if no one survives to update it.

I heard the title phrase — improper use of celebrity — uttered recently in relation to celebrity feuds that fuel the paparazzi and related parasite press. It was one high-profile celebrity (is there any other kind?) admonishing another to behave himself because it is a mistake to air petty grievances publicly and thus fan media flames. That seemed to me a worthy corrective, considering how little self-restraint most people practice, especially overtly dramatic public personae who run increased risks of believing their own hype, and accordingly, entitlement to publicity, whether good or bad. We all know too much already about the childish antics of media whores who, among other things, throw tantrums with impunity compared to the general public.

rant on/

The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media just issued a public relations piece about a new Showtime multipart climate change documentary called Years of Living Dangerously. I call it public relations because, like all good PR, it appeals to prurient interests (look at the beautiful people doing beautiful people stuff) and instructs credulous readers far too much about what to think, lest anyone form opinions without the guidance of the infernal marketing machine. Rampant name-dropping with bullshit glamor-shots showing a few famous people (all filmmakers and actors, laughably relabeled “correspondent”) getting their green on precedes the risible assertion that celebrities function as proxies for the average person despite the average person having absolutely nothing in common with the wealth, overexposure, travel, command of attention, heaping of accolades, and enjoyment of fawning deference that characterize celebrities. Drawing focus to climate change and (one might hope) swinging discussion away from deniers (who champion controversy over truth) are cited as precisely the reasons why celebrities are perfect for this documentary. The PR piece further examines (albeit briefly) celebrity activism and provides links to studies on the social science of celebrity (gawd …) before admitting that some backlash might ensue. I guess I’m fomenting backlash.

As PR, the piece is certainly well written, despite its unabashed star-fucking celebrity worship. Further, celebrities have legitimate interests in politics, culture, climate change, and collapse, just like anyone else, even though exorbitant wealth enables them to behave as supranational entities like so many stateless multinational corporations. So why not use their fame to influence people, right? There You GoWell, we’ve already been down the primrose path of celebrity spokespersons occupying positions of influence, speaking from well-crafted scripts, and selling out issues and policy like commodities. Some celebs even understand those issues, though that’s no guarantee of wizened leadership. Consider Arnold Schwarzenegger’s undistinguished tenure as California governor. I have never lived in California to know first hand, but my dominant impression of Schwarzenegger’s leadership style was unapologetic political theater, with incessant catchphrases from his movies functioning as entertaining drivel misdirection matched against his inability (or anyone else’s, for that matter) to solve intractable problems. Curiously, his name is connected as a backer to Years of Living Dangerously, with a whole section of Yale’s PR piece devoted to charges of hypocrisy over his being a loot-and-pollute industrialist once removed through partial ownership in an investment company. Indeed, such conflicts of interest and hypocrisy are flagrant among celebrities who jet around the globe to movie sets (jet-setting?) then jet off again to have themselves filmed bearing witness (in flyovers, it seems, taking a spurious god’s-eye view from above the fray) to ecological devastation. I hesitate to raise this objection because ideological purity doesn’t exist, and as demonstrated in this lengthy blog post, charges of hypocrisy are hard to make stick after even modest analysis. But still, those who most enjoy the fruits of our passing Age of Abundance might pause to consider how it looks when they throw support behind undoing the same disastrous institutions that rewarded them so handsomely. It may not be quite the same as saying we must all now accept austerity (typically, you first! — as in Harrison Ford confronting Indonesian officials?), but near-universal austerity is inevitably where we’re headed anyway.

These are not my principal reasons for whining and ranting, however. My main reason is that by putting rich, celebrity “correspondents” at the center of the story (perhaps they put themselves there, I can’t really know), they adopt an approach similar to too-big-to-fail and too-rich-to-prosecute, except now it’s too-famous-to-ignore. The MSM, revealed as ugly-sister handmaidens to corporate and political power, has failed completely to engage the public sufficiently on climate change, but by putting pretty, loquacious celebrities on display and in charge of rude issue awakening, the documentary falls to the level of clickbait despite whatever intentions it may possess. So although nominally about climate change, it’s really about celebrities waking up to climate change. How lovely! But this is a life-and-death (mostly death at this stage) issue for all of humanity, not just entertainers. Further, what do celebrities qua celebrities bring to the discussion? Nothing, really, except the empty glamor of their fame, expert line delivery, and ability to improvise dialogue (wait! I improvise dialogue all day long!). Maybe I shouldn’t sniff at that, considering how journalists (now climbing into celebrity ranks for all the wrong reasons and too often themselves at the center of the story, both of which undermine journalistic credibility) and politicians have failed so utterly to address social issues effectively. No matter that it’s the job of journalists and government policymakers to bring to light the harrowing news that we done done ourselves in. I warn, however, that if James Cameron or any other instigator behind Years of Living Dangerously believes their project to be a game changer, he or she has seriously misunderstood dynamics that shape public opinion. For centuries, we’ve been assiduously ignoring Cassandra-like warnings from far more authoritative scientists and blue-ribbon panels such as the IPCC. Why would that change now by mixing in celebrities?

And why on earth would earnest celebrity response to recognition of imminent disaster brought on by climate change be to put on a show (the Little Rascals response) with self-serving celebrity spin? Or for that matter, why succumb to notorious solutionism, hopefulness, and the ironically dispiriting happy chapter? The answer is that they have not yet processed the true gravity of our multiple dilemmas and reached the fully foreseeable conclusion after delayed effects are taken into account: we’ve totally and irredeemably fucked. But I guess that wouldn’t sell DVDs, now would it?

/rant off