Your Outrage Ain't Pretty

It’s been almost three weeks and a large (ahem) segment of the American population is still not over the business strategy of Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO. What is Mike Jeffries’ crime? Jeffries is quoted as saying: “ ‘In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.’” (via Huffington Post) Jeffries’ crime is that he said something exclusionary. Neverminding the fact that 99.9% of the population acts exclusionary 99.9% of the time, Jeffries is being punished for actually saying the words.

Before upending the irrationality of Jeffries’ critics, let me be clear that I am also offended by Jeffries’ comments, but for a completely different reason. That is to say, clothes don’t make people cool. A&F clothing may be what beautiful, young, and popular kids are wearing but that doesn’t equal being cool. “Cool” is when someone wear what the fuck they want because they don’t give a fuck what other people think. Cool people don’t try and Jefferies is obviously trying. I am also somewhat puzzled that someone as unattractive as Jeffries would want to cater solely to beautiful people as if making money will conceal his physical unattractiveness. Maybe, but someone’s got issues and it’s not hard to imagine why. But, that amounts to an ad hominem attack which is neither here nor there. Forget I mentioned it.

As mentioned, Jeffries is being lambasted for speaking the words already made implicit by Abercrombie advertisements. Since when did human beings stop investing is symbology? For those offended by Jeffries’ words, they’ve somehow missed the inherent meaning of his company’s ads and it possible that said people are not as smart as they think they are. Oh, but I guess it’s different when one has proof of an Illuminati conspiracy to have beautiful people take over the world. Wait, is this what Jeffries’ critics are angry about, that he has the nerve to think some people aren’t beautiful? Remember how I was neverminding something earlier? Let me do some more neverminding that few people intentionally go looking for a mate that is unattractive to them, meaning, there are individuals who are unattractive. That being the case, I loathe this idea that everyone is beautiful, especially that everyone is beautiful on the outside. That is simply bullshit. 

The idea may be bullshit but that doesn’t mean we should exclude people under the law because of it. That said, Jeffries’ marketing strategy clearly isn’t illegal. However, his critics are acting like he is doing something illegal and I guess he is in the court of public opinion, a court by-the-way that has never had any credibility beyond holding a monkey trial. In the court of public opinion, I guess it’s illegal to exclude what is now the majority of the population from buying your product. Only, wait a second. Should I – as a 5’6” 140lbs man – call for the head of the head of Big & Tall men’s clothing store because they don’t make clothes in my size? Of course not, nor should a skinny woman get indignant about not being able to find clothes that fit in a plus-size woman’s store. What’s really going on here is this: Jeffries’ critics are trying to justify their lifestyle which, not surprisingly, consists of over-consuming calories and not exercising. With being overweight now normal for Americans, that segment of the population wishes to homogenize the overall population to the point that everyone is special until no one is special. I understand not wanting to be discriminated against, but with this attack on Jeffries, America is in actual danger of becoming vanilla, to borrow the man’s word. Nobody will be exciting anymore; we’re not allowed to be! With these attacks on individuality and capitalism, Ayn Rand is surely spinning in her grave. (Author’s note: This is not to say I think either individuality or capitalism are so great, but everyone else sure pays those two ideas some French-kissing lip-service. Or used to.)

If it’s okay to be overweight, if we’re supposed to agree to this notion that it is not okay to judge others, then why isn’t it okay for Jeffries to be a douche? What’s that, we’re still allowed to judge what’s on the inside? Right, right; it’s what’s on the inside that really counts especially when people are afraid to be judged on their outside. That’s why Jeffries is a douche. I completely understand now.

If there’s anything Jeffries is guilty of it is cutting costs for his company by not including larger sizes of clothing anymore and subsequently trying to promote his brand without gauging the weight of his words to an overly-sensitive audience. People are irrational though and Jeffries seemed never to consider that old axiom by the prophet George Carlin, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Liberal, conservative, doesn’t matter; stupidity and irrationality does not discriminate. 

Update 5/22/13

The fact that people are attacking me instead of my argument supporting Jeffries’ business practice confirms that both our critics are basing their distain purely upon emotion, no logic involved whatsoever. If what is wrong with Jeffries’ business practice cannot be expressed cogently with words, his critics have no credibility. If his critics are his critics based on some kind of gut-feeling, then the same people have no business being offended by anyone who discriminates based on a gut-feeling. For example, if someone is a homophobe based upon some gut-feeling that homosexuality is wrong, that person is a douche, right? Problem is, anyone who levels a criticism based solely upon emotion is still a douche. Sure, Jeffries may be a douche but his critics – who can’t logically explain why they are angry – are then douches as well. This is exactly why appeals to emotion do not trump rationality when examining at what Jeffries said about his business. If I lack sympathy for Jeffries critics’ point-of-view, it’s mostly because whatever bizarre logic they’ve based their anger on is inconsistent. If one is going to be indignant about the business practices of A&F, I demand of those people that there be outrage at other businesses who dare target a demographic. 

Now, if I’m wrong that Jeffries’ critics are just trying to justify their own lifestyle, then what point are they trying to make, that no one should ever discriminate? Well, I’ve already blown that assertion to smithereens and haven’t heard a remotely intelligent rebuttal, probably because there is none. Maybe it is the case that people feel as though this is really about bullying? I’m asking because I did see this comment made on one message board and I am baffled as to how Jeffries’ words can be construed as bullying. If it is a case of bullying, isn’t bullying A&F with protests and boycotts just as wrong? Oh well, you can’t tell people who react to the world emotionally that two wrong STILL don’t make a right.

The Mid-Life Crisis of an Immortal

Although I like to think of myself as immortal – hey, I’ve been right so far – I’ve had this feeling lately that the time for my mid-life crisis is ripe. That said, let me make it perfectly clear that a mid-life crisis for me had nothing to do with trying to recapture the excitement of my youth by buying a flashy car with which to entice nubile young women into bed. For me, a mid-life crisis (or a life-crisis I should say) comes via the realization that I haven’t done anything interesting or noteworthy with my life. While I do not seek fame and fortune (but wouldn’t shun either as a consequence of “accomplishing something”), whatever I accomplish I want to be something people remember long into the future. I desire a legacy.

While I desire a legacy, it is by no means necessary to my existence, much less anyone else’s. No one needs to “do something” with their life. I’ve often considered simply being a good person enough to deal with in one’s lifetime, insomuch as one can be. However, this view is no longer sufficient for me as I feel I have more to offer the world. So there’s that and the possibility that maybe I’m not such a good person. Wouldn’t a good person be satisfied being good and not rather be known for solving some difficult esoteric problem or contributing an important idea or two such as I do? I wish I could be like Albert Einstein, only better looking if only with half the brain (probably an over-estimation). Maybe I could resolve what it means to be a good person…

Why should I desire a legacy? Why should I believe I have more to offer the world? I believe my desire is an expression of my genes, where my genes (and yours) are ultimately geared towards survival of the species. While my rational self restrains any desire to procreate, a deep genetic longing for the species to survive may be causing me to play what hand I may to that end. However, such feelings clash with another side of my personality and thus the question is raised: Does the world deserve my help?

Despite my generally congenial disposition and that I lend a helping hand (literally and metaphorically speaking) as often as I do, I would be inclined to characterize myself as generally misanthropic. Why should I be pessimistic about people? Several recent news items come to mind such as the number of women professing their love for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the rich using handicapped people to cut in line at Disney World, and scientists closing in on human cloning, damn the consequences. While the news media is geared towards selling the lowest common denominator, each of these instances nevertheless illustrates that no matter how much “good” good people do, their actions are negated by how exponentially worse bad people affect the world. Worse, good people just take it precisely because they think they’re good and fancifully imagine justice always wins in the end. I do not view this as rational. It is a flawed way of behaving. Why should I aid and abet the irrational and the flawed? I have as much contempt for the Average Joe as I do the people who take advantage of them. And so I am conflicted.

There is a solution. Like Sherlock Holmes or Dr. House, I must be in it for myself. I must be in it for the love of the game, to solve the puzzles. Oh, there are so many puzzles. Perhaps then the world will benefit indirectly from my efforts. Then again, Albert Einstein does have the atomic bomb on his hands. There are always those damned unintended consequences. Maybe I should sit on the dock of the bay instead, watch the waves roll in, and just waste time.

This Argument is a Little Bit Gay

Here’s an old salvo making new rounds in the anti-homophobia multi-media campaign…When Did You Choose to be Straight?

 

The point is to get straight people to think about when they chose their sexual orientation. By illustrating that heterosexuals never did choose their sexual orientation, the same must be true of homosexuals. If that’s the case, homosexuals cannot and should not be blamed or ostracized for who they are. (Ironically, the people who think this is an effective argument at the same time feverishly cling to the concept of Free Will. But, whatever.)

While I do not think anyone besides a Scientologist should be blamed for their sexual orientation, I do think this “simple question” that portends to be some kind of panacea for homophobia is not the ingenious argument everyone seems to think it is. This is because it is quite easy to imagine someone who is otherwise heterosexual to choose a long term sexual partner of the same gender. [We’ll disregard solitary instances of homosexual behavior as “experimenting,” especially for women since that’s really hot.] I can easily imagine someone with a long history of physical or mental abuse by an opposite sex partner switching teams, so-to-speak. I can also use myself as an example: Given a do-or-die choice between partnering with another man or a 400lbs Samoan woman, I’m probably going to choose partnering with a man because a 400lbs Samoan women is much less likely to turn me on than another man. (Naturally, this all assumes the man is a good-looking billionaire philanthropist with mommy-issues who flies his own helicopter.) Of course, this might raise the question of whether the person who switches teams is actually a homosexual, but only if one thinks narrow definitions trump real world actions. Such a person may be bisexual, but such definitions obscure the point seeing how bisexuals have been maligned almost as much as homosexuals throughout history. But I digress…Not every heterosexual who may have been abused in some fashion might be tempted to switch teams, but I’m quite sure it’s happened more than one time. I’m not saying it happens more often than people born with an inclination towards their preference in partners, just that it does happen.

I realize my hypothesis can only remain as such because it is too difficult to empirically verify. While scores of homosexuals could be interviewed as to whether they chose homosexuality or homosexuality chose them, we couldn’t be sure – without elaborate brain monitoring – that such interviewees weren’t lying. Besides, any fundamental theist worth their salt will tell you all homosexuals are liars, so what’s the point of conducting a study? (I’m not singling out homosexuals as liars, it’s just that everyone lies, especially fundamental theists.) We cannot verify exactly how many times people are “born” gay. Does it matter, though?

I do believe asking people when they chose to be heterosexuals is a good way of demonstrating that it is possible that homosexuals never had a say in whom they find attractive. Such a demonstration may advance the idea that homosexuality is not a highly unusual anomaly, but to what end? Such a demonstration doesn’t do much to defeat a passionate homophobe since the demonstration doesn’t address the societal or moral implications of a homosexual acting upon their impulses, even if those impulses are natural. It may be shown that homosexuality may be a natural inclination for a certain percentage of the population but that doesn’t mean accepting homosexuals is necessarily good for society. That’s an entirely different argument.

I do understand that by getting people to consider homosexuality as something not completely unnatural is a stepping stone towards discussing the real issue, such as I have just posed it. I do giggle a little bit though like Harvey Fierstein imagining La Cage aux Folles in IMAX 3D when people take this homosexuality-is-normal argument as the killing blow (no pun intended) against homophobia. The argument is just a baby step towards the greater discussion and if one can’t see the argument as only a baby step, they’re in no position to tell you why there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The Cult of Banality

Considering the number of things that I find troubling, I really should meditate more…

I saw an entertainment headline a few days ago, something about drugs being found on Justin Bieber’s tour bus in Amsterdam. Okay, great. Who cares? Everyone it seems; the people who aren’t his fans regard this incident as another in a long line of incidents that point towards the young lady’s self-destruction while Bieber’s fans would defend her even if the tween idol chopped up a baby and served it with a glass of wine. And that’s what I find troubling – why are Justin Bieber’s off-stage antics more important than her art?

I remember many years ago when I, as a die-hard Judas Priest fan, learned lead singer Rob Halford was gay. The news did not phase me; I didn’t care because I care more about the man’s art than who he has sex with. Gay or not, Rob Halford can scream like a sonofabitch and that’s a part of what makes him a good music artist. Really, it’s the art that is important. Or maybe that’s a misperception on my part as the art of a musician or actor is now a distant second to what news the artist’s life generates.

Case in point, Taylor Swift: She really has very little musical skill either as a writer or performer, yet she is terribly famous. Why? Mostly because she’s a perfectly pretty lily white girl, so pretty that people apparently have no choice but to root for her as she dates a platoon of men who dump her as soon as they figure out she has no talent. Justin Bieber floats in the same boat, more famous for his homosexual attributes than for his music. Is anyone going to remember any of his songs decades from now? No, but people will remember that he started acting out as soon as his balls started to drop and realized he doesn’t have to date someone equally untalented. Worse, you have celebrities not famous for anything besides being rich and having hired a publicist, e.g. Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton. Yet the general public snaps up news of these people’s lives. Is it because seeing how the other half lives is inspiring? No.

The reality is perhaps more depressing. My hypothesis is that people who lap up entertainment news have low self-esteem and no desire to be much of anything in life (not that one needs to make something of themselves). I arrived at this conclusion by thinking about what people get out of reading entertainment news, which oddly has very little to do with entertainment itself: A glimpse into a purportedly glamorous life that for the 99% is unattainable. Entertainment news, that is celebrity news, actually reinforces the notion among lower class people that they belong in the lower class. [I use ‘lower class’ here to mean the people who place celebrities in a status above themselves.] While someone may pick up People Magazine and say, “That’s going to be me some day,” the people who actually become celebrities don’t stop to say such things because they are busy becoming celebrities. That said, I have very little respect for anyone who reads celebrity news as it indicates just how little they contribute to the world.

Of course, I’m not saying all celebrities contribute something positive to the world. Many of the afore mentioned celebrities are in the game for celebrity’s sake; it’s better to be on top than on the bottom so I don’t blame anyone for walking down that road. But, in order to make some kind of contribution to the world, a person must begin with some sense of their own value and a person cannot do that if they are consumed by details of the lives of celebrities. Celebrity news is disempowering, not inspiring. It also reinforces one of the worse tendencies of human beings, the desire the see others fail or become miserable.

The people who keep track of celebrity news to satisfy their lust for schadenfreude are no doubt worse than passive purveyors of celebrity news since they take their disdain for their low class status in a direction opposite from where it should go. Instead of ignoring celebrity news to spend their time more wisely or turn their view of the well-to-do into a force of positive change, they wallow in the muck of celebrity divorces and self-abuse as if doing so could possibly make themselves feel better about their meaningless lives. Either way, news about the lives of celebrities is destructive for those who consume it.

To be fair, talking about the well-to-do has been going on for ages, obviously because the lives of celebrities are more interesting than that of the Average Joe. Only, wouldn’t everyone’s life be like the life of any given celebrity given the fame and fortune? Why then do people consider lives of celebrities more interesting? I suppose people who track celebrity news lack imagination. (Ask them what they’d do if they won the lottery if you want to confirm my suspicion.)

I don’t know what we’re supposed to take away from this other than a good many people do not mind their status among the blissfully ignorant. Personally, I find such an attitude repugnant. I find the desire to put details about a celebrity’s life ahead of their art or professional business even more objectionable, for if the lives of celebrities are more important than their professional lives, why not dispense with what they do for a living altogether and go straight to Free Parking? For a nation that likes nothing more than to pretend accomplishments and talent matter, America sure values its Lindsay Lohans.

Art is dead. Long live the “artist.”

Fool's Gold

I’ve spent some time beating up on witless conspiracy theorists/”truthers” this month and I’m almost over it. That said, there is one more topic dear to their heart I’d like to skewer before moving on and writing something more relevant. Today I’m going to talk about gold. That’s right, gold, that shiny metal that makes pirates go “argh!”

You may have heard as of late that the world economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. In fact, according to conspiracy loons, this imminent economic collapse has been right around the corner since…well, let’s say it’s been so long it’s not actually imminent. At any rate, given the impending doom, you may have heard it’s a good time to buy gold (or, if you can’t afford gold, silver). Why gold? Because as any conspiracy theorist will tell you, gold is real money. Meaning, gold will be the only thing that is still valuable if fiat money collapses; fiat money being whatever a government declares to be money. The conflict in monetary theory arises from the fact that In the United States, until 1971, fiat money – dollars and coins – were theoretically convertible/exchangeable for gold. Well, some economic theorists (basically the weathermen of the business sector and just about as accurate) insist that fiat money is actually useless, having no intrinsic value. If an issuing government decides to withdraw any guarantee of their money’s worth, YOU won’t have anything tangible to exchange for goods or services but what you already own. To complete the circle, that’s why it’s considered necessary by people who’d like to see the world’s economy collapse to have gold. After all, it says only gold and silver shall be legal tender, right there, in the US Constitution Article I Section 10. Wait, is this where the idea of gold as ‘real money’ is coming from?

I think it is amusing that the people who buy gold as a hedge against an economic collapse or runaway inflation are the same people who wish dearly for the collapse of the US government (for starters). The thing is, if they’re getting the notion of gold being real money from the US Constitution, then the US government must avoid collapse for the US Constitution to retain its meaning. Sure, “truthers” could organize their own country and write their own constitution that values gold, but we’re talking about the same people who couldn’t organize a bake sale that didn’t sell special brownies. Naturally, conspiracy nuts couldn’t possibly be so ignorant as to not see this, so where else might they be getting the idea that gold is worth more than anything else? Where are they getting the idea that only gold (and sometimes silver) is real money?

Advocates of gold like to point out the history of gold’s many uses. Problem is, such a view is wrong. Yes, gold has been used as currency in the past. Funny thing is, in being so, it was actually fiat money since how much a gold coin was worth was derived from a state’s laws. Before gold’s use as money, it was used in the making of all sorts of ornaments, seeing how purty it is, to say nothing of its malleability. That’s right, gold’s value was – and often still is – based upon its aesthetics. In the 20^th century, gold has become very useful in the manufacturing of electronics due to its conductive properties and resistance to corrosion, but this does not count as part of gold’s historic value since this value of gold is rather new. Now, obviously I can’t say gold hasn’t been valuable to many people over the course of history but what I’d like to point out is that gold is no more valuable than anything else: What is valuable arises from the agreement of two or more people. While two or more people can agree that gold is valuable and can be used in exchanges (which is what money is, a facilitator of exchanges), two or more people can just as easily agree that sex is valuable enough to be used in exchanges. Thousands of years ago, two people would have considered sea shells a better form of money than a hunk of gold and used that in exchanges. That said, gold does not have any inherent value. Such an idea is utter nonsense.

My reasoned and brief examination of gold as not being inherently valuable will not stop the nearly-certifiably insane from insisting gold is real money, especially if they actually own gold. In such cases, the owner of such “money” pray for economic collapse so that they will become the new upper class. Not surprisingly, conspiracy wackos who buy gold are the same people who buy lottery tickets despite the odds (at least the ones I know). Somehow, despite the millions-to-one odds, they’re banking on an early retirement by either winning the lottery or the collapse of the New World Order, an organization that has the whole world under their thumb while the world simultaneously teeters on economic collapse. (That’s the consistency of their theorizing for ya.)

Finally, I’d like to say that should the conspiracy asshats be right and the world economies and world governments collapse, what’s going to stop me from going to their house with a gun and taking their gold or anything else they have? Their own guns? Wow, I guess I just pointed out something more valuable than gold come the apocalypse. Although, it’s not like I need it to shoot fish in this here barrel.