You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2014.
Isn’t it funny when you are walking down the street or just sitting at home, doing nothing special, and a thought that you had come across a long time ago, or even repeatedly at different points in your life, but that you didn’t think too much about simply hits you like lightening and creates a searing awareness?
Well, a few days ago I had just one such experience. I was reading an article about bitcoin and this image materialized with such force in my thinking. Not only bitcoin money but most of our money today is nothing but little bits, little electronic signals that someone has fed into a big machine. It can light up on your screen and this glitzy machine can say that you have X amount of money, but in the end, all that is is a little light signal, completely immaterial. Should someone turn the machine off, poof! There goes all your “money.” And it’s not that this wasn’t just as true for currency bills, because as it often happened at certain chaotic times in history, bundles of what were valuable bills turned into worthless pieces of paper from one day to the next.
This is the thought that really struck home to me: money can only function on the basis of a profound convention between all involved. Should one party say “All you have is a bunch of little papers or electronic signals,” the other party is really left with nothing.
I remember watching a Galbraith documentary on money eons ago, sitting in our living room where he discussed the history of money. And I remember finding it quite interesting. But then it just subsided among so many others things to think about. I can’t remember today what he said then although I am pretty sure he did talk about how money came into existence, first bartering, then finding a common substitute that symbolized bartered goods. And I can still see the image in my mind of us sitting around the living room watching this most interesting documentary on the history of money (having more than one part?).
And now, so many moons later, this thought about the frailty of the concept of money and the whole system just struck me with such force. It’s all based on a very intriguing way to establish a convention that many people don’t think about at all or give very little thought.
Just watched NBC’s Brian Williams’s interview with Snowden. Oh how this is dragging on and on. I seriously underestimated how long it would take for anything to come to light. Greenwald is promising some new revelations in the next three months or so. Let us forecast that into another year of waiting. Anyways, it makes for a great circus to see government officials who are defending a surveillance and undemocratic state try to smear Snowden in every way they desperately set their minds to. It’s sad that no mass media outlet has the courage to ask tough questions when interviewing Kerry, Clapper, et al. Such puppets. And then they point fingers to their equivalent puppets in Russia. Seriously, you would think the world could produce more intelligence than this.
DSK and “Welcome to New York”
I’ve been delighted every time I look up the news and see one more article on the new DSK (Dominique Straus Kahn) film “Welcome to New York,” detailing how grotesque and putrid he is. Well, allegedly the film is not about him, that’s the beauty of it. And it will be interesting to see if DSK can sue the filmmaker about it, given that French defamation laws have as a primary objective to protect any and all corrupt French rats from exposure. How nice if he failed and it just brought more publicity to the film and to DSK and his wife’s respective sordid minds. Even more delightful is that the filmmaker had the savviness to portray DSK’s wife as fully supportive and collusive with her criminal husband. My thoughts exactly. I was also immensely amused about all the clamoring from the French press about what a horrible film this is. Yes, it may be – I haven’t watched it because I read it was sleazy soft porn half of the time – but it shows what a horrible man their French president-to-be was and is. And that is what irks the French the most: exposure of their rotten selves. So they all rally behind the criticisms that this isn’t great movie-making. It’s great morality making but most French with a media voice are too corrupt to appreciate the fact.
The other thing that took me completely by surprise is Depardieu’s participation in all of this. First, given that I don’t follow any French movie making topics, I had no idea such a movie was in production. Much less with Depardieu. Second, I don’t know much about Depardieu, but I would have never imagined he would attack a sex criminal. First, because most of French movie/television people (and their counterparts elsewhere, Hoolywood, heh!) is composed of a bunch of sexually perverted and corrupt individuals. Second, because I remember being disgusted by reading an article on Depardieu discussing the alleged fact that Depardieu either took part or went along to passively witness a gang rape in his youth days. To see a French person, and not only that, but a major movie actor, who was involved in a rape, attack Dominique Straus Kahn for being sordid was very surprising. The French are generally so tremendously corrupt in their attitudes and behaviors about sex – and they are smug about it. They all go along with the game and get their attitudes reinforced by their society – they are usually so disgusting.
Nevertheless, it was reported Depardieu did the movie because he specifically dislikes Straus Kahn. Why, one wonders? And the Ferrara guy, that’s surprising too. I also don’t know anything about him, but I quickly read an interview and he speaks with such a potty mouth. Potty-mouth Holywood director makes film attacking French sex criminal? Everything is so surprising about the context of this film.
By, the way, I loved the poster for the movie, the idea for the photograph and its result, and the text “Do you know who I am?”
I was surprised and dismayed with the news and blog coverage of the California killing spree by Elliot Rodger. Again, loads of demonization of the young man. But no one that I saw bothered to ask what was done to this boy to make him develop such deep and grave psychological and emotional problems. Children that are treated well don’t develop such problems. My question: was Elliot emotionally (and otherwise) abused by his parents or others around him? What happened all along his history?
How sad that no one is capable of asking these simple but fundamental questions.
Sad that we are now in a situation where there is no side to cheer for, for people with any principles in the West.
The ‘other side’ are amoral semi-dictatorships – and ‘our’ side are now fake democracies, actually run by corporate oligopolies, with democratic and moral considerations thrown aside in the pursuit of more money, and power – to be achieved by any means.
On top of it, “our side” is now working constantly to make society into a sexual sewer, and shove this paradigm down everyone’s throats – a truly violent sexual pigsty, where decent people are increasingly harassed and persecuted.
(p.s. as you may have noticed, I have been too busy to blog/interact on the Internet)