BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Media Mall

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Frances Farmer
14:50 / 18.10.01
Just submitted this for the 'zine.

Please critique -- but be gentle with me. I'm fragile.

And discuss, too, if it interests you.

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

The Media Mall

In the wake of our most recent and surreal atrocities in New York and Washington, the resulting media circus has become a cynic's paradise. That manipulation is occuring is clear -- never before have more previously critical people fallen victim to the presumption that a decent rhetorical argument can act as a substitute for a well-reasoned hypothesis.

We know information is being suppressed. We understand that war-time media is, for all intents and purposes, a propaganda arm for the government who's teeth are bared. These things are clear.

But do we know the exact phrasing of the questions asked on polls showing upwards of an 88% favour for the airstrikes in Afghanistan? Do we understand, intimately, the machine of rhetoric at work?

Victor Gruen was a famous man in his time. An architect and engineer, Mr. Gruen was the inventor of the shopping mall -- a sprawling expanse of stores, all of which are simultaneously different and alike. The maze-like continuity of the modern shopping mall is the direct and logical conclusion of the work begun by Mr. Gruen so many years ago. He passed away in 1980.

The techniques for architecting the buildings in such a way so as to make it difficult for a potential shopper to navigate, forcing them to pass by numerous stores they ordinarily would've ignored -- these were the work of Victor Gruen. Forcing the consumer to walk in an awkward fashion through the mall in order to reach their vehicles and leave -- giving the maximum storefront exposure possible -- these things were the legacy of Victor Gruen.

And named after Victor Gruen is a psychological process referred to (with reverence, in advertising circles) as "The Gruen Transfer". This process involves a sort of sensory bombardment. When the sensory apparati offer too much information to the brain, the brain has the ability to briefly fall under the assumption that the sensory apparati provide more reliable information. This can be driven by the sheer volume of input (Bright, bright colours; Loud, loud noise), combination of elements(The right pace of music for the time of day, the layout of promotional displays), and even direct human interaction (The insecure man, the line "Those pants look
awfully good on you."). These things can all act as a catalyst for a mental change -- A shift into a childlike mentality, and a desire to find a parental figure.

In the abstract, The Gruen Transfer serves to place an individual in a role wherein they require outside input in order to make a decision. Bringing a potential customer to this crucial crux drives all sorts of high-stakes sales operations.

Temporarily, the soon-to-be client finds themselves desiring an explanation -- guidance. Assurance. The soon-to-be client looks to those around them for this guidance. What is that customer interested in? What are the sales people wearing? What are the sales people saying?

It's knowledge of this mind-state that drives policy and sales techniques in multinational retailers -- The Gap and Niketown employ quite different tactics to reach the same end. While The Gap involves subdued music and bright colour -- attractive salepeople who tell you how well this belt works with those pants, Niketown works more directly on the sensory override principle. Bombardment of images of passionate individuals having fun doing something they believe in -- and wearing Nike
shoes.

In it's native environment, the Gruen transfer's primary purpose is simple: To turn a focused shopper into an impulse shopper. The extent to which individuals entering malls find themselves purchasing a little of this, a little of that, is an excellent measure of the skill with which Gruen's principles have been implemented. But what might occur if this potentially dangerous marketing tactic were used outside of it's native environment?

This brings me to ask the question: How did the world feel after watching the WTC towers crumble for the thirty-thousandth time on widescreen television? How did the world feel, repeatedly exposed to footage of screaming, terrified refugees streaming forth from the gaping maw of the gutted monster that once was a tourist attraction? I think I can answer that for many: We felt like children. We desired answers from outside stimulus. In short, unwittingly, we fell victim to the Gruen Transfer -- we transferred our sovereign intellect unto media pundits whose job it was not only to tell us what they had seen, but what it all
meant - whether or not they knew.

And we accepted this.

But there are consequences. For example, though CNN has not the gall to run the poll, a shocking number of U.S. citizens hold brand new beliefs about Middle-Eastern life (and other things) -- beliefs that to many, would appear asinine if not for the context of mass-murder on video:

* The belief that Western culture is inherently superior, more focused on human rights, more moralistic, less prone to war without cause, less prone to reactionary, extremist sentiment. In short, enlightened.

There are nuggets of truth in the above assumptions, but one must be careful as to what conclusions one is lead to.

* The belief that the Palestinian children celebrating for CNN in the face such damage done to the U.S. weren't just Palestinian children -- but all Palestinians. That these weren't just Palestinians, but any man, woman, or child who has dark skin and lives somewhere we call "The Middle East".

This, in spite of the fact that a well-reputed German magazine reports CNN employees distributing cakes, candy, and party-favours to the children prior to the filming. It is by no means an uncommon sentiment -- this quasi-racism, but were CNN to run this poll, their irresponsibility would become frighteningly clear.

And, it seems, through a chain of events, rationalization, and justification, the acceptance of the assumptions mentioned above, coupled with thousands of untraceable factors, the following opinion has begun to emerge:

* The belief that the U.S. is beholden to none, as the U.S. has been solely responsible for all good things in the Western World -- singlehandedly saving the world from the Nazi's and rebuilding the war-torn nations afterwards. Contributing billions in humanitarian aide. The belief that the U.S. can and should wage war on any and all parties
who now, or may one day, pose any sort of a threat, however mundane. The belief that, unlike average human beings, who must balance carefully the causes and effects of their actions, the U.S. should not be held accountable for the fallout of the bombs the U.S. drops.

Many of these sentiments existed in the form of unconditional patriotism within the U.S. prior to the bloodiest September in many years. It is arguable whether or not such a manipulative tactic is being employed, but we can attempt to reason from effect to cause. These sentiments now exist in the form of popular opinion. If you believe these sentiments went unaffected by manipulative media coverage since September 11th, 2001, I would challenge you to research the mechanisms through which people are manipulated by media -- and then watch the replay of the collapsing towers over, and over, and over. Observe as a split-second black screen serves as the only segue between this emotionally devasting footage and a political analysis which tells us Osama is guilty, Middle-Easterns are ungrateful sods, the U.S. must go to war regardless of world opinion, and a few thousand lives of collateral damage will have to be accepted. Or, even more devastingly, the times when that split-second black screen is the buffer between tear-jerking violence and celebrating Palestinian children. What a juxtaposition.

For days, it mattered not what you watched -- you'd be watching the same thing: A well-spoken, well-dressed pundit explaining, slowly and carefully, in very digestible words (and in a very digestible tone of voice), that refusing to return civilian casualties for civilian casualties equates to appeasement and results in further terrorist attacks.

And after watching the implied suffering on television, only able to visualize, to imagine, what these people are going through, this can sound terrifyingly reasonable.

And while this'll never be painted in the open for you: That the likelihood of future attacks on U.S. soil is 100% regardless of U.S. action in the Middle-East -- you can deduce it. But, it's not likely you will if you've accepted the Gruen Transfer -- If you're ready to surrender your critical and analytical facilities to a convincing pundit whose self-contradictions you can't be bothered to point out.

Change the channel. Read the news. It doesn't matter. If your stories come from Reuters or the Associated Press, you're being manipulated -- right now -- to embrace blind acceptance. It's propaganda. It's a sales pitch. The storefronts may change, but you're still stuck in the same mall.

-Frances Farmer


(edited for readability and minor grammatical issues)

[ 18-10-2001: Message edited by: Frances ]
 
 
Ierne
19:15 / 18.10.01
Thanks for writing this. I've been so frustrated about the substitution of hype & propaganda for actual information since the day after the towers went down. Your article articulates my feelings on the matter.

How did the world feel
after watching the WTC towers crumble for the thirty-thousandth time on
widescreen television? How did the world feel, repeatedly exposed
to footage of screaming, terrified refugees streaming forth from the
gaping maw of the gutted monster that once was a tourist attraction?

I felt as if my mental faculties and reasoning abilities were being attacked – which in fact, they were/are. Such dissemination of propaganda is meant to root out and destroy dissent.

As is the "Everyone go back to work and pretend everything's normal" concept being hammered into everyone, especially here in NYC. We aren't given time to think about what's really happening...because we're not meant to think about it.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
20:30 / 18.10.01
Frances - brilliant brilliant brilliant stuff. I would not have put it so eloquently; however I felt as if pundits were being trotted out to kind of give us a "Mommy and Daddy knows why thunder's so loud and scary, they have the answers and they'll protect you" vibe since this happened.

One of the most chilling things I've read RE coverage of the attacks is that reporters have far LESS access to any real coverage than they did even in the Gulf War.
 
 
Frances Farmer
20:40 / 18.10.01
Thx for the input, Cherry & Ierne...

...Also, anybody who's very English-picky; I am doing a lot of touch up with this, but I wanted to get the gist out while I completed the other stuff.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:08 / 19.10.01
Great piece Frances. I think it's interesting the way that politicians and governments have used the same techniques: for example, when MPs first started asking Tony Blair for reassurance that our response would be measured, his answer wasn't "of course", but rather "of course, but have you forgotten all the people who died on September 11th? Think of the children on those planes, told they were going to die!" (Paraphrasing, but less than you'd think...)

And this type of emotionally-blackmailing response has been passed down to your standard work colleague or acquaintance: question the bombing of Afghanistan and one common response is "what, so you're suggesting we let all those deaths go unavenged?" The equation (these deaths = your grief = your need for vengeance) is constantly being projected...
 
 
agapanthus
13:24 / 19.10.01
Yeah Frances, I'm with Irene, Cherry and Flyboy in praise for your essay. I really like how you lead to your point, through the example of Gruen. This way into the topic is very persuasive and fresh enough to keep my interest for the length of your piece. Have you considered changing the title to "The Media Maul"?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:06 / 19.10.01
I have some questions about your piece:

quote:
This brings me to ask the question: How did the world feel after watching the WTC towers crumble for the thirty-thousandth time on widescreen television? How did the world feel, repeatedly exposed to footage of screaming, terrified refugees streaming forth from the gaping maw of the gutted monster that once was a tourist attraction? I think I can answer that for many: We felt like children. We desired answers from outside stimulus. In short, unwittingly, we fell victim to the Gruen Transfer -- we transferred our sovereign intellect unto media pundits whose job it was not only to tell us what they had seen, but what it all
meant - whether or not they knew. And we accepted this.

I'm not sure if your comparison between news imagery of the WTC incident completely tracks with your explanation of the mechanism of this "Gruen Transfer" (which I coincidentally recently read about, albeit briefly, in a Joan Didion essay in her book "The White Album"). The Gruen transfer functions because of an orchestrated sensory overload, if I understand you correctly. The media coverage on Sept. 11th and the days afterward was anything but orchestrated. It was anarchic, with news and footage pouring in unedited. They kept showing the collapses of the Towers because that was reality. That was what was really going on, and people needed to see it. Information was pouring in from numerous sources haphazardly, and the media attempted to update the public as best they could, given the developing nature of the story. It wasn't orchestrated. The major news networks in the US were operating 24 hours a day, trying to inform the US people. They weren't telling us what it meant because no one knew what it meant, except that it was a mass tragedy of proportions that have never befallen the US before, seemingly happening out of the blue. And it remains that, even though the events leading up to it are slowly being unraveled.

In my experience, and you'd better believe I've watched a lot of news over the past month, the footage of the WTC being hit by planes and collapsing has not aired after the first week. It is too upsetting. We do see images of "ground zero" everyday, but not the actual tragedy as it happens. Should we not be exposed to these images? Can we not handle seeing them, lest this transfer of sovreignty takes over? Are you suggesting that the media shouldn't show disturbing images such as the disaster, as they are likely to shake the assumptions we have about our lives?

Postmodern theory is most identified with the phrase "incredulity toward metanarratives" which I think is what you are advocated here. Incredulity toward mass-marketed and global explanations of complex events is a good thing. I've always prided myself on being on not believing everything that I am shown, unless I have found good evidence to support it. But my incredulity toward explanations for events was superceded by my incredulity towards the events themselves. These were unbelievable events, especially for those of us who live in New York City. Searching for a stable ground in the form of explanatory narrative, be it God or geopolitics or economics was a natural reaction to trauma. I don't think this reaction was manipulated or prompted by the media. When someone you know dies of cancer, for instance, don't you find yourself searching for a framework to fit this incomprehensible and seemingly cruel event into?
quote:
But there are consequences. For example, though CNN has not the gall to run the poll, a shocking number of U.S. citizens hold brand new beliefs about Middle-Eastern life (and other things) -- beliefs that to many, would appear asinine if not for the context of mass-murder on video:


This doesn't make sense to me. Was there a poll taken by CNN that asks these questions? Did they not run it?
quote:
* The belief that Western culture is inherently superior, more focused on human
rights, more moralistic, less prone to war without cause, less prone to reactionary,
extremist sentiment. In short, enlightened.

There are nuggets of truth in the above assumptions, but one must be careful as to what conclusions one is lead to.

What is your nugget of truth and what conclusions does this lead to?
quote:
* The belief that the Palestinian children celebrating for CNN in the face such damage done to the U.S. weren't just Palestinian children -- but all Palestinians. That these weren't just Palestinians, but any man, woman, or child who has dark skin and lives somewhere we call "The Middle East".

This, in spite of the fact that a well-reputed German magazine reports CNN
employees distributing cakes, candy, and party-favours to the children prior to the
filming. It is by no means an uncommon sentiment -- this quasi-racism, but were CNN to run this poll, their irresponsibility would become frighteningly clear.

Number 1, even if there was no footage of Palestinians celebrating, or say, people in Egypt celebrating, is it irresponsible to assume that a great number of people in the Middle East would and did celebrate a stike against the US, just as they celebrate defeats of Israel? If we are to assume, as is probably reasonable, that the US has done grave injustice to Middle eastern people either through action of its own or actions of its proxies, why is it unreasonable to assume that a lot of these people would indeed celebrate a strike against the US? The opposite of this would be to assume that the people of the Middle East who are anti-US are morally superior to western civ, and wish only love to their enemies, not harm. This is naive, racist, and stupid.

Please document the fact that CNN reporters were handing candy to children before the footage in question, and also how that would effect the reality of the footage. Do you suggest CNN orchestrated the celebration? The claim that the footage broadcast on CNN was from 1991 has been soundly refuted, already, despite its wide dissemination among critics of the US media. And why is the German magazine you refer to any more reliable than US media? The German gov't supports the US action. The only evidence we have that there were only children celebrating is Arafat's statements (which were coupled with threats against news organizations not to show the footage again). Arafat is a cagey man in a precarious situation. Occam's razor would point to him as the liar, given the above circumstances.

quote:
* The belief that the U.S. is beholden to none, as the U.S. has been solely responsible for all good things in the Western World -- singlehandedly saving the world from the Nazi's and rebuilding the war-torn nations afterwards.

How does this follow from the events of Sept. 11 and the media coverage of them? Sure, you could make a case for this, but I don't think the two are connected.

quote:
Contributing billions in humanitarian aide.

The U.S. is the largest source of humanitarian aid, monetarily wise, in the world. As a percent of the US budget, it is small, to be sure.

quote:
The belief that the U.S. can and should wage war on any and all parties
who now, or may one day, pose any sort of a threat, however mundane.

How is flying airplanes into buildings to commit mass murder "mundane."?

The US, as well as any other SOVEREIGN NATION, has the right to wage war on any threat to the security of the people who make it up. This is a foundation of liberal democracy. Governments are delegated this power through their citizens. This a fundamental concept in the modern legal construction of nation-states. If you want to take issue with what a nation-state should be, that's a different story.

The problem with the current situation is that the people responsible for the events of Sept. 11th were not explicitly associated with a nation state, or in any event did not leave a calling card stating they were. If a nation state claimed responsibility for the action, such, as let's say Iraq, would the US have the right to go to war with them? Of course. But since it appears that the actions of Sept. 11th were unconnected with a nation state (unless you believe the plausible claims that Al Quaeda "owns and operates" the Taliban, or the claims of a French detainee that the Taliban must have approved the action according to an agreement), these actions constitute not acts of war but are given the name terrorism.

Terrorists are simply individuals who act outside of the modern conception of the legal nation state, usurping the powers of war and violence traditionally delegated to nations by their people. Since these associations of people, these terrorists, place themselves outside the international legal system by doing so, methods used to deal with them must unfortunately be different than what is used to retaliate against a sovereign nation. In the case of Afghanistan, there is no internationally, legally,recognized sovereign government at the moment.

quote:
The belief that, unlike average human beings, who must balance carefully the causes and effects of their actions, the U.S. should not be held accountable for the fallout of the bombs the U.S. drops.

The US is not a human being. It is a government, which must act to preserve its people. One of the powers delegated to the government by its people is the power to make war.
quote:
Many of these sentiments existed in the form of unconditional patriotism within the U.S. prior to the bloodiest September in many years. It is arguable whether or not such a manipulative tactic is being employed, but we can attempt to reason from effect to cause.


Again, the simplest explanation for any of these "sentiments" would be simple human desire for revenge against perceived enemies, not media manipulation, which you admit is "arguable" in the above p-graph.

I'd be happy to argue points with you or anyone else who would like to respond.
 
 
Frances Farmer
16:05 / 19.10.01
Todd,

I'd be honored to respond to your questions, concerns.

I should preface this by saying I'm voicing an opinion and an interpretation. My admission as to the arguability of the interpretation was blunt honesty. Period. I'm not going to tote my interpretation of the events as facts if they're not. Striking me down for this is a cheap rhetorical trick.

I'd like to point out one your questions appears to have misinterpreted my point:

"How is flying airplanes into buildings to commit mass murder "mundane."?"

I can argue this point thirty-thousand ways, but I think I should start by making clear that I wasn't referring to mundane in the past-tense. I was referring to the looming threats -- mundane due to lack of manifestation -- that many pundits are calling to have eliminated prior to another "incident".

Bombing Afghanistan is removing a mundane threat. What threats exist in the world right now aren't in Afghanistan, they're in your back yard, making pipe bombs and trying to adjust the size of Anthrax spores until they're "just so".

Now that we have that cleared up,

I'd also like to make the point that if this happened to the U.K., U.S. citizens would consider this mundane. If it happened in Afghanistan, it would be trivial. If it happened in China, it would be humerous.

So let's not be naive here, eh?

In regards to concern about my comparisons between the Gruen transfer and the repetative exposure to the WTC-collapse footage, I beg to differ.

Within the first 48 hours, media was struggling for a foothold.

Within 72 hours, media found a foothold, and was adding and removing headlines; altering and updating for emotional impact, and, need I mention again, juxtaposing Palestinian children celebrating (because seemingly anonymous benefactors had fed them candy and cake) with the collapse of the WTC towers.

This doesn't strike you as irresponsible -- to say the least? Do you honestly believe these people don't know what they're doing? They do.

"Should the media not show disturbing images?"..

If you believe this to be my implication, you've read too quickly.

I believe the media should show some fucking responsibility. I believe the media should not have given Palestinian children candy, filmed them, shown them on national television under the pretense of independently celebrating a disaster on U.S. soil.

I believe the media should not show specials entitled "Behind the Veil" which not only take vicious (and cleverly hidden) jabs at Islam under the header of truth; which are seemingly totally incapable of demonstrating the difference between time-honored Islamic practices and the hard-line fundementalist practices of the Taliban.

I believe the media should not flirt with racism.

The response didn't have to prompted by the media, only manipulated, guided.
But here we digress into the land of my impression of the events, and that's why I wrote the article. I'll not reiterate.

How does the blind dogmatic belief that the U.S. has the right to bomb whomever the fuck we want follow from the media coverage?

The media is your input.

You do not have the facts.

You believe you do.

You are supporting military action sans justification.

And you're fine with it.

Somebody must've made a fucking impressive rhetorical case.

Perhaps it was Larry King?

"The U.S. is the largest source of monetary aide..."

And the largest source of pain, so it about balances out. You'll notice, if you've followed my opinions, that I'm a staunch defender of certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Don't misunderstand me: I don't hate the U.S.

Are you of the camp that 37,000 ready-to-eat meals dropped in Afghanistan following airstrikes qualifies as bonafide humanitarian aide?

Are you of the opinion that refusing to permit genuinely philanthropic organizations from appearing on scene to assist civilian refugees is humanitarian?

Counting the dollars doesn't add up.

I'm not here to argue war vs. peace with you. I'm here to make the point that mass-media is staffed by skilled manipulators. It's what they do. It's automatic. It's built in. It's how you get ratings.

If you want to debate the definition of a terrorist or the rights of a nation-state to wage war, you'll have to write your own article.



"The U.S. is not a human being..."

You miss my point. I'm not going to have this argument with you. My assault is on the media and an unconditional acceptance of the propaganda schtick.

You, on the other hand, have clearly not fallen victim to the Gruen transfer. While we may (or may not) disagree on many of these points, my critical thrust involves selective and careful incorporation of "facts" gleaned from mass-media.

I'll respond, Todd, but I didn't ask for this debate, and I won't engage you in it. You clearly have the hot blood of a corporate patriot. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not lambasting the U.S. for it's war decisions. I may show quite a bit of doubt about their validity, but, again, my primary thrust involves unconditional acceptance.

And believe me, there's a whole lot of that going on right now.

So, I respect your opinions, but I feel you may want to make your case to someone who is more directly arguing your points of concern.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:02 / 19.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Frances:

I should preface this by saying I'm voicing an opinion and an interpretation. My admission as to the arguability of the interpretation was blunt honesty. Period. I'm not going to tote my interpretation of the events as facts if they're not. Striking me down for this is a cheap rhetorical trick.
[/quote}
This may be your intention, but the gist of you article is indeed that "you are being lied to, you don't have access to the facts, and if you disagree with me, you are being misled and are a victim of propaganda." If that wasn't your intention, please accept my apology.
[quote]
I'd like to point out one your questions appears to have misinterpreted my point:

"How is flying airplanes into buildings to commit mass murder "mundane."?"

I can argue this point thirty-thousand ways, but I think I should start by making clear that I wasn't referring to mundane in the past-tense. I was referring to the looming threats -- mundane due to lack of manifestation -- that many pundits are calling to have eliminated prior to another "incident".

Bombing Afghanistan is removing a mundane threat. What threats exist in the world right now aren't in Afghanistan, they're in your back yard, making pipe bombs and trying to adjust the size of Anthrax spores until they're "just so".

Mundane isn't an appropriate word for what you describe. Mundane means "ordinary." If there is another definition for it, I'd be happy to know it.

And how do YOU know who is and who isn't making Anthrax spores "just so"? As it happens, I agree with you that the probably cause of the bioterrorism incidents in the US is homegrown. But I'm not about to say that there is not threat coming from afghanistan. If threats are being orchestrated there, which it is pretty clear they are, then it is there where the threat needs to be neutralized, along with other places.
quote:
I'd also like to make the point that if this happened to the U.K., U.S. citizens would consider this mundane. If it happened in Afghanistan, it would be trivial. If it happened in China, it would be humerous.

One of the points I was trying to make earlier, that wasn't perhaps clear, was that you decry the US for attributing motives and emotions to foreigners, yet you have no compunctions about characterizing the US in the same way, as above. That doesn't help your case at all, does it?

quote:
Within the first 48 hours, media was struggling for a foothold.

Within 72 hours, media found a foothold, and was adding and removing headlines; altering and updating for emotional impact, and, need I mention again, juxtaposing Palestinian children celebrating (because seemingly anonymous benefactors had fed them candy and cake) with the collapse of the WTC towers.


again, substantiate this "anonymous benefactors" theory. After the brouhaha about how the footage CNN was used was supposedly from 1991 (disproved here, which, as I read it again, also disproves your candy-dispensing legend), I am skeptical of this kind of hearsay reporting. How is this more reliable than news organizations, or less ideologically slanted?
quote:
I believe the media should show some fucking responsibility. I believe the media should not have given Palestinian children candy, filmed them, shown them on national television under the pretense of independently celebrating a disaster on U.S. soil.

see above.
[quote
I believe the media should not show specials entitled "Behind the Veil" which not only take vicious (and cleverly hidden) jabs at Islam under the header of truth; which are seemingly totally incapable of demonstrating the difference between time-honored Islamic practices and the hard-line fundementalist practices of the Taliban.
[/quote]
Haven't seen this. I HAVE seen reports about the TALIBAN itself, which might be construed as propaganda. But as for the religion of ISLAM, no, I don't think that is the case.
quote:
I believe the media should not flirt with racism.

Agreed. I don't think that is the case either. Countless Muslim americans have been interviewed on national and local news to tell the country how this event has effected their lives. There is a concerted effort in this country, it seems to me, to avoid victimizing them. Aside from a few lone screwballs, but they can be discounted like those celebratin palestinian children, right?

quote:
How does the blind dogmatic belief that the U.S. has the right to bomb whomever the fuck we want follow from the media coverage?

The media is your input.

You do not have the facts.

You believe you do.

You are supporting military action sans justification.

And you're fine with it.


Who has the facts? You? There are plenty of justifications for military action in what we know about the case. I, you may be surprised to learn, disagree with the precise nature of the military action embarked on by the US. But some sort of military action is clearly justified against the perpetrators of this crime.

quote:

Somebody must've made a fucking impressive rhetorical case.



Since you ask, my favorite cases for military action come from The Nation magazine, hardly a bastion of right wing corporate opinion. See the articles on the front page "Defining a Just War" and the Hitchens pieces. they come very close to approximating my position.

quote:
Are you of the camp that 37,000 ready-to-eat meals dropped in Afghanistan following airstrikes qualifies as bonafide humanitarian aide?

Are you of the opinion that refusing to permit genuinely philanthropic organizations from appearing on scene to assist civilian refugees is humanitarian?

Absolutely not. I abhor the airstrikes, I think the food air drop is a joke. As well as the left wing media, the truth about the air drops of food has been reported in the New York Times, CNN and elsewhere.

I've watched a lot of news since this thing has started. I've read a lot of articles that people at Barbelith have found. And the difference between alternative voices and the mainstream media is not so big a gulf as you would think.

quote:
I'm not here to argue war vs. peace with you. I'm here to make the point that mass-media is staffed by skilled manipulators. It's what they do. It's automatic. It's built in. It's how you get ratings.

Ratings don't matter much when you go commercial free round the clock for almost a week, as the major networks did in the US. They lost millions of dollars to serve the public.
quote:
You, on the other hand, have clearly not fallen victim to the Gruen transfer. While we may (or may not) disagree on many of these points, my critical thrust involves selective and careful incorporation of "facts" gleaned from mass-media.

I will not deny that I have been shell-shocked. But as I said before, that wasn't because of the media, it was because of reality. I lived it. I saw the towers in flames with my own two eyes. Not through a screen. I saw debris falling, mass hysteria on the ground.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that if these techniques of media control were so effective, would you have written this article? What makes you immune, if I am "clearly a victim"?

quote:
I'll respond, Todd, but I didn't ask for this debate, and I won't engage you in it. You clearly have the hot blood of a corporate patriot.

Cheap shot. I have never, ever been a patriot, but I do own Gap underwear. Heh. And anyone who writes an article invites debate automatically. You of course have the right to the opinion that people are being manipulated. A lot of people WANT to be manipulated. But check your sources before you invalidate part of your argument. Looks like someone uncritically accepted a piece of spun news...but not spun by the corporate masters.
 
 
Frances Farmer
17:33 / 19.10.01
"Mundane isn't an appropriate word for what you describe. Mundane means "ordinary." If there is another definition for it, I'd be happy to know it."

Yeah. Ordinary -- like the rest of the world deals with terrorism on a regular basis. Ordinary.

Look -- you can try and take me up on your crusade, but you're not arguing with me about media. Let's get that straight. Ok? Less then a quarter of your points involve the nature of media.

"And how do YOU know who is and who isn't making Anthrax spores "just so"? As it happens, I agree with you that the probably cause of the bioterrorism incidents in the US is homegrown. But I'm not about to say that there is not threat coming from afghanistan. If threats are being orchestrated there, which it is pretty clear they are, then it is there where the threat needs to be neutralized, along with other places."

It's not clear they are. It's clear that they could be.

Again -- if you want to debate the points of my article, feel free. If you want to assault me on all fronts, fuck off.

I made it a rhetorical point in order to debunk your assertion that it's all just as simple as fucking up Afghanistan.

And that was your implied assertion.

"One of the points I was trying to make earlier, that wasn't perhaps clear, was that you decry the US for attributing motives and emotions to foreigners, yet you have no compunctions about characterizing the US in the same way, as above. That doesn't help your case at all, does it?"

Can you be more specific?

Do you mean I decry the U.S., or CNN?

"again, substantiate this "anonymous benefactors" theory. After the brouhaha about how the footage CNN was used was supposedly from 1991 (disproved here, which, as I read it again, also disproves your candy-dispensing legend),"

It's not my "candy-dispensing legend" -- it's the reporting of a reputable German publication.

You did read too quickly.

"I am skeptical of this kind of hearsay reporting. How is this more reliable than news organizations, or less ideologically slanted?"

I didn't claim to give you the news.

I gave you my opinion.

Are you attacking me, or my opinions?

"Haven't seen this. I HAVE seen reports about the TALIBAN itself, which might be construed as propaganda. But as for the religion of ISLAM, no, I don't think that is the case."

When you show a special on the Taliban and refer offhandedly to standard Islamic practices -- without making clear that they are standard Islamic practices -- exactly what is it you are doing?

"Agreed. I don't think that is the case either. Countless Muslim americans have been interviewed on national and local news to tell the country how this event has effected their lives. There is a concerted effort in this country, it seems to me, to avoid victimizing them. Aside from a few lone screwballs, but they can be discounted like those celebratin palestinian children, right?"

(Ahem).

Simply put, my interpretation is not yours. I offered my reasons for believing what I believe.

Apparently, I've offended you.

I'm not sorry.

"Who has the facts? You? There are plenty of justifications for military action in what we know about the case. I, you may be surprised to learn, disagree with the precise nature of the military action embarked on by the US. But some sort of military action is clearly justified against the perpetrators of this crime."

I would tend to concur that some military action may very well be required -- in the context of International Law.

Have I claimed to have the facts?

No.

I've repeatedly asserted that none of us do.

"Since you ask, my favorite cases for military action come from The Nation magazine, hardly a bastion of right wing corporate opinion. See the articles on the front page "Defining a Just War" and the Hitchens pieces. they come very close to approximating my position."

If you'd kindly refrain from shoving words down my throat, this might be a friendly diatribe.

I didn't say right-wing.

"Absolutely not. I abhor the airstrikes, I think the food air drop is a joke. As well as the left wing media, the truth about the air drops of food has been reported in the New York Times, CNN and elsewhere."

Excellent.

"I've watched a lot of news since this thing has started. I've read a lot of articles that people at Barbelith have found. And the difference between alternative voices and the mainstream media is not so big a gulf as you would think."

In fact, since no one is on the front lines, all of the data is given by and for the Western powers or the Taliban, and alternative media has no option but to reinterpret data given by mainstream media, we're dealing with a feedback loop.

The gulf should be larger.

"Ratings don't matter much when you go commercial free round the clock for almost a week, as the major networks did in the US. They lost millions of dollars to serve the public."

Long-term impact.

Think week-long advertising campaign.

Public service?

"I will not deny that I have been shell-shocked. But as I said before, that wasn't because of the media, it was because of reality. I lived it. I saw the towers in flames with my own two eyes. Not through a screen. I saw debris falling, mass hysteria on the ground."

I don't understand how we went down this path, but I extend to you my sympathies. You've been closer to living hell than most of us ever will be, and I feel for you.

"Additionally, I'd like to point out that if these techniques of media control were so effective, would you have written this article? What makes you immune, if I am "clearly a victim"?"

Look, Todd. I respect your points. I understand where you're coming from. Yes, I took a cheap shot. You also created new angles of argument that weren't indicated in my article -- apparently because you took offense to my media-critical stance. I took that line because I'm trying to stay on the fence and figure out the fuck is going on, and you just tried to kick me off of it. Defensiveness and all that. All I was saying is "Blind Support Is Bad, And The Media Is Good At Making It Happen. Look. They Just Did It.".

Reread my post.

I said you had clearly not fallen victim. So whatever your problem is with me is, I'd suggest you apply that anger constructively.

Your points on media, and your argument that my statements are conjecture, all well taken.

It's not that cut and dry, and my statements are conjecture. That's the very foot I stepped out on.
You make it sound as if this completely invalidates what I have to say.

The people I speak with on the street, they believe that CNN is 100% honest, completely unmanipulative, and absolutely in control of the situation.

This was my rebuttal to the party line.

Fact is, media is fucked. I understand your need to believe that all is well, and that right now, everyone is doing all the right things for all the rights reasons.

My point is, I won't believe it till I see it -- and I'm not seeing it.

And look, let's get something straight about manipulation.

It doesn't always imply plot or conspiracy. There are plenty of people who manipulate as a matter of course. The media, as an organization, manipulates as a matter of course. My point is, it's unlikely they've shelved their habits for the sake of this -- in fact, repeating the same fucking image over and over and over and over and over and over will invoke the Gruen trnsfer. I didn't say it was all intentional.

They decided what they believed, and they showed us a biased case based on their feelings. But the case is not based on facts. It's based on conjecture. And the only thing backing up the conjecture is horrifying, debilitating imagery.

That's all I've got to say.
 
 
Frances Farmer
17:48 / 19.10.01
No, that's not all I've got to say.

I understand that my stance towards you was unfair, and I launched a highly hypocritical rhetorical argument. I don't see that as justified, and I hope you understand that it's not a personal thing -- it's a passion thing. So, if I've drawn this argument into personal territory, I duly apologize -- it was not my intent.

But, to be fair about my feelings on the matter, I feel you've employed some of the same tactics. Instead of stepping back to breath, however, I verbally assaulted you. That was not the correct response. I hope you can understand why I feel the way I do. And I hope you understand that while this is a heated issue for me, I'm making an effort to reconcile our points to find a middle ground.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
18:13 / 19.10.01
quote:In fact, since no one is on the front lines, all of the data is given by and for the Western powers or the Taliban, and alternative media has no option but to reinterpret data given by mainstream media, we're dealing with a feedback loop.
The gulf should be larger.

This is a very valid point. My whole anger was directed at the kind of radical skepticism that occurs, in my opinion, too often on this board. Maybe it is because of the interest a lot of the people here have in conspiracy theory, but many people trade in one harmful, meta-narrative that the world is as given to us by the media is unbiased, for another harmful meta-narrative, that the world given to us by the media is driven solely by profit and should be regarded in that fashion.

You said:
quote:My point is, I won't believe it till I see it -- and I'm not seeing it.

And look, let's get something straight about manipulation.

It doesn't always imply plot or conspiracy. There are plenty of people who manipulate
as a matter of course. The media, as an organization, manipulates as a matter of course. My point is, it's unlikely they've shelved their habits for the sake of this -- in fact, repeating the same fucking image over and over and over and over and over and
over will invoke the Gruen trnsfer. I didn't say it was all intentional

And to a large part I agree. I don't think there is an orchestrated conspiracy in the media. I don't think that the reporters and editors are profit hungry evildoers. They are people like you and me. I think your article implied that there was a conspiracy orchestrated by the government to manipulate the media. To a certain extent, there is:

* Reporters are pooled in wartime.
* The press secretary Ari Fleischer has repeatedly lied to the press (the press has reported this), and encourage the networks not to show unedited broadcasts from Al Quaeda (which they shamefully agreed to. even though there ARE valid reasons not to show them, one of the NOT being coded messages)
* The US government bought all commericial satellite pictures of afghanistan.

The media has been called the Fourth estate (right?), the watchdog of the people. Both the left and the right attack it as serving the interests of the opposite political tendency. The left critique, which, if I'm not mistaken, you subscribe to, is that the media (a) is driven by dollars (B) owned by large corporations that stifle dissent (C) disseminates the ideas of the ruling class.

Projects like "Most Censored Stories" are a needed watchdog group on the media. But even Most Censored wouldn't claim that the media is manipulating us through juxtaposition of images. You are veering dangerously close in your article to a theory of mass mind control. A more valid, and more limited critique of the media is simply that they have the power to filter news, and selectively decide what is important and what isn't. that is the true source of any manipulation going on by the media.

But where does this radical skepticism end? If as you say, "I will only believe it when I see it," Do you mean you will only believe it when you go to afghanistan, or hear Osama bin Laden admit his complicity in the events of Sept. 11th? Or do you mean that there IS something the media can show you that you can trust? If that is so, how can you tell?
 
 
Ierne
18:13 / 19.10.01
Hey Frances:

Is that German article online? It might help if folks can read it for themselves (with our handy-dandy Deutsch/English dictionaries at the ready... )

If not, perhaps you could footnote it?
 
 
Frances Farmer
18:14 / 19.10.01
I'm on it.
 
 
Frances Farmer
19:38 / 19.10.01
This would be so so much easier if I spoke German.
 
 
Frances Farmer
19:43 / 19.10.01
Just to give a progress report (Coincidentally, my brother, who informed of this, has a German-speaking roommate... I hope they return my call.) I think this is the one. It is German, right?

Der Spiegel.
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:24 / 20.10.01
I'm just about 95% sure it was Der Spiegel, but I can't verify since I don't speak German.

Somebody?
 
 
Ganesh
09:50 / 20.10.01
Frances: thankyou for your article; the Gruen Transfer was unknown to me and, while I'm uncertain exactly how well it works as a perfect analogy of the WTC events, I'm grateful to be informed of its existence.

I began to be uneasy with the coverage early on. Even on the 11th itself, there was a palpable change in tone throughout the day: there was initially much footage of 'planes hitting buildings, as well as heartbreaking film of people jumping from upon high. As the day wore on, there was a decrease in the 'leapers' footage but an increase in exposure of the brief, thirty-second clip of Palestinians celebrating; on at least one news summary, I noted that the footage had been looped three times, the same individuals smiling and waving the same guns. Why?

In contrast to the 'unreal', somewhat abstract shots of aircraft ploughing into the towers, I think the footage of people jumping personalised events in a very evocative, disturbing way. They certainly made me sad; they made me cry. The footage of celebrant Palestinians was shown repeatedly, relentlessly, as a sort of substitution: personal sadness was replaced by impersonal anger, anger at the juxtaposition of these people tactlessly smiling and dancing while New Yorkers died.

I think the media nudged the emotions of those watching from grief to anger, to a desire for retribution. I'm not of a conspiracy bent, so couldn't claim that this was intentional - but I believe it happened nonetheless. Unfocussed sadness became (slightly more) focussed anger.

The media is suspect, that much is certain.

So what do we actually do about it? Are there any constructive suggestions for educating ourselves? Which information can be trusted? Living in a state of permanent cynicism is as unreliable as a state of perpetual credulity/acceptance.

What should now happen?
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:50 / 20.10.01
Here's the deal.

The gist of my piece does imply that the media pulls some nasty things.

I believe they do.

You're welcome to question and doubt that as long as you wish. Your view of the media is no more valid than mine -- not unless you work for CNN. That being what it is, I float my story as it is.

I made no false statements (A well-reknowned German news outlet did run the story), and did my best to express and back my conjecture.

But, y'know, I've taken the burden of proof as far as I can. I don't work for CNN. I'm telling it how I see it, and I don't see it like you do. I can't justify my feelings, my distrust for multinational media conglomerates, to you. Furthermore, your vitriol towards my writing appears to have more to do with your perceived impression of conspiracy-crank poorly informed 'lithers polluting the ideaspace than it does my piece. I didn't claim it was gospel. I claimed it was my point of view. I openly expressed (or, in your terms, 'admitted') that it was arguable. For fuck's sake, it's a hypothesis.

I believe in my standpoint. I believe this to be as close to the truth as my information can bring me. Most of your assaults on my piece involve substitution arguments amd arguing around the central point. For example, the link that debunks "my CNN rumour", or however your verbiage expressed it, in fact debunks a rumour dealing with Isreali media -- not CNN. It's still possible that Der Spiegel is wrong about this whole thing. It's also possible that I'm wrong about it -- but reguardless of the value of Der Spiegel's reportage, my point stands, and your argument is based on substitution. The core of my point being, it's manipulative and dangerous to juxtaposition the images of the WTC collapsing -- screaming, crying refugees, and celebrating Palestinian children -- and it has a palpable affect. You may believe that it's CNN's perogative to ignore the persuasive power of media and juxtaposition images all they wish without earning criticism for their manner of reportage -- and I believe the opposite. All these things are my opinion, but I believe I've backed my opinions adequately. If you don't respect my distrust for the media, that's fine. Hell, why don't you write a piece advocating the hard work CNN is doing instead of doing your best to rhetorically chew mine to shit? If you want to misplace your distaste for the likes of RRM, Laila, and Chrome by aligning such an assault against anyone who takes the time to compose a dissenting view of media, that's fine, too. You know, I probably had it coming.

But, I'm done defending it. It says what I want it to say, and I figured it would piss someone off when I wrote it to begin with. I might as well get used to it.

If you want to substitute arguments, derail debate, modify my statements, quote me out of context, take issue with minor statements (for instance, anti-war sentiment), completely ignore the core thrust of my piece while arguing the most inconsequential of offhand statements, and in general pull every stop to discredit my points -- no matter how minor to the overall message -- you're welcome to. It's more than possible I just can't take criticism. I can take it from my boss, I can take it from fellow musicians, I can take it from my friends -- but maybe I just can't take it from you. Who knows.

It's your peragotive to shit on my piece. I put it up.

But, y'know, it was just an opinion piece to begin with -- backed by a few verifiable facts and put into context by circumstantial evidence. It's inductive reasoning. It's practically hypothetical. It may very well be true. You don't know. I don't know.

But hey, at least I gave it a fucking shot.
 
 
Ganesh
09:50 / 20.10.01
(Frances: I assume your last post was directed at Todd rather than me? I actually agreed with most of what you said.)
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:50 / 20.10.01
Yeah... You replied while I was writing.

;b
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:50 / 20.10.01
And Ganesh, thank you for your comments -- it'll take me a bit longer to formulate an answer to your question, but I'll try.

I think I need to sleep.
 
 
Ganesh
09:50 / 20.10.01
H'okay-dokay. You seemed a bit put-out and deflated after Todd's last post, Frances; you okay? Stand by your opinions, maaan...
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:50 / 20.10.01
Heh.

Yeah. I'm fine. And I'll stick with my opinions. It wasn't the dissent that got to me; It was something about the way it was handled the rubbed me the wrong way. I feel that Todd targetted unrelated statements in order to give the rhetorical impression that the overall point was invalid by addressing the parts we all already knew were questionable/arguable.

I dunno.

And, y'know, I'm operating off of a grand total of 20 hours of sleep since last Sunday, two hours a night in the last two nights, I'm still drunk from last night, I just went through a really fucked up personal crisis in the last couple of weeks. Things are good in a lot of ways -- more than I had the right to hope for -- but Todd hit all my buttons, and I blew my top.

Fuck, y'know. It happens. I'm young and emotionally volatile and I just wanna be loved.

  
 
Ganesh
09:50 / 20.10.01
I love you, dear. In a virtual way.

  
 
Frances Farmer
09:50 / 20.10.01
You know, 'Nesh, that's virtually comforting.

  
 
Cherry Bomb
09:50 / 20.10.01
Just for the record here, as most news sources operate on a for-profit basis they are biased because of it.

I experienced this on a very small level when I was an arts intern for a small paper in a small town in Iowa. I had to change a negative review I'd written of a concert. It turned out that the band members owned an establishment that had never advertised in the paper but the paper was hoping they eventually would. And that was at a small "alternative" paper in a small town in IOWA. Think about that.

The lesson I took from that was if a little paper that didn't matter in a town that didn't matter would bow to commercial pressure surely a bohemith like CNN would.

And they do. All the time. Check out prwatch.org or any number of fantabulous media watchdog sites.

Which is not to say that there are evil editors and evil reporters engaged in a conspiracy to dupe the public. Rather that they have to pay the bills. This is why news from Ms. magazine, which doesn't run ads, is less likely to be biased than say MSNBC. Because they don't have to answer to advertisers.

As far as the no advertising during the attacks, I can tell you that as soon as September 15 ALL of the major U.S. networks were trying to put ads back on. But none of them wanted to be the first station to do so. I know this because I was working at NBC Chicago at the time and it was the first article on the company's website that day. Yes, they did feel an obligation to perform news as a public service shortly after the attacks happened, and that's why all of the stations shared their footage and their stories with one another that day. But they do still have to pay the bills.

Also it has to be said that ALL of the networks were certain they could recoup their losses from that week.

By the end of Septmber 11 all of the major networks except ABC had come up with a logo and a title for the attacks. That's a brand, and the point of the brand is to bring you back for more.

I'd say more, but I'm getting tired.
 
 
Frances Farmer
20:43 / 20.10.01
Cherry,

This also brings to mind a quote Crunchy put up referring to, I think, a New York Times editor, who after having retired said something along the lines of "We're intellectual prostitutes for the highest bidder,".
 
 
Frances Farmer
18:38 / 21.10.01
I have verification that the story, if it aired (word of mouth), aired on Der Spiegel, linked earlier in the thread.

However, it's not too material to the overall point, although rhetorically effective. I can remove it if the consensus says it's inappropriate/irresponsible. Or change the verbiage: "This, after the German news source Der Spiegel supposedly aired a story..".

Whadya think, Cherry, Ierne?

Unfortunately, unless someone here who speaks German is feeling philanthropic, there's no way for me to get utter verification. It aired in German only German.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
20:46 / 21.10.01
You could do a search to see if there were any other reports of that story.
 
 
YNH
03:23 / 22.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Frances:
I feel that Todd targetted unrelated statements in order to give the rhetorical impression that the overall point was invalid by addressing the parts we all already knew were questionable/arguable.

Fuck. Something like that happened on Barbelith?

Nice piece, Frances. Nicer still for linking advertising tactics not merely to electoral politics, but coverage in general.
 
 
Ierne
13:17 / 22.10.01
...Or change the verbiage: "This, after the German news source Der Spiegel supposedly aired a story..." – Frances

I can't read Deutsch either, but yeah, DS has good rep. I would suggest mentioning the source as above. And if you've got confirmation, don't say "supposedly".

I know there are websites that can translate from one language to another, but sometimes the context gets misconstrued so it's not always accurate.

I suspect it was inevitable that your article would upset some folks. It's one thing to theorize and intellectualize about such things, but very difficult to realize (or indeed accept) that it actually can happen. But yeah, definitely send it to Tom. And a heated response is way better than a tepid response
 
 
Frances Farmer
15:07 / 22.10.01
quote:
I can't read Deutsch either, but yeah, DS has good rep. I would suggest mentioning the source as above. And if you've got confirmation, don't say "supposedly".


Well, to give backround, I got that little tidbit from my brother, who is deeply involved in human rights protests on behalf of Palestinians. While he's obviously going to be a little bit slanted, on the reverse, he also has a deep sense of good information and doesn't like to jeapordize his arguments with poor data. This is the weight on which I accept it. Trouble is, after speaking with him, he hasn't seen the story himself, either. Great, right? He tells me the story aired in Der Spiegel, so there's no question about that, but if he heard it from soneone else, this is becoming dangerous close to Urban Myth. Ironic that we know precisely where to look, but none of us know what to look for. The word, apparently, that German's use for Palestinians is a shortening -- it's like 'Palestin', but more complicated (accents marks, etc). So, even that's a little tricky to look for.

quote:
I know there are websites that can translate from one language to another, but sometimes the context gets misconstrued so it's not always accurate.


It might be worth a shot tho... It should be obvious by association, if I can just find a way to search for informatino about Palestine in German. There's a small collection of English stories on Der Spiegel's website, but the vast majority is Deutch.

quote:
I suspect it was inevitable that your article would upset some folks. It's one thing to theorize and intellectualize about such things, but very difficult to realize (or indeed accept) that it actually can happen. But yeah, definitely send it to Tom. And a heated response is way better than a tepid response [/QB]

You've got a point there. You'll have to see my other bit, respond to Ganesh: I just kind of flipped. I've been a god damn rollercoaster for the last couple weeks, and I can't wait 'til the ride's over. Although, I agree with Faulkner: "Given a choice between nothing and grief, I'd rather have grief.".

But, yeah. And I keep listening to these Buckley songs and balling. My friend picked just the right time to introduce me to Buckley, too. Heh. The Cohen cover (Hallelujah) has a lot of little bits in it, but I've found this one kicks my ass:

"well maybe there's a god above
but all i've ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
it's not a cry you hear at night
it's not somebody who's seen the light
it's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah".

I stared at rain and cried in pace all day Saturday. It doesn't sound good, but believe me, it is.

Oh, and FYI: It's been submitted to Tom. (submissions@barbelith.com) for a few days now... Awaiting a response.
 
 
Ierne
15:36 / 22.10.01
I'm young and emotionally volatile and I just wanna be loved. – Frances

I know the feeling! (Tears = Release)

Keep breathing & keep thinking. And don't forget the H2O & asprin before bed when drinking the PBR!
 
 
Frances Farmer
17:24 / 22.10.01
Today, we escape .. We escape...

...Yeah. Well, tonight I'm planning to go out for pool and ridiculous amounts of liquor in order to counterbalance the hard-ass work I'm going to have to do for the rest of the week. Hope it adds up right...

...Breathe. Keep breathing. I can't do this alone.

Ganesh, what're those pills I'm gonna need and where do I buy them?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply