Destructive charities (was: STAPLES STORES...)

From: Lawrence Walker <lgwalker_at_mts.net>
Date: Sat Feb 16 13:41:04 2002

 Well, it grudges me Dick, and maybe I have misjudged you on some things,
but I'm pretty well in agreement with much of what you say here.

 There are thinktanks that major corporations support, as well as many
marketing agencies, whose whole purpose is to keep the corporation
profitable. Along with that are departments whose whole purpose is to reduce
the production costs of the product. The idea is "The Big Sell" to convince us
all that we need these products while reducing the quality of them.

 But I would also say that this is true not only of US producers. While there
may be a few successful quality production companies, who can argue that
most heavily indoctinated consumers would prefer Mc donalds to quality
foods. Quality to most consumers is not important because they've never
experienced it. Even in Moscow McD does well, but would fail in rural areas
since the hype is absent.

 Ask a former rural Jamaican or most country people about tomatoes and
they will rhapsodise about how good, how live, they were. But the tomatoes
most urban people eat are picked green, ripened in a boxcar and subjected
to immense chemical infusions before they even get that far.

 Whether it's radio playlists. local or international news, the newest,hippest
gadgets, we are programmed. And unless the message is changed we are
for the main, simply responding at a level largely beyond our control. Even
tho we attest our resistance to the media manipulators.

> Yes, but the REAL problem is that the '86 automobile came from Detroit, where
> cars have, since the '60's been designed to become, and to stay, worthless
> before the ever-increasing period of the payments expires.
>
> Likewise with the majority of personal computers. They're designed to become
> undesirable within the 24-month window from "now" to when "generation after
> next" is on the showroom floor.
>
> A few exceptions get swept along under the same umberella, but, for the most
> part, if people wanted 'em, they'd not end up in the junk pile. The problem
> with the throwaway society is that most people just don't want the hassle of
> passing their throwaways to someone who might be able to used them because they
> decline to have contact with such individuals.
>
 I don't think you read the exceptions that earlier posters expressed. They
are saying that the market/throwaway economy throws barriers in the way of
those who don't subscribe to the prevailing currents from availing themselves
of the benifits of their (dis)beliefs. The "bottom line" says destroy anything
that will detract from future profits. Just like the food barons in the hungry
30s that would rather see food destroyed than fall into the hands of potential
customers even if the alternative is starvation.

 The "hassle" you speak about is the lack of any moral fibre or example.
 I would like to think that my actions contribute to the social good. If I can
prevent a piece of metal and silicone which took so much labor to produce
from being part of a landfill, while ever more natural resources are torn from
the earth for a small minorities profit, and also allow someone else access to
enriching knowledge, then I am doing a GOOD thing and providing an
example for those that would simply go along with the corporate agenda.

 I'm not a religious person, but I doubt I would be contaminated by having
contact with "those individuals". However I would avoid and abhor those
godless types who fear contamination should they give to the less fortunate.
May they rot in Hell. It's not enough to simply accept bad social behavior.

Lawrence

> Dick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Ford" <mikeford_at_socal.rr.com>
> To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Destructive charities (was: STAPLES STORES...)
>
>
> > >>The car that can't pass emissions is like the computer that won't run.
> It's
> > >>of no real use, except maybe for parts.
> > >
> > >Um... WRONG... the $4,000 Toyota just needs a new cat ($100 in parts and $80
> > >in labor). The guy just felt like buying a new car. But since he
> >
> > Short answer, my Lincoln dealer wanted a $1000 authorization to even look at
> > my smog test failing Mark VII, and if it did prove to have bad cats would only
> > replace them with Ford parts which were over a grand. Charity looked pretty
> > good, but I EVENTUALLY found a cheapo muffler shop that replaced both cats for
> > $187.
> >
> > Long answer.
> > Knowledge is power. 4 years ago my 86 Lincoln Mark VII was running a tad
> > funky at emissions testing time, and by a TINY margin failed one element of
> > the smog test (HC I think). So I figure bad gas, and run the tank empty and
> > fillup with premium, then go back for the free retest. Again it fails, but
> > from the opposite too lean (maybe) and I get the first repair quote of $125 to
> > "clean" the injectors. Well this roasted my chicken, since I was at the Mobil
> > station getting the test where I bought all my gas, that was supposed to be
> > keeping my engine clean. Anyway I do it, but the pretest still shows me
> > failing and now its worse, which the mechanic says means the O2 sensors are
> > bad and need $250 of replacing, and much more expensive it could need cats for
> > $700.
> >
> > Gotta be someplace cheaper, so I hunt up a gas station that buys just Mark VII
> > cars and fixes and parts them out. For $200 he agrees on the phone to sell me
> > the whole front end of the exhaust system, but when I arrive that doesn't
> > include the O2 sensors, or a gaurantee they work (ie will pass the test).
> > Eventually the guy talks me into $30 worth of trying some "adjustments", but
> > he actually runs a "real" smog test to check his results, which failed
> > miserably, and due to the hook up of his test rig to the DMV my car is
> > permanently classified as a GROSS POLLUTER requiring special testing on all
> > future smog tests. <surprizingly the fellow is still alive> (mostly due to me
> > not knowing how screwed I was until later)
> >
> > Finally, after I have well passed the license renewal date and have a
> > whopper penalty, I go to a better mechanic and he assures me the next step are
> > O2 sensors, then cats, and I pop for the O2, and after that fails to fix, I
> > hunt down some cheap cats and ouila, everything is perfect, except its a gross
> > polluter on the license for life even though it measures like new. The ticket
> > my wife got for expired tags was a real thrill too.
> >
> >
> >
>



Reply to:
lgwalker_at_mts.net
Received on Sat Feb 16 2002 - 13:41:04 GMT