Destructive charities (was: STAPLES STORES...)

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. 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 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 Reply to: lgwalker(a)mts.net