Good for Whom?

Once more a sundae, and the nature of the tabs remaining seems congruent with a general atmosphere of superstition and mysticism on the christianist pseudo-shabat. Inasmuch as I am nowly returned from a pace about the path over in the Greater Metropolitan Arab schizophrenia (indecision?) park and the warmth of the thoughts is helpful in dispelling the creaks and groans of ache and pain in the phalanges and limbs.

First, a rather poorly composed article [Link] by journalists lambasting journalists for inconsistency. If I had not observed the cattiness of human cougars at shule reunions I should be inclined to think all the cannibalistic traits of humans are modernly concentrated in journalists. To say nothing about being the epitome of inconsistency and self-service.

The subject of the article is the coverage of two different studies on the value of “organic” foodstuffs. Apparently one study was trumpeted while the other was tacited. The occurrence is so common that surprise is itself surprising. Journalism has become just another form of advertising with at least one component that is the diametric opposite of accuracy, and ‘fair’ takes on its medieval meaning of attractive or pretty or clean. As with television meteorologists accuracy is sacrificed for appearance.

But what is attractive here is consideration of the science, not the journalistic stupidity. While I do shop at “organic: markets I also shop at conventional markets as well. And I find the “organic” appellation somewhere between confusing and amusing. My first learning of a meaning for “organic” was as a sophomore in college and as humans do, first knowledge sticks even when we know it to be inaccurate later, which is hardly the case here so ridiculous is the use of the term. Simply put to me organic means the chemistry of compounds containing the sixth element, carbon. The contemporary meaning, which I can only use with will power, means unsullied by additives not ripped from plants.

The hype among the “organic” bogs is that “organic” foodstuffs and products are better than un”organic” products because they lack these “artificial” additives. To a sense they are not inaccurate so far as I can determine. As foodstuffs, they are no more nutritious than the un”organic” foodstuffs although they are seem often to taste better, occasionally worse. The “organic” products are more of a mixed bag. But what is clearly beneficial, in specific instances, is the benefit of the absence of the “artificial” additives. So if you want to claim benefits for “organic” foodstuffs it needs to be confined to taste (maybe) and absence of additives (MAYBE.)

I cannot refrain from commenting that if you drink water without added fluorides be not surprised at increased incidence of cavities. Caveat Emptor.

I also have to register my amusement and disgust at the opposites in this terminology. Are foodstuffs that are not “organic” inorganic? To me the term inorganic means chemical compounds not containing carbon (or in some cases electronic analogs – but that is quantum mechanics which is much closer to real than this nonsense.) And what makes these other compounds artificial. They are made from atoms arising from the same sources as those “organic” molecules. I know of no data that distinguished an “organic” molecule from an “artificial” molecule. That leaves only the “art” aspect of “artificial” and I cannot find disgust with human art and creativity except when its purpose is enslavement and terror. And that is almost always from organizations rather than humans per se.

On which note we more on to article [Link] the second. It seems that the slave masters (humor?) at FaceScroll are implementing a “profile meter” similar to than in LinkedIn. On surface this does not look like enslavement and terror but I shall let it run. Clearly there are many who use Face Scroll who are enslaved. I know many of those aforementioned “cougars” who have to broadcast their location on FaceScroll every time they can. Heretofore I have considered this an admixture of insecurity over aging and general boggish stupidity but now I must consider if this be a form of slavery?

I have to admit to never having completed my profile on LinkedIn. There are some things I reserve from public view. Call them privates if you will. The bogs running LinkedIn used to send me harassing emails about not completing but wisely never bothered to add any “or else” stipulations, I suspect knowing full well that the gauntlet would be used to beat them into bankruptcy.

The question is, are the bog masters of FaceScroll as intelligent, or canny, at least? I am not at all sure. Their behavior lately seems destined to reduce their sociality to full egalitarianism, for spite if nothing else. Their transition from hunter-gatherers to oligarchic capitalists has been surprising only in its rapidity, not its depths of depravity.

So we have the possibility of the challenge of gaming the completion of the FaceScroll profile in such a way as to satisfy the automated whip handlers while abusing the advertising engines to the maximum extent. One can only hope the FaceScroll managers are indeed this stupid so we may actually derive some actual entertainment from their increasingly moldy web site.

, , , , , ,

About these ads