Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
My new career as an acrobat (part one)
“Is it productive to flippantly generalize about those who earn a Nike paycheck or wear Air Jordan sneakers or can we discern new ways to interact with them?”
Definitely have to say it is a bad idea to generalize about anything or anyone. I think we all participate in activities or act in ways that are negative at times without really thinking it through.
On the topic of atheism…
I had a time when I had “disproved” the existence of any god or God for myself, but I have since come to a new personal understanding. It seems that many activists are also atheists...anyone want to agree or disagree?
(I am not talking about religion here. Forget religion.)
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/03 at 08:05 AMI enjoyed your description of your ambivalence about Armstrong. That’s something I think about frequently: how to admire someone when they so obviously have done wrong as well as right.
Posted by Christine Hamm on from nimby 08/03 at 09:41 AMAnimal testing for cosmetics etc. is wrong. But having been through illness, I have to say that my own concept is that it may be a neccessary evil in order to cure human diseas. I think its Malthusian to assert otherwise, in which either humans would be tested (bad) or diseases not cured (worse.) Stem Cell research should fortunately negate the need, but as someone who thinks animal rights aren’t the be all and end all, I think there’s no problem esp. in this particular case.
Atheism? It doesn’t mean anti-theism, one can believe in the Providence of Reason without beleving in JudeoChristian God.
Posted by Jordy Cummings on from Toronto 08/03 at 09:44 AM“Atheism? It doesn’t mean anti-theism, one can believe in the Providence of Reason without beleving in JudeoChristian God.”
Theism is the belief in one or more gods, no matter the type (JudeoChristian, Zues, Ra, whatever).
Atheism is actively believing that there is no god or gods, no matter the type.
At least that is how I am defining for my question or questions. Is it true that many activists/dissenters/etc. are also atheists? If so, I wonder why.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/03 at 09:55 AMThanks, all. My take on animal testing is not just on moral grounds. It’s questionable science. There’s a lot out there about this...here’s a start: http://www.animal-lib.org.au/lists/viv/viv.shtml
As for atheism, what can I say? I’m a big fan. And yes, I seem to have met many atheists who also identify as radical.
Ultimately, whether we agree there’s a god or animals should be tested, I made today’s post primarily to share my own inner contradictions.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 10:26 AMMickey:
thanks for a great post. Enlightening. I wish we could more often state (or discover) our positions by formulating questions that we cannot necessarily answer. But if you read the ZNet blogs at all, you can see that any sign of “weakness” or uncertainty invites attack from the less curious.
Speaking of ZNet, a few years ago I was admonished by Michael Albert in the sustainer forums for questioning whether he should be promoting his anti-capitalist books through Amazon. In my comment I also asked--flippantly, stupidly--"does Noam wear Nikes?” (I was young, discovering my positions.)
Albert’s response was harsh, but I learned something. It shouldn’t matter if Chomsky wears the wrong shoes. Or Albert promotes Parecon through Amazon. Or an opponent of animal testing supports his illness-struck family by holding his nose while buying the bracelets.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I note that Armstrong’s positions are changing. Perhaps he’ll soon be in a position to cease the use of animal research if the case is made to him strongly. He is certainly in a better position then I am to pressure Nike to pay its labor source living wages.
I don’t think you did the “wrong” or “right” thing. But sharing the conflict is a good thing, I think.
Posted by Keir on from New York, momentarily 08/03 at 10:49 AMgreat comment, Keir.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/03 at 10:52 AMThanks, Keir. It’s a delicate balance. If we seek purity, we are doomed to spectacular failure. But not seeking purity isn’t the same as embracing compromise. A very delicate balance.
I agree with your comment about showing “weakness” and I’m sure I’ll be attacked (I am often). Hey, I’ve doled out the insults myself, too...so I better have thick skin. However, I’ll stop short of characterizing my attackers as being “less curious.” First of all (and I am certainly guilty of this), personal attacks have sadly become an accepted method of debate. Secondly (and I will again plead guilty), we humans never learn that how we feel on Monday often bears little resemblence to how we feel on Wednesday. That’s why I included that Shaw quote.
As for Michael Albert, I have also been on the receiving end of his wrath. He pulls no punches.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 10:58 AMTough place to be in, Mickey. I’m going to second the sense of what Christine said. There are few people who are wholly morally bankrupt and it’s a good idea to keep some perspective lest we become insufferable and sanctimonious.
As for the bracelets? I think buying them would have been an empty, wasteful gesture. Much better to support something like Healthy Skepticism.
Posted by Harry on from 08/03 at 12:00 PMYeah, I’m glad Christine chimed in. She’s always got a lot to say that’s worth hearing.
As for “insufferable and sanctimonious,” that’s exactly what I want to avoid...although I surely have been both far too many times before. More about that in Friday’s part two.
Finally, when I’m in Texas later this month, I’ll show my mom the “health skepticism” link.
Thanks, Harry…
Any thoughts on the nice guy who works for the bad company? Anyone?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 12:19 PM“They” say that wonder is the beginning of wisdom, Mickey. Obviously, you’ve been “wondering” for a while. Sadly, perhaps, but truly, it’s the painful stuff that shapes, then re-shapes us. It wakes us up and, while more awake, we have a bit of a look around, and see what we’ve not thusfar seen. Generally, (not always) the “pleasant and delightful,” function like a comfy, toasty bed, and send us back to sleep. Aging has been a mixed bag, of course, but the unpleasantness of it has made one thing perfectly clear: The biggest fool I’ve ever encountered, bar none, is me. Such a realization makes it more difficult to decide to send others “to the guillotine,” as it were.
About Lance, et. al.: I generally try to put myself in someone else’s position, when I’m trying to figure out some behavior or political or intellectual position. If I was one of the greatest athletes of the last 100 years, with the potential of being one of the most legendary bicyclists in history - and I’d also had testicle and brain cancer - Oh, hell, I’m not sure I can place myself in his shoes! I guess I might behave much as he has. (If I could box like Ali, would I choose writing, instead?) (If I could ride like Lance, would I get an ordinary job, instead?) (If I could play tennis like McEnroe, would I become an auto-mechanic?)
No matter how we would like to define all this for ourselves - raw self interest ( vanity, pride, etc., etc.,) is right at the forefront of almost everyone’s world view, everyone’s decision-making process, and it skews every vision, however clear it might otherwise be. Some of us are more vain about our “selfless” positions. Others are more vain about the sort of car they drive, or the clothes they wear, or the cool clubs they frequent. We decide that one vanity, being better for the population as a whole, is much more admirable, than another. But, who knows why we’re “blessed” with this form of “ME” rather than some other form? I didn’t work hard to care about or be sensitive to the suffering and sadness of others - I just happen to do so, to be so. Sometimes I’ve wished I was more of a hard ass.
I guess I’ve got no answers, either, Mickey. We’re all just “wondering” as we go, and that’s better, I think, than all the “certain certainties” we so frequently encounter, either on the Right or the Left. Maybe, in all our wonderings, we’ll stumble upon something that will, one day, matter to many people - Or, perhaps it will help us to do less harm…
Posted by joe on from Oregon 08/03 at 01:40 PMI think Armstrong has made an important step in his life. I’d be interested to see if he goes further. He’s crossed a hurdle many people don’t even see. At this point, he’s doing more good than harm. There’s also none of the self-aggrandizing quality that puts me off so many celebrities.
Posted by Harry on from 08/03 at 02:44 PMAs for the nice guy who works for a bad company, it helps to try to put oneself in another shoes, but we can never really another’s reasons. There may be factors that go into another’s choices in life that, standing outside of that life as we do, we can never discern. At any rate it would be tough to condemn another for the choices another makes in life as most of us have to make compromises at one time or another. I know nothing of Armstrong as I haven’t followed that story. Perhaps for him a Nike deal means money that wouldn’t otherwise be available he can put into cancer research, and for him that overrides the negatives....if he is even aware of Nike’s sweatshops. It is not so unusual for a nice guy (or gal) to work for a bad company as indeed this is probably the case with at least 95 percent of us!
Posted by Greg on from Ohio 08/03 at 03:00 PMThanks again to all. The “good guy” I was referring to was not Lance...but the Nike rep who stuck with him even though there was no rational reason to believe he’d live, never mind race again.
Joe: I like the “do less harm” line. The doctors have “do no harm” (a pledge more honored in the breach). For me, being a vegan is about “do less harm.” A modest goal but, as another Mick sang, what else can a poor boy do?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 03:16 PMThanks, Mickey. I read the text too quickly (during a very short break in a training class), so I misread who was being referred to. But the point is the same. Like most of us, the man works for a bad company in order to pay the rent or mortgage and to put food on the table. Let’s face it. All companies exploit the labor of their workers. It may not always be so obvious as in the case of sweatshops, but it is there all the same.
Posted by Greg on from Ohio 08/03 at 04:23 PMJames, not all activists are atheists. I am not, because the belief in atheism requires too much blind faith. It seems to me that atheism is too sure of too many concepts that cannot be proven......... The moment of humanity that the Nike rep showed is to be admired but is all too rare. I do not know anyone who is not involved in some sort of a struggle with the electric company, phone or cable company, an insurance company, their employer, etc. Humanity is totally lacking in every-day life in this country. I guess that we just don’t like one another in this country. Proof of that, is that we don’t have universal health care.
Posted by rosemarie on from 08/03 at 07:39 PMHi Rosemarie. I’ve met many atheists who fit into the category you describe. As for myself, it’s not about blind faith or being sure of anything. The concept of “god” is something I don’t even think about. I’m an atheist in the same way that I don’t believe UFOs regularly abduct humans. It’s just not even a tiny part of my life.
And I agree, it sure seems like most of us just don’t like each other.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 07:45 PMMickey… I think that you may be an agnostic.
Posted by rosemarie on from 08/03 at 08:02 PMWhat if i I don’t believe in the existence of agnostics?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/03 at 08:30 PMThere are many different types of non-belief. Apatheists are indifferent to the idea of a deity or deities. It just doesn’t matter to them. Agnostics claim no knowledge. Some, but not all, atheists say that there’s no proof of a deity’s or deities’ existence and that claims for their existence don’t hold up. Other atheists outright say there can be no such thing. In addition to all those, there are irreligions that philosophically oppose the entire idea of an established religion.
In activists sympathetic to many or most of the same things we are, believers and non-believers alike, I’ve noticed a near universal abhorrence towards the idea of forcing a religion or lack thereof on anyone.
Posted by Harry on from 08/03 at 08:38 PMare bracelets the new ribbons?
Posted by tm on from here 08/03 at 10:12 PMMickey, what was that Stones song you referred to? Unless it was nother Mick…
And how about bad people working for bad companies? A friend of mine from high school is a senior scientist at Novartis, and he routinely experiments on rats and other animals. He just insisted that it’s the only effective way to do some of the testing they need to in some cancer and AIDS research. Now, I think he was partly telling me about this to be annoying, but he also believed this. And what if he’s right? I can whine about animal rights all I want, but you don’t get to be a scientist of his level overnight, I’m sure he’s researched things I could only begin to comprehend. And morally? I’ll probably regret typing this later, but speaking as the owner/guardian of two vegan cats, I’d say that if animal experimentation/outright torture could have saved my dad from his heart disease, there’s no end to the amount of species of whatever animals necessary I’d be willing to see wiped out.
And have you seen this? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050803/ts_nm/science_cloning_dogs_dc_3
A bit off topic, but still, cloned cats and now dogs…
Posted by James on from NYC 08/03 at 10:42 PMTM: Bracelets are the new ribbons and from what I hear, pink is th enew black this year.
James: Each of us must decide what we’d morally accept so I certainly can’t tell you what you should or shouldn’t feel about your Dad. As for your scientist friend, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume he knows anything you couldn’t comprhend. Lastly, the Stones song is “Street Fighting Man”: “What else can a poor boy do except sing a rock and roll band?”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/04 at 05:11 AMThanks, Rosemarie. I also see what you are saying, Mickey...makes sense.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 08/04 at 07:50 AMMy mother´s boyfriend told me about a fellow called Royal Raymond Rife who invented a microscope different from an electron one in that it does not kill what you wish to view and he discovered that cancer cells, like every other organism, exist on their unique vibrational frequency and could, without harming neighbouring cells, be destroyed ´by increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses´. Principal works the same as when an operasinger shatters a glass with her voice I suppose. The lab that was outlining his work, Burnett in NJ, was burned down and so did a lab 40 miles away, killing a Dr Nemens who was duplicating Rife´s studies. Too, the president of the Southern California American Medical Association was poisoned a few hours before he was due a press conference about how Rife´s e-therapy cured 16 out of 16 patients during a University of Southern California medical study, though that wasn´t discovered until years later when federal investigators exhumed him. Here´s some links I found about him:
http://www.navi.net/~rsc/rife1.htm
http://www.rense.com/general31/rife.htm
Posted by Owen on from Barcelona 08/04 at 07:55 AMThanks, Owen. I’ll try to check out those links later today.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/04 at 10:02 AMHey Mickey, you’re right on all counts, that whole thing about animal testing moral limit was really hypothetical and besides, I’d been awake almost a full day when I typed that, which also explains why I didn’t recognized the Stones lyrics. Yeah, my friend could just be enjoying making like half a million a year to torture rats. With friends like him, who needs acquaintances?
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 08/05 at 01:32 AMI don’t see how the Lance Armstrong story contradicts any criticisms about Nike. If you look at what it is that Nike has always sought to commodify, by even the company’s own admissions, it’s “the athletic spirit”. If news broke that they left an athlete facing tough medical circumstances, you don’t need to work in PR to know what a complete disaster this would be. Even if Nike had to pay Lance an extra year or so, without him doing much, it would be worth it for Nike.
Are those that work there inherently evil? Of course not. But the Nike representative’s job, or what s/he might consider duty, is to make money for Nike. Talking to a sponsor with cancer goes with the job. Sound crude? that’s the job.
Posted by mike on from dublin 08/05 at 12:31 PMMike, I agree...to a point. Another sponsor dumped Lance and that sponsor still plays a major role in the Tour. Also, Nike clearly has some deviously clever minds at work in their PR department. How else could they remain so popular in the face of well-documented labor abuses? Nike could have dumped Lance when he got cancer in 1996 (3 years before his first Tour win and international fame) and spun things their way.
Still, having said all that...I might have been giving the Nike rep too much credit.
Thanks, Mike.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/05 at 12:53 PM
Next entry: Jesus W. Christ, ancient dildos, sexy vegans, & our latest photo caption winner
Previous entry: Jude Law's nanny missing in Aruba?
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
