One paragraph, jesus, one fucking word would do.
Guys, I shouldn’t have to tell you why mainstream media outlets are not to be trusted, you want the news, pick bits off twitter, read about 10 different newspapers and then come to your own decision. Don’t whatever you do click on some shitty headline from your friends Facebook feeds….
I will eventually follow this up with an article of my own, I’ve been thinking a lot about newspapers and their websites recently, thanks to Russel Brand ( not a huge fan but I find it hard to disagree with any of his rhetoric), but for now, just read this one paragraph from 5 Easy Ways to Spot a BS Internet News Story at Cracked, this being about the Daily Mail:
But their real specialty, the fuel that keeps their ad revenue fires burning, is outrage. When a British researcher suggested that autism could be exacerbated by two parents of similar obsessive personality types, The Daily Mail wrote it as “Is the Changing Role of Women in Our Society Behind the Rise in Autism in the Past 30 Years?" When a female scientist wrote a book about how in the future, there might be ways to have children without a sex partner, The Daily Mail’s headline was "The Woman Who Wants to Abolish Sex.” Other Daily Mail exclusives include “How the BBC Fell for a Marxist Plot to Destroy Civilization from Within" and "Why No Child Is Safe from the Sinister Cult of Emo.”
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/#ixzz2vV0r0qCc
I can’t get angry anymore, if you read the Daily Mail, online or irl, you fucking deserve every bit of this shit they spew at you.
The answer is NO.
The “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli …” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”
this bullshit fills me with a very specific kind of rage. so, TIME TO DEBUNK!
- that meal from mcdonalds takes virtually no time to acquire AND is available almost anywhere.
- the second meal? that “salad” is lettuce … with nothing else, not even dressing unless its just olive oil or some milk i guess? gross.
- also thats the price of each serving, not an entire loaf of bread, a bottle of olive oil, etc. that stuff adds up which means you have to have a lot of money at one time to buy it all.
- that meal probably took an hour and a half to make, which is a long fucking time when you work multiple jobs or are caring for a lot of people or dont have help! seriously, if you are a single parent of three who works, is spending an hour and a half every night preparing a meal a likely option?
- same with beans and rice! also, you know whats a fucking bummer? eating beans and rice every night because you are poor. ask any person who has done it and they will tell you (you can start with me).
- there is a “nutrition” argument here that lacks a follow up: poor people are more likely to be doing physical labor and need more than 571 calories per meal.
- you know who is less likely to know how to bake or prepare a chicken? people without access to the internet, or libraries, or who werent taught how to by their parents because their parents worked all the time. access to healthy foods is a classist issue and classism is cyclical, you fucking morons.
- seriously, these sorts of infographics make me want to fucking flip tables. do you know why people don’t eat more fresh fruits and vegetables? because fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive, because they take a long time to prepare, because they dont live near a grocery store that has a decent produce section, because they dont have reliable transportation to get groceries to and from the grocery store, because they dont have the energy to plan all of the shit that is involved in making healthy, intentional, filling, balanced meals. basically: poor people get fucked, and then we get BLAMED for being lazy.
- eating “healthy”, aka access to fresh fruits and vegetables, is a privilege, first, foremost, always. so fuck you new york times and your ignorant goddamn infographic.
- there are SYSTEMATIC REASONS that we do not have equal access to fresh fruits and vegetables. they are very REAL problems. besides, you know, systematic poverty in america, the total mis-distribution of farm subsidies is a perfect place to start. read about that, then either get bent or start working on the actual problem.
I’m sorry but I completely disagree. I am on the dole for health reasons and am living like this long term. If I did not have the ability to cook for myself with fresh ingredients I’d be fucked.
Disregarding from the fact that all major fast food corporation are ethical monsters who leech off the poor, I simply cannot afford to eat at any fast food joint. I love many of the smaller chains and individual restaurants or pop ups that are in Brighton but I can only go to them if I have some windfall. Fuck, I do fancy a KFC from time to time but I can’t justify spending that much money.
I realise I am lucky I can cook, but no one taught me. My mother was an award winning chef but she never sat me down to show me any cookery, she was too busy, we ate the leftovers from her restaurants or she would buy me a case of ramen ( back when I was nearly vegan) and let me get on with it, she taught me nothing. I simply realised that by putting foods together you get myriad of tastes. I had confidence in myself.
I cannot stress enough how much people struggling with poverty need to have that confidence in throwing shit together. Get a recipe book like say, the Philidelphia recipe book online and substitute every single item for generic foodstuffs. Make a curry with generic soft cheese (50p), mango chutney (89p lasts for 6 curries) some rice (99p bag lasts 6-8 curries) bag of peppers 1,50 (1 pepper 50p) and half a bag of frozen chicken (1/2 £3.99 -=£1.98) so what that’s £2.80 for 4 people? And that’s when you are splashing out. Other times it’s 29p bag of pasta, tinned toms for 30p and some soft cheese & fried onions, even buy a ready stir through sauce for 89p and it still only comes to 1.00 for four people.
Don’t have time? Take an hour at the weekend, make loads and freeze it.
Why is it a classist issue? I’m not middle class. I’m the epitome of dole scum. I just do what I do to make my money go further. I can’t afford to do a weekly shop, I exist hand to mouth daily and what I can do with .£1.50 is awesome.
Aldi’s and Lidls are supermarkets that exist solely for people like me, they build in the poorest areas and guess what, they sell fresh fruit and veg. I would love to go organic (that is a classist issue, why should the upper classes be the only people who get to make choices about their produce?) but I can still afford to buy free range eggs from Aldis.
This New York Times article is condescendingly written and the examples of alternative foods for us poor they highlighted are pretty shitty, they aren’t helping the problem, just looking down on it from their ivory tower, but then, what you are saying is no fucking different.
If I could eat reasonably healthily when squatting, living on site and now on sickness benefits with myriad mental health problems, why can’t others? I get why people do go down the fast food route but there is no instance in which I could possibly justify spending what would be £15.00 (the $27.00 McDonalds) on one meal. Never. So please don’t tell me it is a viable option for anyone suffering from real poverty, as I am. Don’t force feed me your opinions unless you can show me your food stamps or dole cheque, and if that’s the case, I will write down a load of recipes for you and swap tips.
Just have confidence in yourself, you may not think you can cook but you can, anyone can. Jesus, my partner found himself some old school recipes with honest to god corned beef, coz someone gave us a tin, which he really liked ( I don’t eat red meat, is corned beef red meat?? what is it???), they cost him literally pennies and were enough to feed 4-6 people. Yeah, pasta and rice and pulses do get boring but I would take them any day over a fucking MC Donalds. I don’t care if I have to work through an entire lentil cookbook to find something new every night, I’m never gonna give £15 to fucking McDonalds.
"Poor people are more likely to this, poor people are more likely to that". I’m fucking poor, really fucking poor. Start you sentences with “me” or “people in my socio economic group” and I’ll listen. We should be helping each other not falling back on shitty standards about how we are likely to behave. Come round my house and I’ll cook you a fucking meal, give you the recipe and help you eat cheaper, fuck healthily, cheaper. And as an added bonus, it’ll be healthier too!
Been meaning to post this for days. It’s wonderful. He’s wonderful. How fucking infectious is this guys smile? I may be in love.
Marilyn Monroe photographed by Bert Reisfeld, 1953.
This year is the 20th anniversary of the UK’s Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the legislation that effectively banned raves and sent the whole British scene into the expensive confines of legitimate clubs and venues. To mark the occasion, photographer Tom Hunter is exhibiting his series Le Crowbar—a documentation of his time traveling through Europe in the mid-90s in a convoy of converted coaches, ambulances, and buses, setting up raves and impromptu festivals. See it at the "Life on the Road" exhibition at LCC in London’s Elephant and Castle.
After relocating from Dorset to London at the age of 15 and spending some time as a tree pruner in the Royal Parks of London, Tom Hunter bought a year-long ticket to America. It was on this trip that he began taking photos, but unfortunately, as he told me, “I came back and [none of the pictures] turned out. The lens must have been broken or something.”
Nevertheless, it was then that he decided he wanted to be a photographer—so, in 1991, he enrolled at what was then the London College of Printing. During his time at college, Tom got involved in the squatting scene in Ellingfort Road, Hackney—a thriving community of travelers, converted vans, and derelict buildings that later became the central topic of his 1994 graduation show. (hahaha I bet he did, other peoples lives became his middle class art project, what a wanker * Vic)
As I just said in another blog when I reblogged this:
Big whoop, so did I. I spent 17 odd years living on sites & in squats, do I get a magazine article? ( actually I had a whole chapter of a book dedicated to me soo…). I still find living in a rented gaff hard, I suck at it.
Consciousness is one of the great mysteries of science – perhaps the greatest mystery. We all know we have it, when we think, when we dream, when we savour tastes and aromas, when we hear a great symphony, when we fall in love, and it is surely the most intimate, the most sapient, the most personal part of ourselves. Yet no one can really claim to have understood and explained it completely. There’s no doubt it’s associated with the brain in some way but the nature of that association is far from clear. In particular how do these three pounds of material stuff inside our skulls allow us to have experiences?
Professor David Chalmers of the Australian National University has dubbed this the “hard problem” of consciousness; but many scientists, particularly those (still in the majority) who are philosophically inclined to believe that all phenomena can be reduced to material interactions, deny that any problem exists. To them it seems self-evident that physical processes within the stuff of the brain produce consciousness rather in the way that a generator produces electricity – i.e. consciousness is an “epiphenomenon” of brain activity. And they see it as equally obvious that there cannot be such things as conscious survival of death or out-of-body experiences since both consciousness and experience are confined to the brain and must die when the brain dies.
Yet other scientists with equally impressive credentials are not so sure and are increasingly willing to consider a very different analogy – namely that the relationship of consciousness to the brain may be less like the relationship of the generator to the electricity it produces and more like the relationship of the TV signal to the TV set. In that case when the TV set is destroyed – dead – the signal still continues. Nothing in the present state of knowledge of neuroscience rules this revolutionary possibility out. True, if you damage certain areas of the brain certain areas of consciousness are compromised, but this does not prove that those areas of the brain generate the relevant areas of consciousness. If you were to damage certain areas of your TV set the picture would deteriorate or vanish but the TV signal would remain intact.
We are, in other words, confronted by at least as much mystery as fact around the subject of consciousness and this being the case we should remember that what seems obvious and self-evident to one generation may not seem at all obvious or self-evident to the next. For hundreds of years it was obvious and self-evident to the greatest human minds that the sun moved around the earth – one need only look to the sky, they said, to see the truth of this proposition. Indeed those who maintained the revolutionary view that the earth moved around the sun faced the Inquisition and death by burning at the stake. Yet as it turned out the revolutionaries were right and orthodoxy was terribly, ridiculously wrong.
The same may well prove to be true with the mystery of consciousness. Yes, it does seem obvious and self-evident that the brain produces it (the generator analogy), but this is a deduction from incomplete data and categorically NOT yet an established and irrefutable fact. New discoveries may force materialist science to rescind this theory in favour of something more like the TV analogy in which the brain comes to be understood as a transceiver rather than as a generator of consciousness and in which consciousness is recognized as fundamentally “non-local” in nature – perhaps even as one of the basic driving forces of the universe. At the very least we should withhold judgment on this “hard problem” until more evidence is in and view with suspicion those who hold dogmatic and ideological views about the nature of consciousness.
It’s at this point that the whole seemingly academic issue becomes intensely political and current because modern technological society idealises and is monopolistically focused on only one state of consciousness – the alert, problem-solving state of consciousness that makes us efficient producers and consumers of material goods and services. At the same time our society seeks to police and control a wide range of other “altered” states of consciousness on the basis of the unproven proposition that consciousness is generated by the brain.
I refer here to the so-called “war on drugs” which is really better understood as a war on consciousness and which maintains, supposedly in the interests of society, that we as adults do not have the right or maturity to make sovereign decisions about our own consciousness and about the states of consciousness we wish to explore and embrace. This extraordinary imposition on adult cognitive liberty is justified by the idea that our brain activity, disturbed by drugs, will adversely impact our behaviour towards others. Yet anyone who pauses to think seriously for even a moment must realize that we already have adequate laws that govern adverse behaviour towards others and that the real purpose of the “war on drugs” must therefore be to bear down on consciousness itself.
Confirmation that this is so came from the last British Labour government. It declared that its drug policy would be based on scientific evidence yet in 2009 it sacked Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for stating the simple statistical fact that cannabis is less dangerous (in terms of measured “harms”) than tobacco and alcohol and that ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding. Clearly what was at play here were ideological issues of great importance to the powers that be. And this is an ideology that sticks stubbornly in place regardless of changes in the complexion of the government of the day. The present Conservative-Liberal coalition remains just as adamant in its enforcement of the so-called war on drugs as its Labour predecessor, and continues in the name of this “war” to pour public money – our money – into large, armed, drug-enforcement bureaucracies which are entitled to break down our doors at dead of night, invade our homes, ruin our reputations and put us behind bars.
All of this, we have been persuaded, is in our own interests. Yet if we as adults are not free to make sovereign decisions – right or wrong – about our own consciousness, that most intimate, that most sapient, that most personal part of ourselves, then in what useful sense can we be said to be free at all? And how are we to begin to take real and meaningful responsibility for all the other aspects of our lives when our governments seek to disenfranchise us from this most fundamental of all human rights and responsibilities?
In this connection it is interesting to note that our society has no objection to altering consciousness per se. On the contrary many consciousness-altering drugs, such as Prozac, Seroxat, Ritalin and alcohol, are either massively over-prescribed or freely available today, and make huge fortunes for their manufacturers, but remain entirely legal despite causing obvious harms. Could this be because such legal drugs do not alter consciousness in ways that threaten the monopolistic dominance of the alert problem-solving state of consciousness, while a good number of illegal drugs, such as cannabis, LSD, DMT and psilocybin, do?
There is a revolution in the making here, and what is at stake transcends the case for cognitive liberty as an essential and inalienable adult human right. If it turns out that the brain is not a generator but a transceiver of consciousness then we must consider some little-known scientific research that points to a seemingly outlandish possibility, namely that a particular category of illegal drugs, the hallucinogens such as LSD, DMT and psilocybin, may alter the receiver wavelength of the brain and allow us to gain contact with intelligent non-material entities, “light beings”, “spirits”, “machine elves” (as Terence McKenna called them) – perhaps even the inhabitants of other dimensions. This possibility is regarded as plain fact by shamans in hunter-gatherer societies who for thousands of years have made use of visionary plants and fungi to enter and interact with what they construe as the “spirit world”. Intriguingly it was also specifically envisaged by Dr Rick Strassman, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico, following his ground-breaking research with human volunteers and DMT carried out in the 1990’s – a project that produced findings with shattering implications for our understanding of the nature of reality. For further information on Strassman’s revolutionary work see his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule.
- Graham Hancock, 2013.
If I put a gun to someone’s head, say, a 30-year-old healthy male, pull the trigger, and kill him, assuming an average life expectancy of, say, 84, you can argue that possibly 54 years of life [were] stolen from that person in a direct act of violence.
However, if a person is born into poverty in the midst of an abundant society where it is statistically proven that it would hurt no one to facilitate meeting the basic needs of that person and yet they die at the age of 30 due to heart disease, which has been found to statistically relate to those who endure the stress and effects of low socioeconomic status, is that death, the removal of those 54 years once again, an act of violence?
And the answer is ‘Yes, it is.’
You see, our legal system has conditioned us to think that violence is a direct behavioral act. The truth is that violence is a process, not an act, and it can take many forms.
You cannot separate any outcome from the system by which it is oriented.