Hummer cannot have a heart

Hummer has spent years defending its rugged and superfluous image, but apparently now even the Tough Guy may have to admit defeat to green consumer preferences that are proving to be more than a trend. Hummer's PR and marketing departments are now succombing to pitching smaller, more fuel-efficient (16 mpg instead of 12?) models to those in lower tax brackets. Plus, following suit with the Governator, folks can always get themselves a greened-out model.

Don't be mislead, though: Hummer probably won't abandon its image of "crude, dispassionate elitism". There will undoubtedly be a resilient market of those who seek status through indifference and excess. GM manager Martin Walsh admitted: "We’re a niche brand; we appeal to a limited number of consumers who are probably less susceptible to gas prices than others." So, Hummer's pretty tight with people who are too rich to care about the world beyond their McMansion.

Plus, if all else fails, Hummer's scoping out the possibility of high-tailing it out of the States to market their unyielding gas-guzzler in parts of the world where "the green movement has yet to take off and the brand’s tough guy image continues to resonate." Watch out, Russia and northern Africa. Hummer's got one hell of an export for you; leather seats are extra but suppressed guilt comes standard.

Bottom line? Hummer still doesn't have to play by the rules. They simply have to get more creative in finding customers who continue to harbor priorities that make the rules irrelevant; who have the money to fuel disregard. Until then, they'll crank out some smaller models and call it even.

Sources:

The Financial Times: "The big, bad Hummer scales down"

a novel sound.

I love all kinds of music. I take this to the extreme.
I love new kinds of music - I thrive off of ingenious novelty when it comes to the arts that I choose to engage, and music is no exception.
I need music that offers something a little different. Genre collaboration - like the invasion of classical in hip hop or acoustic with electronica - is what lures me.

I've been obsessing with this particular group long enough that it has moved from "favorite music du jour" into the realm of legitimate fondness. Out of Oregon and composed of two talented musicians, they define their sound as electroacoustic, experimental and, most intriguingly, "folktronic hop". It is both rhythmic and stimulating, synthesized and organic... here is instrumental music that, through courageously innovative composition, expresses raw emotion and tears at the listener's psyche.

They're called talkdemonic. Listen to them.

facebook doesn't lie

I just heard about a Florida law professor who, on the first day of class, asked each student to read aloud his or her facebook profile. This is a brilliant exercise in gaining the full comprehension of what information you have made public, and to whom. (One unfortunate girl was forced to announce to her entire law-school class (and professor) that her primary interest was "being slutty".)

Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to express yourself exactly as you wish on facebook. Sure, go for it. But be prepared for the repercussions. As long as students can justify "being slutty", "getting shit-faced" or "eating yellow snow" to a reputable professor or future employer, they're doing just fine. The rest of us, though, are left to deliberate between including or eliminating "ice cream sandwiches!" from our profile interests.

(If or when I become a college professor in the near future, I am totally stealing this guy's idea. What better way to weed out the incompetent ones?)

architecture on a pedestal

I have loved architecture probably as long as I could pronouce the word. The field strikes me not because I've fallen in love with particular buildings or styles, but because I am fascinated with the sociological and philosophical foundations - the conceptual theories of creating spaces in which we reside and are reflected. My first dream job was an architect, but after several years I relinquished that vision because, just as I had never fallen for the stylized, superficial buildings around me, I had no desire to spend a life recreating them.

So, onward to the point; this is yet another critique. It's sparked by my outing yesterday afternoon, when I was downtown and spontaneously stopped by a real estate office to check out the properties available. (I'm not interested in buying. I was just curious about the market.) Anyway, here I am in the lobby of this real estate office, purusing the loft property fliers; everything is going all fine and well... until I started looking more closely at the photos on some of the ads.

Here are these beautiful contemporary lofts with raw architectural details - the type of details that residents pay an extra several hundred thousand dollars to showcase - and as I scrutinize the photos, I'm beginning to notice not the spaces, but the decor. I'm beginning to note sheer sabotage of architecture, commited by slipshod interior design elements. I see rooms with vaulted, exposed piping ceilings completely humiliated by an invasive presence of a Chippendale mirror hung unintelligibly in the middle of the wall.
Or another property that boasts a sprawling, minimalist bedroom floorplan; an architectural dynamic utterly desecrated by an uncouth, four-poster Colonial-style bed (complete with throw pillows.)

I'm left standing in the lobby of this real estate office utterly aghast at the wounds inflicted by the hasty and insensitive owners who choose to reside in spaces that so clearly do not suit their style. I mean, I can certainly appreciate Eclectic decor - mismatched collections of art and furniture - but only if it's done with some level of finesse, with an underlying conceptual style! If, on the other hand, the integrity of the architecture is compromised because you have to show off Great Aunt Dorothy's ancient armoir, then it isn't style by any means of the word. The furniture must reflect the dynamic of the space - never should the space be forced to negotiate its measured ambiance in order to accomodate fickle tastes.

I mean, shouldn't there be some sort of screening process to protect the perfectly-understated spaces that we're trusted to inhabit? An architecture firm slaves over a blueprint, to create a room that seems to say, "hello, I am a minimalist space; I am superior in the most modest way. Dress my details to make them more vibrant"... And then some happy young couple moves in with their floral-patterned couch, and it's all shot to hell.

Shouldn't there be a bylaw insuring the preservation of architectural integrity?! Just as you would never shove an art-nouveau dining table into a country-style kitchen, you cannot possibly justify trying to disguise minimalist architecture with the cheap thrills of Victorian, Georgian, or Baroque furniture. For the sake of every semi-conscious guest who enters your home, please leave the oriental rug, quilt wall-hanging and oak crown moulding in the suburbs where they belong. If you must succomb to haphazard decor, that certainly is your perogative... All I ask is that you put it in a space that does not already have deliberate style. Move into a space with no voice, and drape it in a collage of your own; where neighbors will embrace architectural incompetence and call it: "homey".

I just wish architecture did not have to suffer the fate of dispassionate residents with unseemly decor collections. Purely for the sake of the minimalist lofts' integrity, I hope that these happy young couples soon have their first child, so that they can invest in the neutral canvas of a cookie-cutter home, where their Pottery Barn clutter and sentimentally-significant "heirlooms" can roam free. And they will leave the exposed piping to those who love it for what it is.

Summit reflection

I attended the Sustainable Opportunities Summit today. There was a huge range of panel discussions, but they generally centered around the core focus of how companies can financially benefit from addressing issues in climate change. Between the keynote speakers, vibrant dialogue and "career fair-esque" ballroom of business exhibitors, it was the best Friday I've had in a while.

Highlights?
-- Governor Bill Ritter's welcome speech, which painted a very thorough and conscientious discussion of current initiatives in Colorado. Not only did he include a wide variety of promising aspirations on the horizon, but he also answered audience inquiries with poise, sensibility, and optimism.
-- The panel discussion of "The Future of the Car", which provided a broad comparison of the potential technologies (including hybrids, hydrogen, and plug-ins) while weighing the negative externalities of each. Specifically enlightening was the information on the (rather repulsive) process of excavating and refining tar/sand conglomerate.
-- Dr. Julie Fox Gorte's luncheon lecture concerning the finance and economics of sustainable development. This included a very exciting analysis of GDP, wealth, consumption and well-being. I was on the edge of my seat the entire 15 minutes that she spoke, and dashed up to meet her immediately afterwards. (Don't worry - I only mentally dashed. It was physcially more of a casual stroll.) I now hold a business card and a promise for a dialogue extension.
-- Her lecture could only be outdone by the panel discussion on "Greening the Built Environment", which was composed of professionals representing architecture, real estate development, and real estate investment. One of these men was David Linn, who spoke right to my heart with words on internal rate of return, net present value and portfolio diversification specifically related to green real estate.

I also ran into one of the directors of the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, whom I've been dying to meet for a few weeks now. We were friends straight off.

I feel like a child who has just come home from Disneyland. You want to talk about it for the next three days, but eventually exhuastion wins. After all that small talk and hand shaking, I need a nap.

we remain Jungle beasts at heart

I have been hesitating to write a response to this particular situation, but can only procrastinate so long in vocalizing some sort of reaction. I have exerted some effort in preventing an animal rights diatribe; to instead expose what I hope is a lean, objective article. With only this brief forewarning for you, cherished reader, I proceed with the retort that took me a week to articulate.


As many of you know, a rather incriminating video was recently publicized that involved slaughterhouse employees’ treatment of what the FSIS calls “non-ambulatory” cattle – cows that, due to severely detrimental health, are unable to walk from the hauling trucks into the slaughterhouse. Not only does this video depict the obviousness of the cows’ physical limitations, but it also captures the employees’ nonchalance in their crude efforts to move the “downer cows”.

Due to public outcry, the release of this video sparked a beef recall of over 143 million pounds – the largest in history. This is a class II recall, meaning the situation posed “remote probability of adverse health consequences”, which leaves me to conclude that trashing the meat was predominately for public relations reasons – to soothe the spontaneous public objection.

My critique is at this juncture in the post; from what I can see, the public’s concern du jour did not justify the sheer waste produced from the recall. Simply put, the recall was absolutely unnecessary and quite probably a cop-out maneuver. My reason behind this assertion is twofold:

First: Many people are reluctant to believe that the images from the video are a common reality of the meat industry. The public wants to sleep better with its convictions that it was a rare event; that “they wouldn’t let that happen.” My question is who exactly “they” are and, if this is indeed a rare occurrence, how “they” could have allowed for it to happen for two years straight – the time spent by undercover activists capturing film evidence. I have seen this video and dozens of others like it; if “they” are indeed “not letting this happen”, how does one explain that, in fact, it has been?
(Regardless of "their" regulations, it is, in actuality, commonplace.)

Second point: The recall was more wasteful than it was effective in hindering consumption. Much of the beef had already been distributed to vendors (including school lunch programs) months before it was declared “unfit” for human consumption. Not only was this exaggerated action taken too late, but the reality is that many people had relinquished their fleeting protests within a few days: their concern was suppressed by a rejuvenated awareness of their fondness for beef. Perhaps appeased that, again, “they” had taken care of things, most everyone was happy to return to the dinner table and resume their blissful lives.

In short, my response is muddied by disillusionment. It is not the video itself that receives my critique, because it was in no way new for me. It is instead the way it was received by the public – through ephemeral concern and subsequent appeasement. There will be no lasting remedy for the real tragedy of this situation, which is the public’s enduring, blind tolerance.

We have condemned these animals to either "be interesting, or be invisible"; unfortunately, an outcry is awarded only in favor of those creatures who, for a mere moment, emerge from invisibility to tear at our capricious interests.
We soothe our own fickle compassion with a massive recall; an obscene waste that only serves to further oil the capitalist gears in two day's time. The animals receive only fleeting recognition before fading away again into the background of what is still The Jungle.

See the video here.

Sources:
FSIS recall
CNN recall
The New York Times
USA Today

Food Safety Insufficient Service (FSIS)

A partial thought tangent...

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) came up today in my public policy class. As with many things I encounter, I have a bone to pick; this time concerning the merit of this department.

FSIS regulates the treatment of "chicken", the food. It does not concern the treatment of "chickens", the animal. For me as a consumer, the difference between these two types of protection are marginal. Although "poultry" is inspected, living chickens (and turkeys and ducks) generally aren't. Though living animals may not waiver in the same fragile state of sanitation that meat endures, my argument is that their health while alive is nonetheless pivotal to the health of those who consume them as meat.

This FSIS inspection short-coming is significant when it comes to my own dollar which, as a result, is not spent on chicken. I must ask whether or not consumer safety is not equally at stake in the treatment and health of living animals as well. Think of the moral issues brought up with the recent approval of cloned-animal meats. Though this arguably has little effect on the sanitation, packaging, preparation of meat (as addressed by FSIS),isn't the matter of public health, for some, substantial nonetheless? Shouldn't consumers be protected through the health of animals, before they are regarded only as "meat" and intended for consumption?