Bezos Branded Band-aid

Last week, news surfaced that Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos was doling money around to homeless charity organizations, the total amount of which was estimated to some 98 million dollars US. A tidy sum, at face value.

But, as is oft with public displays of charity, the critics came out en masse to debunk the seeming generosity:

“If you made $50,000 per year this is the equivalent of giving away $45”, the twitter account Eat The Rich said in response. Another account snarked “A whopping .09% of his net worth” in an effort to devalue the billionaire’s generosity.

It’s easy to hate on the likes of Bezos. He and his company has been involved in many scandals, tanking the public opinion of the e-trade giant. From hardly relevant love affairs, to massive scandals regarding anti-unionisation efforts and worker condition violations. The latest of which being a concerted effort by Bezos to buy out the Seattle city council.

Yup, Bezos tried to buy the Seattle city council, labouring to turn the city into a cyberpunk dystopia were the tech company reigned supreme. The city has seen a tech boom, not least of which orchestrated by Amazon expansion. Which in turn has turned the housing market in the city into an inflated hellscape. With politicians and public opinion turning toward penalizing taxes and housing projects, Amazon’s CEO and founder sunk a record amount of campaign funding into Seattle’s conservative pockets to weed out the grass-roots initiatives against the billionaire.

The gambit failed. Five out of seven seats were won by progressive candidates. And there Bezos was left, holding a burning bag of dog poo, having betted on a losing horse to gain control of the city.

With that backdrop, it’s easy to see why the richest man in America would sink a not-that-lesser fortune into homelessness charities. It’s all to save face in a city, and a nation, that’s turning its back on him.

So what?! Am I saying that the rich shouldn’t give money away in a bid to help the poor? Sure, if we’re not going to do anything systemic to combat resource inequality and poverty, I guess they should. But maybe not so transparently duplicitous as Bezos just did. And there are plenty other things that the richest people in America can do. For example:

If they really cared about homelessness, they could buy out real estate in otherwise inaccessible real estate markets, and rent or give apartments away to those unable to rent or buy with their own means. Basically creating free living conditions for those that need it the most. According to a US survey from 2018, there are 553,000 homeless people in the country. If Bezos bought each of those people a house worth $150,000, he’d still have over $20 billion to his name. Which sure is a dent from his current $114 billion. But on the other hand, he’d have single-handedly eliminated homelessness in America for a time, and saved half a million people from the street. Not an elegant solution, or perhaps sustainable, but it sure is a powerful move.

Or; Bezos could have started up a pro-bono ambulance service. To my Scandinavian distress and understanding, an ambulance ride in the US can cost the ailing individual up to $5,000 (which is just absolutely insane to me). Imagine an Amazon ambulance service being introduced, that would subsidise or give rides for free. Imagine the impact that could have on the general public health. It would, without a doubt, save thousands of lives. And Amazon would be known as performing a public service that the US government seem unable or unwilling to.

Or; he could do a Sanders and buy off student debt. Just cancel that shit out for thousands, tens of thousands of people. As of 2018, 44.2 million former students owe a total of $1.5 trillion in student debt. A debt that is documented to break the backs of the people that carry it. With that amount owed, not even the mighty Bezos could pay it all off (I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker!). But he sure could help. If he paid off just five percent of that, he’d save 2 million people out from under the thumb of banks and financial institutions. He wouldn’t save the world, but saving 2 million people is pretty strong too.

OR; he could start paying off people’s medical debts. A survey from 2007 states that almost 70 million Americans either can’t seek medical attention because of the steep costs associated with treatment, or are in crippling financial debt due to medical assistance. Another example of the US government’s utter failure to provide its citizens with basic public services. Again, as with student debt, not even Bezos could save everyone. But a few million people is a pretty good get, as far as salvation goes.

I bet there are hundred more ways for a billionaire to help people less lucky or fortunate. These are just four off the top of my head. But Bezos won’t do any of these things. Because he’s not a saviour. He’s not a messiah. He wouldn’t be the richest man in America if he was. He’s a businessman, turning politician. You don’t get rich in America without a being at least 60 percent scoundrel.

And Bezos is a scoundrel. Through and through. No matter how much money he throws to catastrophes of his own making. And maybe, if we keep in mind what he truly is, and we shine a light on all the illicit shit he gets up to, maybe he’ll keep giving away massive morsels of his astronomic wealth. Which will be much better for the public than if he didn’t.

/Sebastian Lindberg 3/12-2019

A Democratic Overhaul

The democratic world is a dastardly place. Dependence corruption blooms in western systems that seem designed to turn into oligarchical facsimiles; shattered mockeries of their ancient intent. But there are silver linings. Observable in the United Cesspools of America no less!

One such silver lining is the RepresentUs movement. Sponsored by political academics, actors, and politicians from as well republican and democratic as by independent camps. Spearheaded in their public relations campaign by the millennial revolutionary Hollywood icon Jennifer Lawrence at that. The movement aims to overturn Americas long history of lobbyism and democratic subversion by avoiding the federal stage all together. To instead focus on states and cities until the federal government hasn’t a choice but to change its ways. To abolish lobbyism. To outlaw gerrymandering. And to put an end to the obfuscation and opaque nature of the supposedly democratic government.

The movement isn’t moving along without its share of criticism. Purportedly, they mix and match different types of corruption allegations to get a rise out of Wall Street moguls and politicians, just to advertise their efforts to the general public. And in their efforts to brand themselves in a way that’s approachable to the lowest common denominator in the American public (which is a real fucking low denominator), they open themselves up to mistakes.

And though the whole point of the movement is to reach across all the political boundaries that have grown ever so divisive in American society, the movement’s board of directors also leave questions as to whether they have ass-end agendas that they’re not as vocal about as anti-corruption legislation. Among their board of directors they have an IP Director from Google, a big tech and big data CEO, a Wall Street mogul, Big Pharma founder, and even Chinese Tencent representation through a Riot Games co-founder. Not to mention plenty of questionable character profiles in their political advisory board (such as W. Bush’s ethics advisor, Tea Party representatives, and investment bankers). And that’s not even scratching the surface on their list of donors.

RepresentUs says a lot of very right things. They say it well. And they promote plenty of political victories in state and city council legislations. Their theory is sound. Their issues with modern democracy are perhaps the most important ones that ails the western democratic model. I have no doubt that plenty of European democracies could use a spot of whatever cool-aid that the RepresentUs movement is sampling.

But… but, but, but. There’s ever always a but involved. For though their mission statement is sound, the disputable and sometimes even complicit pedigree of the people involved leaves doubt in the pessimistic mind.

But western democracy needs this. Not just the American garbage fire, but all the world. We need to straighten out the cracks and creases in our governance. And movements like RepresentUs, that garner support from all facets of society, even the complicit parts, may well be our best hope to get the wagon back on track.

And though I find myself cautiously optimistic about the bipartisan venture, I just sorely hope for one thing: That they don’t fuck it up.

/Sebastian Lindberg 9/7-2019

The Lie of the Environmentally Friendly Oil Refinery

And so, the other shoe finally drops. The Greta Effect was all well and good, but just as Newton teaches us, no force ever exists without a reactionary power to rival it. Which brings us to this moment, when our corporate interests and established economical hegemonies muster to produce counter arguments and publicity in accordance to their single-minded interests to pilfer away capital to the deficit of coming generations.

And the media are either too stupid, too uninformed, or too complicit to stand up to corporate posturing.

The Swedish west coast has been a home to petroleum industries for some sixty years. Plenty of jobs revolve around the refinement of raw oil into everything from plastics to diesel and gasoline. And now, controversy has risen in the face of a planned expansion of Preem‘s oil refinery in the little Swedish coastal hamlet of Lysekil.

The plan is to expand the facilities to permit them to turn their ship fuel products into low-sulphur diesel and gasoline, and thus relieve the world’s oceans of ph-dumping hazards. In the process, however, the Preem facilities will double their carbon footprint from 1,7 million metric tonnes per year, to a whooping 3,4 million tonnes.

The company has invested millions in the project, before it has even begun construction. But environmental groups put a halt to it. Long story short, the project’s dangling in the wind, pending another trial in the environmental courts of the Swedish judicial system.

And thus they come crawling out of the woodwork. The skeavy sleazes, spin-doctors, and obfuscationists, suggesting that the increase in carbon emissions from raw oil refinement would be of lesser detriment to the world than the acidification of the oceans. When in reality, the world has had enough of both infractions.

So, to promote the Preem investments, the regional Swedish newspaper sneaks in a guest column on Midsummer Eve (GöteborgsPosten gästledare, 21/6-2019). Written by a man presenting himself as a business advisor, a past environmental Gothenburg city official and Greenpeace board member. And despite his environmentalist pedigree, the Big Business lobbyist downplays the validity of climate change and the influence of carbon emissions. Making intellectually dishonest arguments such as “carbon dioxide is a life vital gas”. Completely disregarding the concept of carbon balance in the atmosphere, and why digging up new carbon from ancient deposits is patently a bad idea. He goes on to top it all off, after having expunged the benefits of running ships on gasoline and diesel rather than the high-sulphuric alternatives, by casually dismissing climate change as the premier concern by stating, and I quote:

“So maybe the benefits outweigh the harm with this expansion – if you take into account more environmental facts other than just the climate.”

As if it matters if the scarce greenery along the western Swedish coast gets a carbon boost when it’ll all be under water in a few decades if the polar ice keeps melting.

But it surprises absolutely fuck all that this regional newspaper is publishing an anti-environment, pro-business column. They’ve been leaning harder and harder into their capitalist free-market ideology for years. Ever since it became apparent that unbiased newsmongering doesn’t make as much money as propaganda does. But it’s not just them. Even Swedish public service (supposedly our unbiased and a-political public news source) unabashedly and unquestioningly publish arguments to the benefit of the refinery expansion.

It’s true though, that we can’t let our transcontinental shipping keep regurgitating sulphur and other acidifying elements into our oceans. But neither can we allow our carbon emissions to rise either. Enough is enough, and studies show that we’re on the cusp of the breaking point. The environmental systems that govern how our world works are breaking beyond mend. It’s getting to the point of being only a matter of damage control. It’s not a matter of “if we’ve fucked our environment” but “how much we’ve fucked our environment”. And even if Saudi-owned Preem is taking efforts to limit its carbon and sulphur footprint, it will never be a carbon neutral business. Ever. It needs to die, because no manner of compromise will ever make it anything but a detriment to our survival chances.

The environment that we live in doesn’t care about relativistic decreases of human emissions. It doesn’t care about emission taxes or purchased emissions rights. Any carbon or sulphur brought out of imprisonment beneath the earth’s crust is going to have a detrimental effect on our current biosphere. Humanity has traded our future for momentary comfort for too long. And no measure of lobbyism, compromise, or white-washing is going to change that.

We’ve shat the bed. And we need to stop shitting. Altogether. Right. Now.

/Sebastian Lindberg 25/6-2019

Lobbyism Killed the Internet Star

Previously, on WastedWords; we spoke about the alleged meme-killing laws being lobbied through the European Parliament. About how I consider it a practical impossibility to so harshly limit the scope and freedom of information that the internet has brought us under its current wild-west structure.

Now, I’m going to tell the disciples of these devastating articles 11 and 13 just what I think of their efforts to buy out the internet as we know it.

From what information we can gleam from the European Parliament right now, the Copyright Directive is being pushed through by right-wing EU-sceptic groups hoping to sow discord and malcontent, along with the last major news and publishing houses that’re desperate to enforce their financial models of yore onto the digital space. We can read reports of arguments from opposed politicians, experts, and scientists alike being shut out of discussions behind closed doors. The new Copyright Directive, destined to try as it might to steal away the freedom of information that the internet has afforded us, is being bought away from the democratic process. By democratic malcontents. By news agencies. By publishers.

And it sickens me.

Lobbyism sickens me any day of the week. But to hear such irreverent behaviour coming from the supposed guardians of freedom of thought and expression is akin to realizing that saintly Mother Theresa wanted to refuse rape victims their abortions. News agencies and news publishers should be the vanguards against corruption. They should uphold the principles of freedom. What we’ve got here are their representatives, because of course they’re hiding behind lobbyist representatives, attempting to close off freedom of expression on the internet from the mob. We, the people. We’ve even seen proponents, an EU-commissioner no less, of the Copyright Directive incite publishers to twist their journalists into betraying their ideals to promote the new legislation.

This is like trying to shut down the invention of the Gutenberg printer in favour of control of the Town Crier profession.

These dinosaurs feel threatened by the new. And instead of adapting, evolving, changing their failing business structure to accommodate the new climate, they want to strangle it with the iron fist of oppression. All under the guise of remaining competitive in the wake of other admittedly disruptive influences like Facebook and Google. They fear change. They won’t make the sacrifices necessary to administration and structural hierarchy to take advantage of the new, printless platforms. And so, they’d rather destroy the potential of the great IT liberator, a free vector of ideas and thoughts, than to make the effort of change within.

Any media house, any news publisher, any journalist, that value obsolete control of information over the freedom and fair use of the internet, has not a journalistic heart. Because there’s a different word, a different title, than that of ”journalist” when describing a creature that values control rather than liberty. And that’s a fascist.

/Sebastian Lindberg 7/8-2018

The Pox of Parliaments

This past week, everyone’s been talking about guns.

Again.

And it won’t be the last time.

Because while most people (and by “people” I primarily count those of a liberal persuasion due to the fact that the other kind seem to barely even register as human any more) rage against American gun culture and NRA influence in the Senate, I think we’re missing a bigger picture. And while I’d be fascinated with the results of one of these school shootings taking place in a fancy, Ivy-league college where all them Republicans send their beloved young ones, I’d like to take my grievance up a notch. A notch that’s relevant not only to the failing cluster of States that we doggedly refer to as ”United”, but to most every western democracy.

Because the root issue is not that guns are widely available to morons, malcontents and malefactors. Because the end of the line isn’t even that a deciding portion of Senators have been bought by the NRA. The bottom line is that our model of representational democracy leads to every politician being bought.

How can I make such a dastardly claim? Because winning elections costs money. And not even the Orange Hydra financed his campaign on his own dime.

In any world, any scenario, where it costs money to run for public office, there will be interests that deem it a good investment to fund politicians. And in every such world, the politicians will need that money to stay competitive. And so, we create a world where every representative we can find, that we can promote, has been bought before even getting the job.

Lobbyism is one of the greatest disasters ever to fester from our hallowed democracy. A system of influence and finance endemic to the democratic model as we know it. A virulent infection that goes together with our democracy like stink to cheese. The inextricable flaw in the art. The olive in the Dry Martini. The fundamental flaw that illegitimize any democratic endeavour.

Because it is not just the NRA, pushing politicians to tolerate semi-automatic assault rifles in the hands of mentally disturbed teenagers. It is the Hunting Associations that work hard at convincing the constituency that animal apex predators are our enemies and rivals. It is the Meat Industry that try to avoid scrutiny, and maximize profit margins through torture. It is the Energy Lobby that market sustainability while buying coal and oil. It is the Pharmaceutical Giants that dictate drug enforcement policy to keep selling us addictive and over-priced products when a common weed could do the job better.

It is not that we are cursed by the imagine of the macho-idealized gunslinger. It is not that bullets are cheaper than water at the Walmarts and Targets. We will keep having these problems, over and over, with politicians sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the suffering of their voters until a more vicious disease is dealt with. A sickness that is a fundamental part of how our governments work.

Our malady is that of Lobbyism. As long as running for electoral office costs money, we will have that pox. And as long as we suffer from it, we will never have legitimate leaders.

/Sebastian Lindberg 20/2-2018