Like most reasonable bear replicas, Paper Mache Bear believes that reducing waste, promoting energy efficiency, and looking out for the environment are important things to do. PMB understands that individual contributions to these causes can go a long way, so he is sure to be consumption conscious in his daily 'life.' Knowing that there are live bears (Polar) in places that are rather imminently affected by climate change, PMB considers carbon emissions reduction a serious issue. But PMB knows that when sentient human beings get involved in political issues, all hell breaks loose.
Consider the following:
Much of the rhetoric of political advocacy for reduction of carbon emissions emits populist overtones, perhaps for good reason: the 'small steps can go a long way' approach, aimed at effecting big change through the relatively minute, quotidian behavioral changes of committed individuals, is powerful and potentially solvent. The problems arise, however, when this fervor and rhetoric suffuse over any possibility of substantive progress.
What are you talking about, bear?
It has become popular among climate change activists to promote community pledges to the tune of "We, Community X, pledge to try to reduce carbon emissions at our facilities by ten percent by the year 2010 (everyone's doin' it).'
OK, that sounds like a great idea. How do you plan on doing this?
By encouraging individuals to try to take more trains or eat less meat or turn off the lights or take shorter showers or...and then you can report to the community, individually, what you've done, individually, to help us all reduce carbon emissions.
OK, that sounds reasonable to me. So what is our level of carbon emissions now?
Hmm, I don't know.
So how do we measure our carbon emissions, or, for that matter, our carbon reductions?
Hmm, I don't know. It's very difficult to do this. We have some reports, but they're not very precise. It's very difficult to do this.
So let me get this right: we're going to pledge to reduce our unknown quantity X carbon emissions by ten percent by 2010, but we have no way of measuring our carbon reductions? How do you take 10 percent of I Don't Know, measured in increments of I Don't Know Either? It's been a while since I had algebra...
Well, I don't know either...either?
PMB recognizes that there is a major problem here. A pledge of solidarity is one thing; but making what is essentially a rhetorical pledge couched in the language of a substantive pledge is both disingenuous and incredibly self-righteous. Such a pledge amounts to empty words aimed at making everyone feel lovely, and rather ineffectually conceals the fact that there are zero measures of progress, and zero measures of accountability for the pledging community.
PMB could pledge to cure AIDS by the end of the week, or to end global hunger by the end of the month: just make a commitment, he could say, as individuals, to drop off a few cans of pinto beans at the shelter--you know, do your part--and then stop off at the monkey research lab and prod a few Rhesus for a few hours until we get a vaccine. So long as no one has any idea how and to what extent we're progressing, no one can say we haven't succeeded. Furthermore, without any reasonable means of measuring, or even accounting for what we've done, nobody knows what we've failed to do.
Well, OK, PMB didn't mean to be that snarky. But when a debate over a real, concrete, important issue like climate change becomes blinded by such suffusions of goodwill, it can be ultimately counterproductive. PMB applauds the enthusiasm of activists who fight the good fight while most bear replicas sit perched on their walls with no torso or legs; but he also thinks we would all benefit from injecting a healthy dose of intelligence and a dash of prudence into the pulsing veins of this debate.
What's at stake here, apart from the polar bears, is NOT what individuals might fear they might have to do under such a community pledge, nor what potential life or comfort restrictions might be 'imposed' by such a pledge, no. What's at stake, rather, is what individuals might get away with NOT DOING under the warm, pledgy cover of accidental subterfuge. An empty pledge is an enabler of insouciant inaction.
PMB Issue 3 thus concludes with PMB Maxim 3: global warming might be curtailed drastically by reducing the amount of hot air coming out of the mouths of some emissions reduction activists.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Issue 2: June Scandals
In June of 1972, Paper Mache Bear did not break into the DNC headquarters in Washington to steal information on his rival party.
In June of 2007, Paper Mache Bear was not arrested in a Minnesota airport for soliciting sex from a stranger in a public bathroom.
In June of 2009, Paper Mache Bear did not disappear for a week, telling the press that he was hiking the Appalachian trail while he was actually absconding to Argentina to bed a 43-year-old divorcee while his wife knew nothing of his whereabouts. Paper Mache Bear doesn't even have a wife.
Paper Mache Bear is mounted regally on a wall, without the ability to move himself this way or that; so Paper Mache Bear does not get involved in political scandals.
It has also been pointed out (cite: Linacre College CR Pres. Rob Shearer, 2009) that Paper Mache Bear's lack of genitals (which is not to say lack of fortitude) makes it difficult for him to chase after Argentinian women, at least not with any realistic expectation of coital engagement. One might also add that PMB's lack of genitals is a function of his lack of torso, and not any semblance of testosterone deficiency, his testosterone levels being wholly on par with those typical of a thing made of paper mache.
Whereas most politicians are too brainless to avoid scandal-worthy behavior, which quite obviously undermines democratic governance along with whatever popular confidence that underwrites such governance, Paper Mache Bear is too brainless to enter into scandal, his literal absence of brain being the limiting factor that confers his ironic superiority. A supporter of traditional definitions of (sentient) politicians might condemn this as a straw-man argument; but of course this argument has far more to do with scarecrow. Without going through the trouble of unpacking the finer differences between these two kinds of anthropomorphic farm aid (to say nothing of their relation to the urso-pomorphic), suffice it to say that Paper Mache Bear is without a brain, yet not without an acute intelligence that has been there all along. There is precedent for brainless things delivering superior knowledge, viz:
[Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain...only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?]
And by "some people" Scarecrow means members of U.S. Congress. As Mark Twain suggested, "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the inverse scenario (in relation to Paper Mache Bear): deficiently-brained human politicians offering sincere acknowledgment of their shocking stupidity. There are no nuggets of insight to be had on this stock phenomenon; only talking points. And bromides. But I repeat myself.
Paper Mach Bear is thus shown to overachieve without a brain, exceeding in merit, valor, wit, intelligence, sagacity, and sensibility all of his cerebrally-endowed competitors.
Paper Mache Bear Issue 2 thus concludes with Paper Mache Bear Maxim 2: The presence of a central nervous system does not necessitate the presence of a backbone.
In June of 2007, Paper Mache Bear was not arrested in a Minnesota airport for soliciting sex from a stranger in a public bathroom.
In June of 2009, Paper Mache Bear did not disappear for a week, telling the press that he was hiking the Appalachian trail while he was actually absconding to Argentina to bed a 43-year-old divorcee while his wife knew nothing of his whereabouts. Paper Mache Bear doesn't even have a wife.
Paper Mache Bear is mounted regally on a wall, without the ability to move himself this way or that; so Paper Mache Bear does not get involved in political scandals.
It has also been pointed out (cite: Linacre College CR Pres. Rob Shearer, 2009) that Paper Mache Bear's lack of genitals (which is not to say lack of fortitude) makes it difficult for him to chase after Argentinian women, at least not with any realistic expectation of coital engagement. One might also add that PMB's lack of genitals is a function of his lack of torso, and not any semblance of testosterone deficiency, his testosterone levels being wholly on par with those typical of a thing made of paper mache.
Whereas most politicians are too brainless to avoid scandal-worthy behavior, which quite obviously undermines democratic governance along with whatever popular confidence that underwrites such governance, Paper Mache Bear is too brainless to enter into scandal, his literal absence of brain being the limiting factor that confers his ironic superiority. A supporter of traditional definitions of (sentient) politicians might condemn this as a straw-man argument; but of course this argument has far more to do with scarecrow. Without going through the trouble of unpacking the finer differences between these two kinds of anthropomorphic farm aid (to say nothing of their relation to the urso-pomorphic), suffice it to say that Paper Mache Bear is without a brain, yet not without an acute intelligence that has been there all along. There is precedent for brainless things delivering superior knowledge, viz:
[Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain...only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?]
And by "some people" Scarecrow means members of U.S. Congress. As Mark Twain suggested, "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the inverse scenario (in relation to Paper Mache Bear): deficiently-brained human politicians offering sincere acknowledgment of their shocking stupidity. There are no nuggets of insight to be had on this stock phenomenon; only talking points. And bromides. But I repeat myself.
Paper Mach Bear is thus shown to overachieve without a brain, exceeding in merit, valor, wit, intelligence, sagacity, and sensibility all of his cerebrally-endowed competitors.
Paper Mache Bear Issue 2 thus concludes with Paper Mache Bear Maxim 2: The presence of a central nervous system does not necessitate the presence of a backbone.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Issue 1: The Statue of Liberty
Paper Mache Bear has on record from a RoboCop poster that hangs near him in his Presidential Room that in the year 2015 the Statue of Liberty will detonate, destroying all of America. A crime-fighting cyborg, RoboCop naturally has the expertise and experience in such relevant fields as espionage, electrical engineering, and ballistics; and so when RoboCop claims that the exploding Statue de la Liberté is a Trojan Horse of sorts, planted by the French in the late 19th century as a surreptitious plot to destroy America, we surely ought to listen.
Or should we?
The circumstantial evidence lines up: the statue did indeed come from France, and the French, an irony-loving people if ever there were such a people (indeed there are such a people, the French), would indulge in that proclivity and dub this weapon of mass destruction a symbol "of liberty." Further, 2015 is several years into the future, events of the future being things that we in the present can neither confirm nor deny. Additionally, the statue is located near New York City, a renowned metonym for the American financial-industrial complex, and an infamous target of infamous terrorists. And lastly (but perhaps more worthy of being firstly), the statue of liberty is chalk full of nuclear warheads (cite: RoboCop, 2009).
We may take each of these statements individually as factual, beyond which we may devise a means of connecting these individual facts with tenuous lines in order to form something of an arc of knowledge, or a definitive plot, whose climax is the realization that the Statue of Liberty will blow up in 2015, ending America once and for all, to the resounding appreciation of all the world (especially the French masterminds), and finding its dénouement (yes, dénouement is a French word)in a future event which at present can neither be proven nor falsified.
Indeed, we have seen this kind of production before (and here I am not referencing the false insinuation of nuclear warheads...at least not intentionally). Sarah Palin, recent author of "truly one of the most substantive policy books" (cite: Rush Limbaugh, 2009), has suggested that at some point in the future, after health care reform, the Federal government would murder her mentally disabled child. Seeing as the United States reserves the power to hold capital executions, and many of those executed have barely more ability to speak coherently for themselves in the court of law than a child, and Sarah Palin already has a reputation for "going rogue," and Barack Obama is a Maoist who has been known to exterminate children (cite: RoboCop, 2009), and, once again, none of us knows what will happen in the future, ex-governor Palin's accusations are wholly plausible.
Or is it?
I mean, or are they?
Paper Mache Bear understands that in political climates in which there are no standards for any claim to truth or falsity, the politician who can wrangle the largest population of supporting idiots can win the day. Paper Mache Bear rejects this conjecture as an insult to his potential constituents, and vows therefore to hold himself accountable for truth-claims, and to robustly expose the errant statements of the likes of RoboCop.
Paper Mache Bear Issue 1 thus concludes with Paper Mache Bear Maxim 1: cyborgs are full of transistors...and shit.
Or should we?
The circumstantial evidence lines up: the statue did indeed come from France, and the French, an irony-loving people if ever there were such a people (indeed there are such a people, the French), would indulge in that proclivity and dub this weapon of mass destruction a symbol "of liberty." Further, 2015 is several years into the future, events of the future being things that we in the present can neither confirm nor deny. Additionally, the statue is located near New York City, a renowned metonym for the American financial-industrial complex, and an infamous target of infamous terrorists. And lastly (but perhaps more worthy of being firstly), the statue of liberty is chalk full of nuclear warheads (cite: RoboCop, 2009).
We may take each of these statements individually as factual, beyond which we may devise a means of connecting these individual facts with tenuous lines in order to form something of an arc of knowledge, or a definitive plot, whose climax is the realization that the Statue of Liberty will blow up in 2015, ending America once and for all, to the resounding appreciation of all the world (especially the French masterminds), and finding its dénouement (yes, dénouement is a French word)in a future event which at present can neither be proven nor falsified.
Indeed, we have seen this kind of production before (and here I am not referencing the false insinuation of nuclear warheads...at least not intentionally). Sarah Palin, recent author of "truly one of the most substantive policy books" (cite: Rush Limbaugh, 2009), has suggested that at some point in the future, after health care reform, the Federal government would murder her mentally disabled child. Seeing as the United States reserves the power to hold capital executions, and many of those executed have barely more ability to speak coherently for themselves in the court of law than a child, and Sarah Palin already has a reputation for "going rogue," and Barack Obama is a Maoist who has been known to exterminate children (cite: RoboCop, 2009), and, once again, none of us knows what will happen in the future, ex-governor Palin's accusations are wholly plausible.
Or is it?
I mean, or are they?
Paper Mache Bear understands that in political climates in which there are no standards for any claim to truth or falsity, the politician who can wrangle the largest population of supporting idiots can win the day. Paper Mache Bear rejects this conjecture as an insult to his potential constituents, and vows therefore to hold himself accountable for truth-claims, and to robustly expose the errant statements of the likes of RoboCop.
Paper Mache Bear Issue 1 thus concludes with Paper Mache Bear Maxim 1: cyborgs are full of transistors...and shit.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Raison d'être
Paper Mache Bear has decided to run for political office in the near future. He may become president of the United States, or he may prevail in a local ward election in which most people forgot to vote or his sentient opponent was caught in a bribe or tossing bodies out of the trunk of his Lincoln Continental. Paper Mache Bear has plenty of time to calibrate his aspirations because in politics, urgency is a function not of situational demand, but of monetary supply; and Paper Mache Bear is not in anyone's pockets (yet).
The purpose of this site is to raise awareness of Paper Mache Bear's Campaign To Change The World by getting elected to public office, and concomitantly to help him get elected to public office.
You may have the following questions:
Q: Paper Mache Bear is an inanimate object, and even as such, he has no body.
A: That's a statement, not a question.
Q: Then how could an inanimate object benefit me or my constituency as an elected representative?
A: Inanimate objects possess a greater body of knowledge and a keener intelligence than most elected officials. Furthermore, as Sir Philip Sidney once wrote of the poet, the inanimate object "nothing affirmeth, and therefore never lieth." In other words, unlike sentient politicians, Paper Mache Bear will never lie to you.
Q: Why is his left arm longer than his right arm?
A: Paper Mache Bear leans to the left.
Q: And what about his missing claws on the right paw?
A: This is only proof that Paper Mache Bear will fight, tooth and claw, for your interests and your rights.
Q: Are you serious about this?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how can I get involved?
A: The Paper Mache Bear Campaign To Change The World is currently designing promotional items like t-shirts and posters, which should be ready by the time Paper Mache Bear selects his first political contest. In the mean time, you can follow his speeches and pointed analysis on this site, and feel free to link to this site on your blog, Twitter, or Facebook. But be patient; revolutions don't happen overnight.
The purpose of this site is to raise awareness of Paper Mache Bear's Campaign To Change The World by getting elected to public office, and concomitantly to help him get elected to public office.
You may have the following questions:
Q: Paper Mache Bear is an inanimate object, and even as such, he has no body.
A: That's a statement, not a question.
Q: Then how could an inanimate object benefit me or my constituency as an elected representative?
A: Inanimate objects possess a greater body of knowledge and a keener intelligence than most elected officials. Furthermore, as Sir Philip Sidney once wrote of the poet, the inanimate object "nothing affirmeth, and therefore never lieth." In other words, unlike sentient politicians, Paper Mache Bear will never lie to you.
Q: Why is his left arm longer than his right arm?
A: Paper Mache Bear leans to the left.
Q: And what about his missing claws on the right paw?
A: This is only proof that Paper Mache Bear will fight, tooth and claw, for your interests and your rights.
Q: Are you serious about this?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how can I get involved?
A: The Paper Mache Bear Campaign To Change The World is currently designing promotional items like t-shirts and posters, which should be ready by the time Paper Mache Bear selects his first political contest. In the mean time, you can follow his speeches and pointed analysis on this site, and feel free to link to this site on your blog, Twitter, or Facebook. But be patient; revolutions don't happen overnight.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)