The horrors of MTV Cribs

[devogue]

I had the misfortune to become horribly fascinated with the MTV Most Expensive Cribs Ever show the other night.

I made a number of observations:

1) There was an absolute and utter lack of taste on display in every crib.

2) The people who lived in the cribs were complete cunts who did not deserve to live in such cribbery.

3) I didn't know half of the fuckers. How the fuck did people I don't know at all get so much fucking money?

4) On a number of occasions I felt physically sick. In one crib, an extremely vacuous wife showed off her grotesque $500,000 chandelier and a $20,000 dollar fucking sweet dispenser outside her $1,500,000 home cinema. All the while I could think of nothing but that haunting photograph Charlou once posted of the little child about four years of age who had collapsed in the desert, who didn't have the strength to walk any further with his family to get a few fucking grains of rice to stay alive - an image from a humanitarian crisis so traumatic that the photographer ended up killing himself a few months later (please don't post it again anyone - I'm sure Charlou will PM it to those who want to see it).

I think the one that topped it for me was this fucker:



The lack of talent is unbelievable, yet somehow the bastard owns a $40,000,000 dollar house with $2,000,000 worth of Picasso and Van Gogh sketches, a $500,000 antique bed, a $1.5 million dollar antique piano, a fucking ornament for his dining table worth a million dollars, a couple of million dollars worth of horses and on and on and on and on.

Sometimes I just don't think I can take the sheer inhumanity and unfairness of this fucking world, of a system where so much wealth can be concentrated in so few hands. I have been talking for some time with Mrs Dev about selling our assets above and beyond our house and giving them away - she thinks I'm fucking nuts and I should shut the fuck up - that relatively speaking it's a drop in the ocean, but it's not really - not when you consider how little is needed to remove fear and give another human being a bit of dignity and hope. I want to join this:

http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

I think that the dichotomy I have to face that disturbs me is that I enjoy the good things in life so much. I love wine, good food and all of the trappings of western civilization, but I find it increasingly difficult, almost impossible, to live with the fact that miliions, billions, of my fellow humans live in poverty which is unimaginable to me.

I think it's unbearable that some cunt of a rapper or model has got 20 cars worth $2,000,000 and yet they talk about all of their charity work and whatever. Why does anyone at all listen to fucking Bono? I always remember that stunning scene from Schindler's List when Schindler breaks down crying, saying that a car, a poxy gold ring, may have bought another life or two...how much is Steven bloody Spielberg worth? - well, according to Forbes magazine...$3,000,000,000 - what about giving a fucking gold ring away, Steven, you fucking cunt?

[M]

Apparently David Beckham has to have a new pair of pants every day, I mean NEW-new, not newly washed. I hope he gives his old pants to the poor.

[Bella Fortuna]

Wayne Newton has NEVER been known for taste. He's like a talentless Liberace...

[lofuji]

CAN WE GET THIS THREAD BACK ON THE RAILS PLEASE?
I for one think that extreme poverty juxtaposed with extreme wealth is an obscenity that needs to be addressed. Continued below...

I had the misfortune to become horribly fascinated with the MTV Most Expensive Cribs Ever show the other night.

I made a number of observations:

1) There was an absolute and utter lack of taste on display in every crib.

2) The people who lived in the cribs were complete cunts who did not deserve to live in such cribbery.

3) I didn't know half of the fuckers. How the fuck did people I don't know at all get so much fucking money?

4) On a number of occasions I felt physically sick. In one crib, an extremely vacuous wife showed off her grotesque $500,000 chandelier and a $20,000 dollar fucking sweet dispenser outside her $1,500,000 home cinema. All the while I could think of nothing but that haunting photograph Charlou once posted of the little child about four years of age who had collapsed in the desert, who didn't have the strength to walk any further with his family to get a few fucking grains of rice to stay alive - an image from a humanitarian crisis so traumatic that the photographer ended up killing himself a few months later (please don't post it again anyone - I'm sure Charlou will PM it to those who want to see it).

I think the one that topped it for me was this fucker:

wayne newton

The lack of talent is unbelievable, yet somehow the bastard owns a $40,000,000 dollar house with $2,000,000 worth of Picasso and Van Gogh sketches, a $500,000 antique bed, a $1.5 million dollar antique piano, a fucking ornament for his dining table worth a million dollars, a couple of million dollars worth of horses and on and on and on and on.

Sometimes I just don't think I can take the sheer inhumanity and unfairness of this fucking world, of a system where so much wealth can be concentrated in so few hands. I have been talking for some time with Mrs Dev about selling our assets above and beyond our house and giving them away - she thinks I'm fucking nuts and I should shut the fuck up - that relatively speaking it's a drop in the ocean, but it's not really - not when you consider how little is needed to remove fear and give another human being a bit of dignity and hope. I want to join this:

http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

I think that the dichotomy I have to face that disturbs me is that I enjoy the good things in life so much. I love wine, good food and all of the trappings of western civilization, but I find it increasingly difficult, almost impossible, to live with the fact that miliions, billions, of my fellow humans live in poverty which is unimaginable to me.

I think it's unbearable that some cunt of a rapper or model has got 20 cars worth $2,000,000 and yet they talk about all of their charity work and whatever. Why does anyone at all listen to fucking Bono? I always remember that stunning scene from Schindler's List when Schindler breaks down crying, saying that a car, a poxy gold ring, may have bought another life or two...how much is Steven bloody Spielberg worth? - well, according to Forbes magazine...$3,000,000,000 - what about giving a fucking gold ring away, Steven, you fucking cunt?

I agree with absolutely everything that Devogue has written. I've not seen the most extreme examples of poverty in this world, but I've seen quite a bit. Take the southern Philippines: the natural vegetation is tropical rainforest, but there isn't any left, apart from what grows on cliffs and craggy mountains. All that remains is about three inches of poor soil on which the only thing that will grow is coconuts (and weeds). The place is grossly overpopulated, yet the Roman fucking Catholic church won't countenance birth control. And poverty (certainly here) breeds violence, lawlessness and corruption (a bit like 1920s America, perchance?).

Conspicuous consumption is a large boil on the neck of the planet that needs to be lanced. What the world needs is real communism...

at which point I will stop, because I have no wish to expound my views on communism on page 3 of a seriously derailed thread. I will, however, do so in a new thread on request.

lofuji

[Rum]

I had the willpower not to look at whatever it was Tails posted. That's what you can do when you are grown up see Tails?

To the OP: - Dev, frankly it is too late, especially given Lofu's take on overpopulation etc. If you gave everything away and devoted your life to alleviating poverty you would hardly make a dent in what is a downward spiral which is going to end in catastrophe. I have little if any doubt of that.

Having said that people spending millions on bling and shit - crap which is actually worthless from one perspective, is just terrible as we watch the world sink.

[charlou]

The derail regarding Tails's post has been moved: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 14&start=0 (must be logged in to view)

[Hermit]

Devogue. Yes, you own more assets than you need for a modestly comfortable life style. And, yes, some people's personal wealth looks obscene when compared to the utterly desperate poverty as exemplified by that picture of a starving toddler lying curled up in the dirt with a vulture standing by a few metres away waiting for the moment it can start picking on the carcass-to-be, but the wealth of individuals pales in relation to the wealth of institutions.

A few months ago I came across an article about the pope's condemnation of greed and the need to be compassionate toward those who are less well off. I thought about his gemstone encrusted mitre, the chunky, diamond studded rings on his fingers, the coat so sumptuously brocaded with golden threads, and thought: how hypocritical can you get? Then I reminded myself that his appearance is barely scratching the surface of the issue.

The enormous value of pompous assets owned by the catholic church is an insult to the poor. It also makes the hypocrisy of the christian denomination's churches regarding their admonitions to help the poor pretty fucking obvious. Or so one would like to see. In reality the almost two billion adherents of christianity blithely ignore the contradiction, as do adherents of almost all other religious varieties. I think, rather than laying a guilt trip on yourself and liquidating the comparatively insignificant assets you have acquired in order to help the poor (which mirrors the church tradition of passing the collection plate around during mass) put in whatever effort you can to make believers aware of that institutional hypocrisy. It's a daunting task, but if enough of us pitch in, you never know...



There is one other problem with your intention. You sell assets - say a couple of million pounds worth of business - and give the proceeds to Oxfam. This will undoubtedly be most welcome by those most in need. More wells will be dug. More agricultural and other useful equipment will become available. But will it change the system? No way. The person you sell your assets to has two million pounds (or at least access to the money) and that money is not going to the poor. Should Wayne Newton decide that his ownership of ridiculously expensive candelabras, Picasso sketches and whatnot, are socially undesirable and sells them, they'll just go to someone who has no such qualms.

Changes need to be structural in nature. Individual sacrifice of the sort you are contemplating won't do it.

[charlou]

I agree, Seraph.


Dev, you're gorgeous.


I'm glad to see this thread was taken back on track.

[floppit]

I had the misfortune to become horribly fascinated with the MTV Most Expensive Cribs Ever show the other night.

I made a number of observations:

1) There was an absolute and utter lack of taste on display in every crib.

2) The people who lived in the cribs were complete cunts who did not deserve to live in such cribbery.

3) I didn't know half of the fuckers. How the fuck did people I don't know at all get so much fucking money?

4) On a number of occasions I felt physically sick. In one crib, an extremely vacuous wife showed off her grotesque $500,000 chandelier and a $20,000 dollar fucking sweet dispenser outside her $1,500,000 home cinema. All the while I could think of nothing but that haunting photograph Charlou once posted of the little child about four years of age who had collapsed in the desert, who didn't have the strength to walk any further with his family to get a few fucking grains of rice to stay alive - an image from a humanitarian crisis so traumatic that the photographer ended up killing himself a few months later (please don't post it again anyone - I'm sure Charlou will PM it to those who want to see it).

I think the one that topped it for me was this fucker:



The lack of talent is unbelievable, yet somehow the bastard owns a $40,000,000 dollar house with $2,000,000 worth of Picasso and Van Gogh sketches, a $500,000 antique bed, a $1.5 million dollar antique piano, a fucking ornament for his dining table worth a million dollars, a couple of million dollars worth of horses and on and on and on and on.

Sometimes I just don't think I can take the sheer inhumanity and unfairness of this fucking world, of a system where so much wealth can be concentrated in so few hands. I have been talking for some time with Mrs Dev about selling our assets above and beyond our house and giving them away - she thinks I'm fucking nuts and I should shut the fuck up - that relatively speaking it's a drop in the ocean, but it's not really - not when you consider how little is needed to remove fear and give another human being a bit of dignity and hope. I want to join this:

http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

I think that the dichotomy I have to face that disturbs me is that I enjoy the good things in life so much. I love wine, good food and all of the trappings of western civilization, but I find it increasingly difficult, almost impossible, to live with the fact that miliions, billions, of my fellow humans live in poverty which is unimaginable to me.

I think it's unbearable that some cunt of a rapper or model has got 20 cars worth $2,000,000 and yet they talk about all of their charity work and whatever. Why does anyone at all listen to fucking Bono? I always remember that stunning scene from Schindler's List when Schindler breaks down crying, saying that a car, a poxy gold ring, may have bought another life or two...how much is Steven bloody Spielberg worth? - well, according to Forbes magazine...$3,000,000,000 - what about giving a fucking gold ring away, Steven, you fucking cunt?

FWIW I think you're right Dev, diamonds have the same effect on me, especially as how they are mined is often so violent. I can't blame someone else, an institution, a richer person, nothing, for me that changed when I sat and smoked a cigarette the cost of which was equal to another's dinner, and knowing they didn't have dinner! While we might not be able to solve the world's problems I know I could do better than I do to start the process and while I acknowledge I don't do all that I could deep down I can't actually excuse it. I'd chew off my right arm for an excuse I actually believed, and yes I remember the last bit of Schindler's list too. Just about all I can muster is to not deny it.

[devogue]

[What the world needs is real communism...

I know what you mean by that - communism by consent rather than by imposition. The trouble is, it will only work by conesnt and it only takes a couple of people to bring the whole system crashing down. Unfortunately I feel as pessimistic as Rum - as a retailer and wholesaler in the West I get to see conspicuous consumption at first hand. For instance, I have been invited to a wine night at the home of a very wealthy wine collector this Thursday night. He is a wonderful man, very cultured, very hard-working, very generous within his community (and I am sure beyond), but if his position within humanity as a whole is viewed objectively he is a monster. He has such wealth that the 8 bottles of wine we will be sampling for fun on Thursday night would cost approximately £16,000 at retail prices.

By nature, we don't just want a bed - we want a bed with memory foam, electirc heating - always bigger, always better. We don't just want a house - we want a bigger house, a bigger kitchen, a biiger fridge freezer..want, want, want...

The other problem we have regarding communism is the question of how we share that which is intrinsically rare and coveted. For instance, France produces about 7 billion bottles of wine every year - say, for arguments sake, that is two bottles for every adult in the world. The trouble is the one wine that everyone would love to try, Chateau Petrus, only makes 24,000 bottles every year - who gets some of that? How do we decide? How do we distribute that which we value most as a species without the concept of money and a free market? The free market is not the right answer - I know that for a fact because the stories of idiotic fucks mixing their Petrus with Coca Cola or lemonade are legion.

We thrive as a species, we find such joy, satisfaction and intellectual nourishment in aesthetics. We all benefit from great art, music, architecture etc. How do we remove material reward from the creative process, how do we remove the market which often underpins such beauty without destroying the incentive to create it?

There is one other problem with your intention. You sell assets - say a couple of million pounds worth of business - and give the proceeds to Oxfam. This will undoubtedly be most welcome by those most in need. More wells will be dug. More agricultural and other useful equipment will become available. But will it change the system? No way. The person you sell your assets to has two million pounds (or at least access to the money) and that money is not going to the poor. Should Wayne Newton decide that his ownership of ridiculously expensive candelabras, Picasso sketches and whatnot, are socially undesirable and sells them, they'll just go to someone who has no such qualms.

A very good point. I suppose the most that can be hoped for is that countless individuals change their entire outlook, sell their possessions, and live on the minimum required to the point that conspicuous consumption withers and dies. Eventually all of the world's diamonds, art, wine and other non-essential material goods would be in the hands of a couple of people and would be relatively worthless.

Of course, that is never going to happen. The more I think about it, the more I think it comes down to an individual level - a person must live and die and cope with their position in the scale of humanity as they see fit.

[charlou]

The more I think about it, the more I think it comes down to an individual level - a person must live and die and cope with their position in the scale of humanity as they see fit.

I assume you're not meaning it so, but the phrasing of that could be construed as libertarian, Dev, or at least a philosophical slippery slope ...


I don't think that either Seraph's or Dev's approach necessarily precludes the other. I'd add dealing with fucking corporations, who operate in a different way to the kind of institutions Seraph was talking about, but with just as much greed and disregard for humanity and the environment.

[devogue]

The more I think about it, the more I think it comes down to an individual level - a person must live and die and cope with their position in the scale of humanity as they see fit.

I assume you're not meaning it so, but the phrasing of that could be construed as libertarian, Dev, or at least a philosophical slippery slope ...

I wasn't trying to be overly philosophical - it was rather glib sentence. I suppose it was a sigh of frustration and bleak acceptance of my weakness as an individual, especially when the thing I am railing against, money, also has the power to shut me up.

It's extremely frustrating - money isn't even gained by relative reward for effort, for instance if that well known champion of the world's poor Chris Martin takes a week long holiday in the Bahamas in unimaginable luxury, he will earn more interest in that week from his fortune than what one member of the poorest quarter of the world's population would earn by grafting for 110 years. As for Bono, well while he suns his arse on a beach for a week his fortune will increase by an amount which would take 1,500 years for one of the lowest earning 25% of the world to accumulate.

This is completely fucking unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. Why are these people hoarding their money? Is it for their children? Who is it for? Why is such obscene wealth being hoarded? How much does Bono need to live on? Could all of his basic home, security, travel and salary issues be covered by a lump sum of, say, £10 million? From that he could spread his worthy gospel of anti-poverty around the world for the rest of his life in extreme comfort but he could get rid of the rest of his £390 million fortune and all furture royalties from U2 recordings and tours. Why does he not do that? Why do we not demand he does that before he opens his sanctimonious fucking mouth again?:

“You can still contribute even if you are not as fortunate as I am.

“I've been blessed and I've been over-rewarded for what I do and I'm trying to give my time and my resources but you know, I'm a rich rock star, so shoot me.

Real people are dying horribly while people wake up and scratch their balls, drink a cup of tea, have a shower, yawn, read the papers....while billions sit in their bank account and share portfolios earning more money upon money upon money. Why can't they release it now? Why can't they give it all way now? Relinquish control to their fellow humans, be a star for all the ages. Why this need to hold on to things? It's as simple as a Pink Floyd lyric, isn't it?:

Money get back
I'm all right Jack
Keep your hands off my stack

I don't think that either Seraph's or Dev's approach necessarily precludes the other. I'd add dealing with fucking corporations, who operate in a different way to the kind of institutions Seraph was talking about, but with just as much greed and disregard for humanity and the environment.

The trick would be to wipe acquisitiveness out of the human psyche. As long as it's more important than helping our brothers and sisters we are a disgrace.

[maiforpeace]

The more I think about it, the more I think it comes down to an individual level - a person must live and die and cope with their position in the scale of humanity as they see fit.

I assume you're not meaning it so, but the phrasing of that could be construed as libertarian, Dev, or at least a philosophical slippery slope ...

I wasn't trying to be overly philosophical - it was rather glib sentence. I suppose it was a sigh of frustration and bleak acceptance of my weakness as an individual, especially when the thing I am railing against, money, also has the power to shut me up.

It's extremely frustrating - money isn't even gained by relative reward for effort, for instance if that well known champion of the world's poor Chris Martin takes a week long holiday in the Bahamas in unimaginable luxury, he will earn more interest in that week from his fortune than what one member of the poorest quarter of the world's population would earn by grafting for 110 years. As for Bono, well while he suns his arse on a beach for a week his fortune will increase by an amount which would take 1,500 years for one of the lowest earning 25% of the world to accumulate.

This is completely fucking unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. Why are these people hoarding their money? Is it for their children? Who is it for? Why is such obscene wealth being hoarded? How much does Bono need to live on? Could all of his basic home, security, travel and salary issues be covered by a lump sum of, say, £10 million? From that he could spread his worthy gospel of anti-poverty around the world for the rest of his life in extreme comfort but he could get rid of the rest of his £390 million fortune and all furture royalties from U2 recordings and tours. Why does he not do that? Why do we not demand he does that before he opens his sanctimonious fucking mouth again?:

“You can still contribute even if you are not as fortunate as I am.

“I've been blessed and I've been over-rewarded for what I do and I'm trying to give my time and my resources but you know, I'm a rich rock star, so shoot me.

Real people are dying horribly while people wake up and scratch their balls, drink a cup of tea, have a shower, yawn, read the papers....while billions sit in their bank account and share portfolios earning more money upon money upon money. Why can't they release it now? Why can't they give it all way now? Relinquish control to their fellow humans, be a star for all the ages. Why this need to hold on to things? It's as simple as a Pink Floyd lyric, isn't it?:

Money get back
I'm all right Jack
Keep your hands off my stack

I don't think that either Seraph's or Dev's approach necessarily precludes the other. I'd add dealing with fucking corporations, who operate in a different way to the kind of institutions Seraph was talking about, but with just as much greed and disregard for humanity and the environment.

The trick would be to wipe acquisitiveness out of the human psyche. As long as it's more important than helping our brothers and sisters we are a disgrace.

Sniffle.

I see activism in your future. You really should you know. Your words move me.

Dev, you're gorgeous.

[charlou]

Another angle wrt material wealth imbalance is the perception of poverty that arises out of knowing that others have more, and feeling, or being made to feel, inadequate by comparison ...

On haves and have nots ...

Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton

Accordingly, the possession of a great many material goods becomes necessary not principally because these goods yield pleasure (though they may do this), but because they confer honour. In the ancient world, a debate had raged among philosophers about what was materially necessary for happiness and what unnecessary. Epicurus for one, had argued that simple food and shelter were necessary, but expensive houses & luxurious dishes could safely be bypassed by all rational, philosophically minded people. However, reviewing the argument many centuries later in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wryly pointed out that in modern, materialistic societies there were no doubt countless things which were unnecessary from the point of view of physical survival, but at the same time a great many more things had, practically speaking, come to be counted as 'necessaries', because no one could be thought respectable and so lead a psychologically comfortable life without owning them.

Since Smith's day, economists have been almost unanimous in subscribing to the idea that what defines, and lends bitterness to, the state of poverty is not so much direct physical suffering as the shame that flows from the negative reactions of others to one's state, from the way that poverty flouts what Smith termed 'the established rules of decency'. In The Affluent Society (1958 ), J.K. Galbraith proposed, with a bow to Smith, 'people are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Even they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgement of the larger community that they are indecent.'


The 'have-nots' are looked down upon as materially inferior, and their material status also seems to influence the way they are generally perceived, including intellectually and morally.

[devogue]

Another angle wrt material wealth imbalance is the perception of poverty that arises out of knowing that others have more, and feeling, or being made to feel, inadequate by comparison ...

On haves and have nots ...

Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton

Accordingly, the possession of a great many material goods becomes necessary not principally because these goods yield pleasure (though they may do this), but because they confer honour. In the ancient world, a debate had raged among philosophers about what was materially necessary for happiness and what unnecessary. Epicurus for one, had argued that simple food and shelter were necessary, but expensive houses & luxurious dishes could safely be bypassed by all rational, philosophically minded people. However, reviewing the argument many centuries later in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wryly pointed out that in modern, materialistic societies there were no doubt countless things which were unnecessary from the point of view of physical survival, but at the same time a great many more things had, practically speaking, come to be counted as 'necessaries', because no one could be thought respectable and so lead a psychologically comfortable life without owning them.

Since Smith's day, economists have been almost unanimous in subscribing to the idea that what defines, and lends bitterness to, the state of poverty is not so much direct physical suffering as the shame that flows from the negative reactions of others to one's state, from the way that poverty flouts what Smith termed 'the established rules of decency'. In The Affluent Society (1958 ), J.K. Galbraith proposed, with a bow to Smith, 'people are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Even they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgement of the larger community that they are indecent.'


The 'have-nots' are looked down upon as materially inferior, and their material status also seems to influence the way they are generally perceived, including intellectually and morally.

Very interesting, but my gut feeling is that we should be self-aware enough now to be able to see that a society which demands and strives for perfection in mascara brushes (new breakthroughs from Maybeline (NY, Paris, London) advertised all over Christmas - firmer and longer lashes ladies) while tens of millions of children starve to death is utterly morally bankrupt.

Once upon a time, not too long ago, a fur coat was seen as the ultimate fashion accessory - to not have a fur coat was essentially a sign that you were not keeping up with the Joneses. Now wearing a fur coat will make you a pariah - wouldn't it be wonderful if we could transfer such outrage and dynamic social change to the most important problems facing humanity today?