Modern Ethics Observation

2006-10-30T11:36:00.000-08:00

So you wanted a martyr.....

A DISCLOSURE

An Observation

Modern Ethics

From Personal

(though now unprovable, I am sure)

Experience

SELF ADULATION PARADOX

I figure it should be safe enough to address this at this point. It has been eight years (there-abouts) since I can discern some of the initial infractions... and if eight years hasn't been long enough to "clean up" the paper work, then they probably don't deserve to have what they may have procured to begin with. All I will ever get out of it is having experienced a wealth of information pertaining to modern ethics, in business mostly, but with many peripheral elements contributing to the situation itself as well as an insight into the potentials of the human creature - in various extremes.

Anyone having been involved, unless totally and entirely meat heads, will have managed to have all things concerned transferred, and the other paper work completed and "in line" so to speak.

I can't say as it is something I would have, or am interested in combating as per "pursuing" the more just elements of result, given the modern atmosphere and of course the obvious "standards" employed. But it is something I find great interest in from a "study" point of view. Having experienced what amounts to ethic violations untold in the business sense... while not having any first hand knowledge of it, so to speak... is something to have experienced in life.

I know from the experience just why it is that many standards have been set in society...

I will refrain from using names and/or companies directly in reference. Firstly because it seems to have been a widely accepted means for business transaction.. and just because I do not happen to "be of that clothe" doesn't mean I am of the mind to ruin it. In fact, I cannot see myself as a part of such an area in society after having experienced much of what I have. Besides, there is no way in hell I would win out given those aspects I have been exposed to.. and "legalities" being nothing much more than a dog pile and back biting brawl.

It seems that, in essence, gossip rules the day in regard to many aspects I am going to present here-in. Much of this I suppose, being due to the "justification" of "we would win in court anyway"... which of course, as anyone knows, usually isn't really the case... unless of course such decisions are purchased.

This gossip has ranged from supposed legal infractions on my part... "under investigation" as it were, to having untold amounts of illegitimate children.. as well as "ex-wives."

Sadly, none of what I can discern as being supposed infractions even relates to the simple remittance of a simple estate/will. Beyond the want of those posturing such reasons as excuse, wanting excuse.

Even more to the sad aspects is I am not sure which I think is worse, those perpetrating such tactics or those that corroborate them for what ever interests.

Much of the "street information" has been perpetrated from the direction of hired interests - probably Private Investigaters making some extra money and "perks" on the side. This aspect definitely indicates bigger - more than likely corporate interests on that playing field. More than likely, just as logic would indicate - corporate interests not so keen on a substantial amount of initial stock holdings being liquidated.... this then more than likely rendering a "deal" of sorts between themselves and anyone presenting an interest in the benefits of such holdings. Meaning of course that such holdings would be transferred by what ever means to the parties willing NOT to liquidate them.

Those "parties" have even included my siblings and cousins, it would seem - coincidentally being a party to an additional sort of such "business directions" with the death of my grandmother - though admittedly I have never seen her will.

It was somewhat of a surprise to find most of their inspiration in compliance being in the form of thinking they were "owed" or "due" some part of the portion of the estate having been willed to myself. Suddenly there was even an element of "reason" being that "they" wanted to insure that I would "share" it.

How could anyone even begin tho think that such reasons were valid in any degree? They all got their portion of the estate and blew it on various things... but of course, I suppose I should not single them out in that regard, as "share it" was very much a predominant "reason" from even some of the most preposterous angles and interests. Kind of funny really, if it weren't so damn sad. Especially given that there were actually "official" interests which substantiated such "reasoning" through obviously complying.

Ask any of the people on the Forbes list, if they should be required - forced even - to equally "share" their wealth with even total strangers. Wouldn't that be the laugh?

Another reason given in the closer relations, was that jealousy was a justification. This as well was postured in some of the more outlandish areas of claim as well. Why would someone being jealous of another's sound investments, equate to some reason and justification in claiming a part of the results?

From what I can tell, I would have been able to live on the interest with plenty left over... and as anyone honestly referring to my person would attest, I am not a stingy person.

If the funny pages could have seen it all, there would be no shortage of laughs for at least decades.

One of the more notable tactics in propaganda I believe, came from the direction of the "hired" hands as per - perhaps even government interests, being the suggestion in use of the old movie mystique around the "Mob" - as if the "Mob" had some interest in "whacking" me for some reason. Kind of freaky considering the blitzkrieg tactic of it.

So in essence the illusion supposedly being mine to perceive, was that I had somehow angered the "Mob" (especially the movie version) and was on some "most wanted list" simultaneously. This was combined with psychological tactics I think I recognize from lore and communication in my life time, as being similar to those tactics used in various P.O.W. camps, though without any substantial direction as per "brain washing." Just incessant static, I guess as a part of the interference being posed.

The laugh in the direction of having claimed me to be some "dead beat dad" is in both the efforts (through said hired individuals) to keep me from gainful employment and as well the widely known fact that most of the individuals participating in such slander, are active - if even as a "natural" course of existence, in getting as much welfare as possible through having as many children as can be managed. Such is just a common political aspect in modern society.

Perhaps there is a connection there in the direction of relative needs to be met? But those aspects are so common that it is really of no interest at this point in time to address.

An aspect of this all has very much been the employment of modern communications speed. From what I can tell, this extends to the addition and removal of desired information from desired data bases with a speed that makes it hard to catch, so to speak. Including anything incriminating in official databases when it is that things get a bit "tight" for those perpetrating the "switcher-oo" as it were. This even and especially in effect to the misuse of and transfer of identity at appropriate times.

I have to sigh a bit in regard to this "efficiency" given its apparent and most common use - even in frequency and as some sort of standard within the motion of it. The "Robin Hood" facets presented as excuse in those directions, is as stated - not being very efficient in providing there-in.

It would seem that all a person need do is enter the most conducive information into the correct databases, and swarms of desperation that humans shouldn't exist within, are employed. This mostly from the direction of "welfare mothers" - many of which already participating in various other forms of "procurement." Another sad point being that most of what I can tell indicates that the "procurement" doesn't go to the areas it is claimed to, anyhow.

It seems to be an acceptable way to do things in that area. Sad really, as it represents somewhat of an embarrassment not only to humanity - especially in light of our supposed "progress" - but as well and especially in regard to the "female" element within society.

This then leads to the aspects of the "ex-wives" being fabricated....

Sadly enough it seems more acceptable to most corporate interests to actually compensate such claims through compliance - even to the tune of multiple claims without any actual substantiation - than would have been the prospect of simply complying with an existing and legally binding (isn't that funny) estate/will which was held in trust, and partly within such corporate investments.

For some reason, all a person need do is enter such information and any and all holdings are suddenly someone else's to claim.

Again, this being based on the premise I suppose, of "we will win in court anyhow." But further again, such isn't the case and is only now a common progression due to a familiarity of sorts in such transfers it would seem. Again with no substantial supporting aspects beyond here-say and gossip.

Yet even further again, having no real bearing on the actual issue but proving to be a wonderful smokescreen and tool in the over all ploy - comprising a large portion of the "time wasting" element of it.

Oddly enough, when a person considers the entire movement and tactic, such "time wasting" is really the desired result. Simply an effort to maintain a distance from the individuals actual (and legal claims) and that which is being perpetrated. As well it would seem, to insure a distance of time between the initial infractions and any possible attempts to address the issue in any way.

Again totally a sad element of society given that very real needs within society are utilized fictitiously as nothing more than static, as it were. Bringing the importance of addressing actual needs and problems within such areas to a level of near farce.

Then of course has been the aspect in attempts to insure any "coupling" I may somehow manage in the direction of life partner, be of some particular corporate affiliation and interest. This aspect I recognize from even the initial points I can now recognize as infractions on modern society in these regards. This of course, being in the interests to insure said "estate" will remain at least in a partial control of given influences... and further then, barring pre-nuptial agreements, guarantee those interests of no less than half of said estate through the abuse of modern laws regulating divorce proceedings.

Yet again a sad element of a given area in society... and yet again more reason that I am more than pleased not to be a part of it.

That just isn't what life is about for me. Further, I can't see myself as having utilized my due remittance in the interest of such directions. There is far too much of life to experience to waste it on such concerns. Especially given my personal leanings and tendencies toward relative frugality - simple pleasures so to speak. Such holds more with myself than does the prospective room full of coke heads posing and posturing for one another in celebration of being seen (at least in their own heads) as some form of "celebrity."

I suppose that's another reason I just wouldn't fit into such atmospheres... being that "fun" is a relative word, and I suppose my versions are either seen as too dangerous - given my leanings for the outdoors, and too boring... given my other personal interests.

Yet another rather intriguing aspect of that which I have experienced, is some even likening it to things such as the "whitewater" scandal.

It amazes me that people with seemingly so little insight into things, are in positions of influence in the directions which seem to be the standard and norm.

"Whitewater" was a scandal predominantly over land deals, if I remember right. Politico's and other relations making business deals.

My experience has been in the manner of watching an estate come due, and the scavenging that ensued around it.

I should again point out, as a personal note and opinion that I feel the biggest infraction regarding my situation, was in treating an ACTUAL estate as if it were one of the many areas having been created in the interest of tax shelter and the sort. The kind of things that are seemingly widely recognized as "the game" as it were, in those social areas of ump-teen gazillion heir goings on.

As far as I can tell, those "games" don't have any real effect on economy and the sort...but in having approached an actual (and long term) body of investment as if it were just as "transferable" hearkened in some respects to days long ago before much of what is known (and even developed i.e. floating dollar) about such dynamics was developed and implemented.

It seems to have been an archaic effort almost crippled with the speed of modern communications technology.

Why not just transfer the information in our day and age? Especially as acceptable as such seems to have been.

There has also been a suggested "competition" element around and concerning the legally contracted will/estate. As if I were to subject myself to some mysterious forms of competition having no set rules and further doing so to substantiate my right, as it were, to that which was willed to my person some thirty years ago.

This of course acting to put those with said "interests" in some perceived position of control... being obviously the main concern in regard to the estate itself. This "competition" aspect extending even into the realm of utilizing the aspects in having been kept from gainful employment, as if it were some indicating failure of my own.

Some would say that situations like my own indicate a failure in the system. Some people would say it is just people failing the system. It does lend to the want of agreeing with perceptions of a failed system... but that would be from my personal perspective. Consider that as per that which I would see as failed, has obviously rendered at least a few people now having substantial holdings they didn't have previously. Unfortunately there just seem to be that many people where it is that such is not really of any large concern... which brings me to an intersting paradox given that the dynamics of what has transpired, and the premise in the reasonings of it, would indicate that it is just a big, small town after all is said and done.

I can't miss that which I have never had, and won't chase that which is mine legally by right.

Again, simply transfer the funds is all I would say. I have no interest in chasing carrots of any sort.

Especially those that are out of my own "carrot bag."

2006-10-26T14:11:00.000-07:00

THE VALUE
OF FRIENDSHIP

A Creative Commentary

By
David A. Archer

02/15/1968

10/26/2006

My ol' man was truly one of the last American Greats!

I'm not talking about one of these manufactured, run of the mill moviescreen type you can find anywhere in our day. I am talking about a true blue son of a bitch.

This isn't to say that he was a "son of a bitch" necessarily. Only that he was a genuine. There won't be any more like him.

The pure poetry in this, is that he was in no way a pronounced "bad ass," or overtly obvious in any other way. In fact, those things were very much not of him as I knew him. He was quite reserved and it took allot to get him to "go off" so to speak. I can't remember ever seeing him "lose it" so to speak.

Those "media" driven ideas about "great," just don't apply.

He was born and raised in East Texas. He was baptized in a creek near where he grew up. He served in the military through several conflicts, having lied about his age to "join up" back then.

The laugh in this knowledge, is that there is a contingency in the modern day that instantly categorizes him and his existence with yet more stereotypes. Usually racism and some form of ignorant brutality which those leveling such accusations usually embody themselves.

He raised me in a small town in Northern Nevada. He was smart about it. Up until around my thirtieth birthday, I still had old photographs of my birthday parties and other activities with friends, which stand as irrefutable evidence against those stereo types.

I grew up in an interracial neighborhood. Most of my "mud puddle" friends were of various races. And I had my own job as soon as I could ride a bicycle, delivering news on a few different routes.

A racist he was not. At least no more than any other person, including those that normally utilize such social aspects as a means to procure things.

We didn't ever lock our front door. There wasn't anyone not welcome, until they proved otherwise.

We traveled allot when I was quite young. All around the United States. I traveled some with my Great Aunt as well in those years.

I could sing most of Hank Williams songs before I was 10 years old, and quite a few of Earnest Tubbs, too. My Uncle Leroy was a Southern Baptist Preacher. I sat on the lap of the oldest MacDonald alive, and even played a few hands of poker with her as well at one of our extended family reunions.

But those aspects aren't all my life is comprised of, and I refuse to live the past as if life never changes. I choose to recognize the progress of humanity, at least.

There is still something about simple three part harmonies that calls to me. Odd that I would spend most of my twenties making music with people that couldn't harmonize if they had a synthesizer.

My old man was smart about allot of things. Including some things that I am only recently finding out about. One of which being how he handled what was to be my portion of a willed estate left by my mother at her time of death in 1974.

All of my other sibling were "of age" or close enough that their "share" was remitted almost entirely at the time of her death. Some $25,000 dollars. Mine on the other hand, was to be set aside until I had reached the age of thirty.

As anyone can find out, and as many know.. the seventies were a time of some rather pronounced growths. Especially in the technological realm.

There was a penny stock offered around that time (several of them), for a little known tech company that grew to become a mammoth to say the least. My old man... being true to his own back ground and insight, managed to make some rather smart investments. Several of them from what I can tell.

Like I said, he was smart in ways people won't ever really know about again given the tendencies in modern society. Most people treated him as if his depth of knowledge and insight in life were some derivative comprised of what a person might expect to find on the public restroom walls in the Emerald City, from The Wizard Of Oz.

Amazing how many people tend to make all of their decisions from their own perspectives, as if everyone else were drawing from the same well of knowledge.

Now that I think about it, I have managed to receive similar treatment as to my own capacity. A laugh really, considering that most of the people posturing such stances, are supposedly of a "better clothe." Most spending their time and energy making sure that someone knows them to be in some position of authority instead of simply existing.

He was smart and he knew people. So much so that all I ever knew of the use of that estate was having seen some of the paper work and the credit card he had gotten in my name.... which of course, I never used. In fact, I never really thought about it again through most of my youth. It could be easily said that others in my community knew more about it all than I did.

This was such a consistency, that eventually people began to think of it as if it were theirs.

Which of course I am sure the old man knew would happen.

I have never seen a penny of it, and don't expect to. Especially considering the things I have experienced and weathered beginning about the time the estate was to be remitted. Near my thirtieth birthday.

All of a sudden, it was if I had drawn the curse of the ages upon myself somehow. It was suggested that I had committed one hideous act or another... but never leveled as accusation, and much less never became any issue serious enough for litigation. Even those having claimed to have documented "evidence" so to speak. Only suggested infractions and gossip, usually coupled with some fictitious stipulation which had "yet to be fulfilled"... suggested as well, of course. The "information age" has definitely added to aspects of sad scams.

I have established for myself that there aren't even any legally binding arguments to many of their claims. Even in regard to the slight of hand in attempting to address their "justifications" from various perspectives, including international standards. Either way, they are definitely unfounded as per their claims given the situation itself, but of course, that only matters if there isn't an ass load of something to be procured.... and just as many people wanting of it.

And then of course came the references to some ill disposition concerning other non-issue things such as racial bias, pre-ordained direction and success in life - some predisposed "unfairness" - directly displaying the ignorance and misinformation that most of these "concerned parties" were about... all sorts of sad displays. Some even being to the level of "celebrity" population from what I can tell, through distant relations that aren't really important. Even a stack of marriage licenses from what I could see and some claim from the direction of my father having been in AA toward the end of his life.. which I have come to refer to as the "Autistic Artists" club. Then the most bazaar of reasoning's being that re-incarnation was a factor. As if I should not be qualified to receive the benefit of said estate, because I would be re-incarnated in another life and would get to have such benefits then. And my favorite which I heard quite a bit.. again as suggestion as if to provoke some response, was that the total "was too much for one person to have."

This, of course, unless that "one person" happened to be one of the "other parties" with interest in procuring the estate. And presumably NOT on the big list of re-incarnation.

How funny! The actual recipient named, being myself, of the estate.. was somehow less qualified to receive the total of it, than were the various social levels of scavengers doing anything they could to get a piece of it. Even to their own worst interests in disturbing what would otherwise remain an incredibly consistent thing.

Further I assure you, there is no suggested "tomorrow" for myself in the regard of re-incarnation. As I have made abundantly clear in many ways, there isn't enough of anything in this world that would make being reincarnated a worth while endeavor.

You could not pay me to be re-incarnated. There are just too many useless areas within existence these days. This sad display concerning a simple estate is one of them.

With the ease of information manipulation in the modern day, I am surprised that anyone waited until the estate was due to be remitted. From what I can tell, some of them didn't. As ifthere were a huge line of people already waiting with their excuses... NOT to be addressed in a court of law, which of course meant that they were deserving of some portion in the estate itself.
Then of course came all of the people deserving of part of it. Like they just crawled out of the woodwork. Most of them not even smart enough to realize they would have benefited more in having maintained the legitimate direction of the contracted estate than in becoming a part of the desperate effort to "make themselves important."

It was as if everyone I ever knew, all of a sudden forgot the particulars of what they actually knew of my person. From what I gather, and given my personal disposition and life's philosophies, I very easily could have lived on nothing but the interest(s) accrued... with plenty left over for those so desperately concerned with "their share" of something they had nothing to do with to begin with.

I am now 38 years old. I figure eight years is long enough to have waited for the simplest of estate agreements to be remitted, though I do not expect it to be done. At least in the manner that was put forward in the agreement.

I don't ever expect to see any of it and it has been long enough since it was due, that I figure all of the messy hack work in the information transfers has been cleaned up.... unless of course the people displaying concerns chose to handle it themselves... then who knows how long it will take such meat heads to cover their own asses. "Meat heads" I discern simply from the tactics and lack of foresight in such interests to begin with.

My old man definitely knew people. He knew different types of people.

He knew that pigs would eat until they fell over and died, if they could.

He knew dogs would do similar things if it were that they could feedthemselves.

I learned allot of similar things growing up.

I know that if you want to keep the rodents and weasels out of the hen house, you don't get a dog to do it... you get a big, gnarly battle scarred cat. An "outside cat" at that, not one of those dainty little indoor upholstery wreckers. You get a big, hungry cat that could be a dragon in their own right.. and then you feed it in the same place every time. You get a female or two as well... just to give it something to be territorial about, and even breed a little to inspire the want to hunt.

Cats won't eat everything you put down for them at once. Even if there are several of them. They only eat what they need to... but they will still hunt rodents even when they aren't hungry.
The dog, you get for the kids. Dogs are great for the kids when they are out and about... they are just as afraid of being left somewhere alone, as the kids would be. It's a great pairing.

Yeah, looking at things... I would say that Sammy Joe really knew people. I couldn't have had a better dad.

He was a great friend as well... and we never even had to discuss it. Even through all of the silly crap that goes down in the average situation... he was a great friend. The kind of friend that taught me with myself, and self discovery.

As far as I am concerned, let the pigs and dogs in society gorge themselves until they fall over dead. Even and especially those which are and/or claim to be of some blood relation to myself.
Let the rodents think they are getting away with something as they sneak around and convince themselves that "no one knows what they are up to."

They can think that all that they want. From what I can tell, they won't ever know what hit 'em.

Modern Ethics Observation

2005-11-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

An Observation
On
Modern Ethics
In
Every Day Life

Examining A Dilemma
Of The
Consumer Market
And
It’s Relationship
With Social/Economic Structures

By
David A. Archer
02/15/1968

Upon a recent realization while shopping in the local supermarket coupled with my recent studies pertaining to Philosophy, I have found it in myself to put forward a brief commentary regarding ethics in our modern and every day life. The instance that I will begin with in addressing the modern ethical climate, regards modern business in some degree but is in no way limited to such. It is very much that such is simply an indicator of a larger commonality and normality which is now prominent within society.

While looking through food items on a recent evening, I happened to notice that there isn’t a substantial price difference between canned food items, pre-prepared meals for humans and those canned food items meant to be consumed (presumably) by the pets of humans; Dogs and cats predominantly.

I made an observation that is really quite obvious in many ways though is somewhat overlooked in modern society. These products are not marketed in altogether different ways. Factually, both types of consumables are very much put into the public’s eye in similar manners. Both promote the supposed fact that the product is of the highest quality standard and both use similar visuals on their packaging.

Something that immediately stood out in my mind is the fact that the pet foods are very much marketed as if they “taste good.” One in particular seemed of most interest, stating that it was “Filet Mignon Flavor.”

Now, this poses many ethical and even some moral dilemmas.

How do they know that it tastes like filet mignon? If they have never eaten the dog food that tastes like filet mignon, then they are obviously speculating at best… out right lying as a strong possibility.

Further in the ethical question here, is the fact that they advertise and market in a manner that suggests caring for the animal…. Hence the “flavors” and “special aspects” of different products. If they don’t know what it tastes like, though advertise it as if they do, what does that outright lie say about how much they really care about the health of your pet?

Even more, what this does is set up a precarious situation in regard to the marketing ploys employed. They use tactics to sell their product in a way that is supposed to make the consumer feel as though they should be doing more for their pet. Showing their love for the animal in treating it with the more expensive, supposedly better quality products. This means that their lie is for nothing more really than to “guilt” the consumer into purchasing their product so as to make themselves feel as if they are treating their pet with the best possible care.

In another comparison between those products meant for humans to consume and those meant for dogs and cats, the packaging is very similar. So much so that it inspired me to read the ingredients of a few of the canned dog food items. Not so surprisingly the ingredients listed are not all that different from similar items meant for human consumption. There are no markings on the pet food label that state that the product is not fit for human consumption. Such would be a detractor from the marketing of providing the best possible quality for the pet in some way….
Perhaps suggesting that it isn’t of a superior quality because it isn’t fit or meant for human consumption.

What this sets up is a direct comparison between the foods for humans and those for pets. But it does so in a manner that isn’t openly addressed or even acknowledged. It very much is a “social invisibility” so to say. It exists. People know it. But no one acknowledges it or addresses it. It is just a “given” that people don’t eat a certain brand of canned product with a certain label on it (dog/cat food), and as well a “given” that certain canned products are supposed to be for humans.

If it is that the pet foods are meant to provide the utmost in quality, why then is it that they are not fit for humans to consume? Such is suggested in the human knowledge of the presumed difference between animals and people. The ingredients in the “filet mignon” flavored canned dog food are not so different from those in many similar products marketed toward human consumption.

How is it that people are supposed to discern? Why should there be concern with differentiating? If it is that people are supposed to differentiate, why isn’t it stated on the packaging that certain pet foods are not meant for humans to consume? How is it that such a blurred line is allowed to exist? People are supposed to be smart enough not to eat dog food, but caring enough to provide superior quality for their pet. “Superior” suggesting the best pet food that is of the highest “quality” not meant for humans to eat, but containing (in most instances) more diverse contents, and very similar ingredients as the canned products “meant” for human consumption while being marketed toward the “tastes” of the human. The ethical dilemma that this presents should be pretty obvious at this point.

I should ad that much of the inspiration for this observation to manifest was in a happenstance comparison. I noticed first that the least expensive of those products meant for humans, had an incredibly scant amount of product… meaning that for around 89 cents I could get pasta rings in tomato sauce. For 50 cents I could get “Hearty Meat Chunks with Pasta and Vegetables” meant for a dog to consume in a relatively similar portion that was presented in a manner as to suggest satisfaction to me in the visual representation on the can.

I must admit that the picture on the can of dog food even looked more appeasing than did several of the canned product labels of food meant for humans. Yet another part of the dilemma. The marketing of the pet food is obviously (as I have stated and expectedly, as the pet has no money) directed at the human consumer. Yet another fold in this immediate dilemma.

The canned product meant to be consumed by animals, is actually marketed toward the personality and psyche of humans. Further it is done so in a less than truthful manner as I have stated. There is no way for those that market it to know about the flavor qualities unless they have actually eaten it. If they have done so, then it is that it is actually fit for human consumption in some manner. If it is fit for human consumption, why then would a person opt to purchase a more expensive product, with less components/volume and marketed “quality” that is supposedly meant for humans to consume?

I am in no way suggesting that all canned products are “dog food.” Nor am I suggesting that all of them are fit for human consumption. But shouldn’t they be in examining the suggestion and effect on the general public?

Beyond the fact that the pet food is marketed in a façade manner, is the fact that it is done so to stimulate the human perspective. This then suggests that the product has to satisfy the human appetite in some way as well. It is marketed in a way as to suggest it is good enough for the consumer to eat. This fact is never openly addressed which equates to producing a strange dynamic in that microcosm of society.

I do have to stress again, that even the ingredients listed were not at all that different between the two types of products…. Though anyone with any semblance of common sense knows that the ingredients used in most canned pet foods are not of the “superior quality” that is suggested in the marketing. Factually most of them are predominantly filler and offal. The type of offal that can be used in nothing else. This then means that it isn’t of the “superior” quality that is suggested…. But there again is another problem… people are supposed to be smart enough to know that such is the case and it is not meant for them to consume, but dumb enough not to acknowledge it. This being “trusted” in knowing that the standards set forward by the government will take care of the” public interest.” In that is yet another dilemma…. That of blind trust in a government body “guarding” your safety in some regard. The same government body that allows the type of marketing of pet food toward humans with the suggestion/target of being satisfactory for human consumption, while assuming that everyone knows it isn’t for such a purpose…. Though insisting that the public trust the entity which allows such a dilemma.

In so many words, suggesting that it is mandatory to follow the guidelines set forward by the governing body, while assuming that those doing so think for themselves in regard to differentiating between two different things. It is YOUR responsibility to follow directions and standards put forward while it is YOUR best interest not to.

These larger bodies mandate adherence and acknowledging their standard, while allowing situations where in those standards are clearly not met in their own. It is left up to the person to think for themselves… which is clearly in violation of those imposed standards. To not consume these pet products as a human, to acknowledge a difference, is in many ways to violate the standards that the governing body has set forward. In a way, suggesting that the entity itself is incorrect and not efficient.

While this does present a mildly amusing off set of sorts… it has much more meaning in the sense of society in general. It indicates an area within society that is very much in limbo. This limbo then acting to create and perpetuate a type of ignorance, more a callous in society which has birthed this “invisible ethical dilemma.” It has set up a situation where it is that society is moving toward a larger area of ignorance in regard to conditioning through such marketing and progressing lack in acknowledging the differences in the examples I have put forward.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it were that it could progress in a manner that is actually healthy for society. I can see where it is that the general public shouldn’t have to be so wary of such “pit falls.” In the optimum setting of a prosperous society, the public would not have to worry about such quality levels. If it were that these standards were progressing as is that “graying area” as well, in a way that mandated the improvement of these two types of products… actually set a standard as to regulate the consistency and quality at a level that was knowingly fit for human consumption…. Then it would be that no one would have to acknowledge a difference.

Unfortunately what this poses is an increase of costs immediately. But in that is again the social dilemma of admitting that the marketing tactics for these pet foods has been less than honest.

This is a matter of perspective which, as I have addressed, isn’t acknowledged in society.

All that the general consumer normally see is the “mark of quality” aspect of the advertising/marketing. No where is it stated that the level of “superior quality” for an animal is seen as different in their eyes than that of the “superior quality” when speaking about human consumption.

In a business sense, this puts into motion another dilemma. That of monetary concerns other than those I have already discussed. If such “standards” progressed in the direction of maintaining the version of “superior quality” suggested for humans, then the cost of producing canned pet foods goes up. If the “standards” progressed in the direction of maintaining the version of “superior quality” suggested for canned pet foods, then the health of society as well as the actual “quality standard” for human consumption, goes down….. though profits would increase. Such is the business directions of the “invisible line dilemma.”

Further then is the question from the consumers point of view pertaining to purchasing the best quality for their loved pet. Is it good enough? In some instances even, “would I eat it?”

If the consumer purchasing the product would eat it, why then is there a difference in production levels within manufacturing? Quality of product and care? Since the pet foods are allowed to market in the same manner as are the foods meant for human consumption, directly to the same areas of the human intellect and decision making faculties, without maintaining the same health and quality standards within the products they are selling… this then acts to cause another problem within the dilemma itself.

Is it false advertising? Is it immoral as well as being a catch 22 in the ethical sense? What then is justifiably “quality?” What then would such mean for other standards and areas within society? How then to address it?

The larger aspect of this “invisible line” dilemma, is as I have touched on in regard to governing and standards… and not just within the canned product areas of business, but as well within society on the whole.

In many respects this situation leads to larger questions across society. And many larger ethical questions within the area of pre-produced food products themselves.

If it is that the direction this motion tends to lean continues to be that of the monetary route, then it is that something must be done to accommodate the peripherals of that direction. Some obvious and some not so obvious.

The most obvious is definitely an ethical dilemma. Though while it is not “invisible” in the regard as is that which I have been addressing, it is just as much ignored and even suppressed within the general populous…. Mostly, I would think, in the effort to hush any panic that may be generated through considering the problem(s) around it. That is the dilemma of the use of human flesh in such products.

As it is, such is simply a rumor used in a very un-ethical and un-sportsman like manner usually between corporations about other corporations products. This in the ever more ruthless area of corporate espionage and the effort to maximize profit.

In that are seen readily (though in a peripheral manner)the very real problems that are facing humanity on a larger scale, the least of which not being the moral and ethical standards which are ever in flux. This ranking for such standards being due to the fact that they must first be stable to some degree before the larger problems can be safely addressed without risk of a similar “invisible dilemma” developing out of earnest efforts to address societal concerns.

I feel more than qualified to speak on this subject matter because it is that I have witnessed and experienced these type of tactics in my professional career. Most of my adult life I have spent in professional kitchens. Fortunately enough I have experience in kitchens where it was that a larger percentage of canned (pre-prepared product) was in use, and as well in kitchens where the only canned items were in the form of oils and specialty items such as anchovies.

I have even further personal experience to draw on in this respect as well, being that I spent considerable years raising my own live stock and growing my own vegetables. I know what “quality” is in many more ways than does the average person in our modern American society. I have produced it from it’s very beginnings. I have a very solid area of reference from which to make my decisions. Much of which is from my very own hand.

Comically enough in a darker hue, I have heard those rumor tactics fired at and from both sides of that “fence.” Those rumors being to extremes sometimes of places serving meats that weren’t of the “live stock” type, if you know what I am referring to. “Cat, dog,” even “human” having been suggested at times as the source of flesh for what ever slanderous reasons.

I cannot speak for all producers or areas of product origin, but I do know that nothing I personally have ever served has been of such “procurement.”

What I can say and note, is that the use of such slanderous tactics and rumor may seem to produce an effect that secures and even produces profit, but in the longer term it does nothing but make things more difficult for society itself.

In the first instance, it actually makes it more a possibility that such “ingredients” would make their way into the food chain. Further even than is the normal level in some cultures such as “dog” for instance. It does so in a manner as to produce an area of confusion. An area of “bad information” in the way of instability. This is very much the intended result, though not in the manner directly as it does effect on the larger scale. This “propaganda” tactic has it’s own form of “collateral damage” that is not conducive to the standards of society… nor the path where it is we must travail to continue to maintain those standards.

In that direction, it is very disconcerting as it very nearly mandates the use of those “sources” in ways that only those looking for a smaller overhead would welcome.

These are problems which must be addressed, and addressed in an open and candid manner else all of society fall to the very worst form of their manifestation.

In the second instance of this problem is as I have stated within the “want” for lower overhead, and through the momentum of achieving such lower overhead. This still being a derivative of the collateral damage aspect, though more welcomed in the aspect of being a built in excuse. Presenting the “what do we do about it” situation.

Neither of these examples being optimum for either profit or health within society, and being generated from an immediate want for profitability while displaying a definite lack of foresight and planning. There is no longevity considered within this direction or tactic as it depends entirely on the maintained effect of illusion and slander for the purpose of providing immediate “results.”

From my perspective, the best way to address the real concerns is not through such “playground” tactics, but more from a very serious angle of addressing them for what they are. Addressing the reasoning’s. Addressing the potential outcomes of very regulated speculation and even implementation.

The concerns that I can see from the “large” business angle are briefly as follows;

• Profit;
1. Lower overhead/production cost
2. Movement of Product/Consumption

• A standard of “quality”
• Marketability- image

From the societal perspective;
• Health;
1. Sanitation
2. Nutrition
3. Safety
• “Quality”
• Affordability

From the consumer perspective;
• Health;
1. Sanitation
2. Nutrition
3. Safety
• “Quality”
• Personal/Political Association/Standards
• Affordability

When considering these aspects as well as other areas of society on the whole… it begins to paint a picture that is a bit disconcerting. That being the ever growing possibility of these “ingredients” becoming a part of the every day diet, with the ever falling area of standards through that erosion which is the “confusion” aspect.

In the direction which these tactics are pushing society in regard to this subject, it is very much that both “sides” of these concerns will end up using such “filler” product across the board.

Such isn’t the optimum result, nor is it the most healthy…. Especially considering that neither “side” must use such lower standards for production.

It is the very use of such tactic in the “fear” area that is producing the opportunity for it to become reality, everywhere… but in a covert manner. From what I can tell, the optimum would be to directly introduce the concept in a manner that would utilize and contain the result in a very limited area of existence.

Such is (as has long been speculated) a very possible option to deal with the results from our current over population. I simply propose that it be utilized in a very open manner, and only so far as in very certain products meant only for animal consumption. There are already areas of society (in the U.S. and elsewhere) that are geared socially for the advent of such “progress.” It, again is the production of confusion within society that produces the risks which are feared over all.

Those areas of society which have been developed (geared) toward a more conducive relationship with such an option, are akin to the already present and quite normal act of donating a persons mortal remains to science, for instance.

It is not difficult to see how short of a step it is from such an act, to furthering it in regard to usage of those “mortal remains” in very specific product meant for very specific use, such as pet foods.

The only moral or ethical issues with this reside entirely within religious beliefs, if it is approached, implemented and regulated from a very candid, a very honest and serious angle. Those religious “issues” no longer are an issue when it is implemented from the personal choice and perspective. No one would be required to arrange for or take such steps regarding their mortal remains. It is entirely a personal choice…. And again, a choice that isn’t that far from what is already a very normal request for many people regarding their mortal remains. It is only the “secretive” and slanderous tactics that continue to make such moral and ethical violations as implementing such on society in total a very real possibility. If only through the erosion of standards through the conditioning of over stimulated imagination in that area… thus translating into decisions made/avoided in a larger political body format.

Is it really so far fetched for a person that would have normally donated their organs to someone else and/or donated their mortal remains to science, to simply request that those remains and unused parts then be utilized in such very specific and regulated products?

Is there an underlying danger to such a direction in addressing both the growing over population of humans and ever growing lack of food products fit for human consumption? Only if it becomes a moral and ethical violation as in use of such “ingredient” for human consumption. Especially without the choice of those consumers as being so.

Is there a scientific danger? A problem of introducing what inadvertently is product altered from it’s natural state through what it has consumed over it’s own life time (which is most humans regardless of religious beliefs), into the nutrition structure of living creatures? Obviously this hasn’t been a concern with the un-checked use of such scare tactics.

If it were that a specific line of product were planned, developed and regulated, which was meant only for the consumption of animals(domestic pets)… in a very open and honest manner… not only does the risk of such violation discontinue abruptly, but it begins to address other problems which loom on the horizon of humanity and many that already plague us. One of which being the incessant greed which continuously fuels the want for cheaper, lower costs in production.

Simply place those “scoundrels” without ethical boundaries, which would be more apt to utilize such cost saving covertly due to a want for no cost in production, in the area of this new product body. They would then get to be entirely happy having no production cost to produce a product. Albeit a product that is only meant for a very limited market which would be domestic animals.

I could even see where this could spur the pet industry in regard to more people having consuming pets through utilizing the efforts of the “misers” in other areas than have traditionally been the norm.

As things have historically developed time and again, as creatures and societies… our greatest fears will meet us “half way.” Perhaps even closer if it is that those fears are continued to be promoted and used in the manner that they have been, as well as being ignored in the very conscious sense that they are.

It is very much that “invisible line” which poses the greatest danger within this altogether too real aspect of existence on the global scale. “Head in the sand” simply will not suffice in regard to this subject matter.

To address it openly, and regulate such possibilities is really the only direction which is conducive to healthy existence. If any future at all The implementation and use of such a regulated and known area of production would also allow for the removal of that “invisible line” which acts to create an unspoken dilemma, which in turn acts as a party to perpetuating other ethical dilemmas within society. No longer would it be necessary to speculate on the quality of a pet food product in the marketing aspects of it. It would be of a quality that is fit for human consumption as well (though not intended), in regard to production quality and standards. It would be possible to advertise using human representation pertaining to the flavor and quality of designated pet foods through “honest” testimonials. No more “but how do they know?” No more of that unspoken, unrecognized confusion.

This through establishing and maintaining a quality standard which would allow for such possible consumption without adverse health effects or concerns to the human existence.

Please see the accompanying graph/illustration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ethics Illustration