Status symbols are important. They’re a shortcut to letting everyone know how important we are.
When someone is rolling in their $200K 8mpg Italian supercar or hanging in their 15,000-square-foot crypto-Tuscan crib, they’re making a statement that they have money to burn.
So what’s going to happen when waste is out and green is the new cool?
Is there going to be a mass movement to smaller, more efficient cars and homes? This might be a struggle, because it would mean a fundamental shift in how we spend our money and are perceived by others.
I’ve been trying to figure how this will play out. Perhaps our new status symbols can be compact, efficient, and green… as long as they are very expensive. (Blue jeans are hip, as long as they cost $300.)
What do you think? Will people willingly downsize their lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint, if it means appearing less important and elite? Will there be new indicators of social status, other than a big house and an expensive car? Could it be the start of a movement towards qualitative values like creativity, and away from today’s worship of wealth?
Tags: creativity, downsizing, efficient autos, green living, small homes, status symbols
August 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think it depends on where you live. Unfortunately, in the DC area, I can’t imagine status being represented by anything but money, big homes, fancy cars, and multiple degrees.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Elizabeth,
Good point. Maybe it will be more of a matter of place.
I’ve been spending more time in L.A. lately, and the parade of ultra-high-end autos is amazing. BMWs and Porsches are merely entry-level; I’ve been told that it’s not uncommon for maids and gardeners to drive them.
The thought occurred to me that if it’s all about making a statement, why not really stand out and go retro, like an ‘57 T-bird or ‘68 Charger. If you had a Superbird, you’d probably have the only one on Wilshire.
My insiders in Hollywood and BH tell me no way, it’s all about advertising the size of your bank account, hence all the Bentleys and Lambos.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Experience is the new status symbol. That $200k supercar, or 15,000 square foot, pseudo-Italian villa chews up huge chunks of discretionary budget for the few weeks a year that they get used. Smart luxury consumers are discovering the experience and financial benefits of fractional ownership, and fractional lease-sharing. Only need a yacht 4 weeks per year? Buy a 1/10th share of a 120 footer, and never worry about maintenance again. Everything (including the crew) is handled by the asset management group. For anyone leading a fractional lifestyle, down-sizing and efficiency are by-products of a reduction in ownership liability. If you take a $200k supercar and divide the ownership into six equal shares, the carbon footprint of each owner will be reduced. Instead of 6 supercars on the road spewing CO2, we’ll have one with all the attendant benefits to improved air quality. For wealthy consumers who lead increasingly transient lives, sharing the ownership responsibilities of a valuable asset provides cost savings without any reduction in quality of experience.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
It depends on taxes. If you increase taxes on carbon high enough, then being frugal will be cool.
Ekonomix
http://turkeconomy.blogspot.com/
August 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Green already is the new cool, in some circles. In our current real estate market meltdown, green homes sell at a premium of price and/or speed of sale. There are no rebates on the Toyota Prius even at the end of a model year, and some dealers charge an above-list price because the market will bear it. Pellet stoves (which use lumber waste for fuel) are so popular in Vermont there are jokes that sawdust is more valuable than wood.
Max Weber wrote a classic book about ‘I’m so cool because I’m NOT spending money’: The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Of course, I’m sure that someone out there already is collecting the reusable shopping bags sold for a buck at every grocery store in the nation. ‘Poor sod, you’ve got the one from the local Safeway. Mine is from a specialty market in Palm Beach.’
August 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zoe - I think that’s true for a small (though growing) percentage of the population. I do know there is a very high correlation of house prices to income level, meaning that people generally will buy as much as they can afford. I just wonder if people’s attitudes and values can be rewired without a great deal of time and pain.
Mark - Seems like what fractional ownership does is enable conspicuous consumption for a wider market. I can’t say that it is really resetting peoples’ values, just making the same Champagne lifestyle more affordable.
Thanks for the comments!
Best,
Bert
August 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
There are several trends that are new status symbols, without being carbon-intensive.
Big philanthropy is back, from Ted Turner to Bill Gates. The merely multi-millionaires bid against each other at charity auctions.
Your own private service class — from personal trainers to executive coaches to cleaning ladies. For the upper middle class they’re time share, for the wealthy they’re live in. In between, what if that 1/6 share Rolls came with a chauffeur?
For house prices to income, location sometimes replaces size as in Portland’s Pearl District or SOHO. For the very wealthy, several homes in good locations.
Of course, the old rich have long been about understatement and isolation. They only care about their peers opinions and don’t go for flashy as much as subtle. When they step out of this it’s tricky, which is why Paris Hilton is camp and Donald Trump is tacky.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bert,
Green is only an option when it’s relevant to the lifestyle need of the consumer over time. If sustainability was the driving force behind every purchase decision, we’d all shop at Whole Foods and walk to work. What consumers say they want, and what they actually buy are two very different things. Downsizing and efficiency sounds good, but most affluent consumers will not give up their creature comforts just because somebody on TV told them to. The prestige of price to obfuscate a lackluster product experience isn’t going to be enough to hook an affluent audience. Fractional ownership may not directly influence sustainable manufacturing, but it does modify consumption behavior in favor of efficiency and responsible stewardship. By replacing the status of ownership with the status of experience, sustainability advocates have an opportunity to dialog with important consumers about the importance of modifying personal behavior.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Michael,
I guess I’m a big cynic. I think much of philanthropy is about polishing a tarnished image, and sheltering taxes. To me, the anonymous donor is the real hero.
And yes, location takes often takes precedence over home size, but people still generally as much as they can afford. Check out those huge multi-floor apartments in NYC.
Mark,
“what people say they want and what they acually buy are two different things.”
Boy, that’s the truth. But I’m not so sure that “prestige of price” (I’m a sucker for that alliteration) doesn’t outweigh a lackluster product experience. People still want tres-cher mechanical wristwatches, even though electronic models are cheaper, more accurate, and require less maintenance. If people have the money, they (generally) want the world to know. I just wonder how we’re going to do this with small cars and downsized homes.
Ekonomix,
Maybe not willingly but people will change if they feel the pain. I’m not sure that will make it cool.
But as Everett Dirksen (U.S. senator) said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light!”
Best to all,
Bert
August 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Many great points on here. Just a few random thoughts from me:
1) green is cool, but high cost will always be status… thats why i recently received a call from someone ‘bragging’ about their friends purchase of a hybrid tahoe (cost something like 55K!); there are lexus hybrids, etc…
2) we americans like big… bottom line… so that means the real race/opportunities are in being more efficient, not really downsizing. also our market is so big that innovations go down market very quickly… from ‘gourmet’ coffee at McDonalds to 72″ HD flat screens at WalMart….
3)why is whole foods so great? I don’t get that comment at all… you could never justify that store logistically or with consumers in half of the US. $11 organic green tea shampoo for fine hair? I am not saying they are evil or shouldn’t do what they do, but to think Whole Foods, Jetshares etc.. are really the future? Don’t know… that would also kill china’s economy?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Consumerism is still all about the experience. Green or not, even the highest priced products on the market must be lifestyle relevant or they won’t make it past the first model year. Marketing (branding) is based on mindset perspective. Yes, the $30 digital tells time just as well as the $5k Patek Philippe, but which one will be considered a work of art by the owner? Status isn’t always synonymous with utility. Successful companies know that mass market appeal is dead. Look at Apple. The company long ago ceded the mass business market to Microsoft, and put a lock on the creative class. Which computer buying audience ultimately yielded the higher return on investment? Which brand costs more? Whole Foods is doing the same thing because the company knows its audience is not mass market. The Whole Foods experience is so compelling that nobody complains about higher costs. But, the experience came first. You can’t put lipstick on the proverbial pig and expect the same result. Fractional ownership is an experience in economy without a corresponding reduction in value. Until there is no alternative to maintaining even a fractional portion of the luxury lifestyle, baby boomers will continue to resist the move to downsize/economize.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Bert - go ahead and be cynical about philanthropy, but we were talking about status symbols and I think it’s an important one that does a lot more good than another Lambroghini in the garage.
About the move from status symbol to mass market. In a book called “The Middle Class Millionaire” authors Prince & Schriff say that the truly wealthy keep to themselves, and the ones who set the pace for the masses are self-made business people with net worth of $5 to $10 million. When we see these people buying green and small, we’ll know the trend is changing.
We were excited when Whole Foods came to town but have been very disappointed with their produce, fish and deli. Low quality and bland, bought in bulk. There’s a competing local natural food chain that has much better fresh and local goods, and even the regular supermarkets now have organic products. Not to mention the farmers markets. I suspect that unless WF catches on and moves beyond organic to quality it will lose market share.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I thought it might be worthwhile sharing a few resource links to companies and organization that I think are thought leaders in the green is cool movement.
1. FabPreFab - A look at modern prefabricated living.
http://www.fabprefab.com/
2. Tree Hugger - Covers everything cool and green.
http://www.treehugger.com/
3. Solar Living Institue - I love strawbale, and photovoltaics.
http://www.solarliving.org/
4. Ikea - Great design. Environmentally minded.
http://www.esw.org/giving/ikea.html, http://www.ikea.com/us/en/
5. Mother Earth News - Green acres for greenhorns.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/
6. Zipcar - One for the fractional model.
http://www.zipcar.com/
7. TeslaMotors - World’s first $100k electric supercar
http://www.teslamotors.com/
8. Frybrid - A very cool waste vegetable oil fuel system.
http://www.frybrid.com/
9. Patagonia - The ultimate in organic/recycled fiber clothing.
http://bit.ly/auqoS
10. Herman Miller - Cool design conscious furniture.
http://bit.ly/jm4ha
August 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Good comments!
Michael - good point about philanthropy. I get a warm glow every time I see another Carnegie library during my travels. What a great legacy.
Interesting fact about Whole Foods. They say they are buying from ‘local suppliers’, but that can (and often does) mean a local distributor which in turn ships in produce from thousands of miles away. Quite the Clintonesque nuance of ‘local’. But I understand they are trying hard to change amid falling profits. We’ll see how they position themselves.
Mark and David - I think we’re all on the same page; Americans will continue to seek out their status symbols. I’m still wondering what people will do make their house grander when just making it larger isn’t feasible. With cars, I expect a $150K electric should be be coming soon. That should be exclusive enough.
“that means the real race/opportunities are in being more efficient, not really downsizing”
Great point, Mark. That reminds me that we’re continuing to become more efficient through technology. Have you seen one of those ‘portable’ radios from the late ’50’s? They were the size of a suitcase, and the battery was the size and weight of a brick. Now you can power a radio for a year with a battery the size of a penny. If this continues (and it should only accelerate), new efficiencies could eliminate much of the need to sacrifice to live a green lifestyle.
Thanks to all,
Bert
August 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I think its the same “The Middle Class Millionaire” book that talks about how status symbols move through the society. They start with super-rich early adopters, move to the middle class millionaires, then to the greater middle class.
This analysis used electric cars as an example. All of the early attempts were to introduce a cheap, clunky car that appealed to a fringe, so they never caught on. With more stylish and expensive electrics now coming on the market, electric cars may become status symbols and move down the innovation chain that you describe with portable radios. So the $150K electric may be necessary for the $15K electric to develop a market.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
> book that talks about how status symbols move through the society
Just like high school! We all want be one of the cool few.
> So the $150K electric may be necessary for the $15K electric to develop a market
Wow, excellent thought. So all the product points in a category exist in relation to each other, and not solely by themselves. And for something new, like an electric car, to fully penetrate our society, it needs to have the full range of cost/benefit/status products to appeal to all the different types of consumers. I’m going to want to mull this over for a while.
Thanks for sharing,
b.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I agree, we need affluent early adopters to support the development of new technologies. Tesla is first to market with a 100% electric sports car (0-60 in 3.9 seconds, 220 miles per charge, $150k). But, the proof of demand has spurred other manufacturers to enter the market (Fisker, Think, Lotus, Zap, Venturi). As competition picks up, prices will fall. Innovation rather than conservation seems to be the method du jour for digging us out of crisis. You can’t sell personal responsibility, but a shiny new gadget is tangible. Maybe if we cram enough experience and utility into a smaller footprint, consumers will stop feeling bigger is better. The status of size will become less and less relevant. Too bad it takes a crisis to jump-start sustainable innovation. Hopefully the future really does bring fewer trips to the gas station, lower energy bills, and more relevant lifestyle choices. What I fear most is a sudden-drop-in-energy-cost return to the creative status quo.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
> What I fear most is a sudden-drop-in-energy-cost return to the creative status quo.
So true. The public will say, ‘Well, that was a bad dream. Hey, that new Hummer looks pretty sweet.”
> You can’t sell personal responsibility, but a shiny new gadget is tangible
Funny, and like all good humor, based in truth.
b.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Philanthropy is not entirely cynical social-climbing. Or, to look at the same point from a different perspective, it IS social climbing, and God is the party you are trying to impress. See Max Weber’s take on the the Protestant ethic, which I cited in a previous comment.
Andrew Carnegie (who gave us all those beautiful libraries) said that the first part of life is for making money, and the second part is for giving it away. This same attitude was adopted by the Pew family of Philadelphia (Sunoco heirs), who founded the Pew Charitable Trusts. They put so much of their money into the Trusts that their descendants are not members of the uber-rich. Both of these families, and some other robber-baron families of their era, were highly religious in a Protestant vein.
Bill Gates has stated that he is giving his money away because he does not want his children to be so wealthy they have nothing to strive for. George Soros is giving most of his money to Gates’ foundation, in part for the same reason. I’ve never heard Gates described as a religious man, and Soros’ religious heritage is Judaism. Nevertheless, they are following in the footsteps of Andrew Carnegie.
Protestant belief is not the only source of major giving. Catholicism advocates charity. Mother Teresa and other religious (too numerous to name) have inspired millions across the centuries . The religious traditions of Judaism and Islam mandate charitable giving. Jewish tradition builds upon the Biblical commandment that farmers may not pick up produce that falls to the ground. It must be left for the poor to glean from the fields, because a just society cares for its poor. Giving to the poor is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. In Thailand, Buddhist boys spend a couple of months living as monks, supporting themselves with a begging bowl. The experience can leave them with an inclination to compassion for those less well-off.
If the consequence of such giving is for a family to keep control of the company it founded, that also could be good for society. Such a company might be managed for the long term, willing to invest in higher levels of research and development. In contrast, a huge number of publicly traded corporations are managed for the short term: if investments don’t produce speedy gains in the stock price, the people who set investment policy will be out on their keisters. Once upon a time, before it was broken up, we all hated Ma Bell. But now the scientific community mourns the loss of Bell Labs.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Zoe, thank you for your considered post. Sometimes I get irked at the current misuse of foundations as tax shelters to avoid estate taxation.
I’m encouraged by the recent call by some Christian evangelists to be less concerned with issues of distraction like gay marriage, and spend more resources helping the poor and sick.
Best,
Bert
August 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Mark, thanks for the great list of green resources. For the last two years, I’ve done a ranking of the Greenest Cities for Country Home magazine, and it’s unique in that I ranked all 379 major metro areas. I’ll post the data sometimes, because it’s interesting to see the correlation between some of the metrics and perhaps gain some new insights.
Best, Bert
August 21st, 2008 at 12:46 am
Actually, it’s Warren Buffet who’s giving his money to the Gates foundation. Buffet and his younger wife expected that he’d die first and she’d establish a foundation with their money. But she died first and Warren has no interest in the mechanics of giving money, he didn’t want to set up and run the large bureaucracy needed to do it. So he turned to his friends Bill & Melinda Gates who already had a bureaucracy established and is having them handle his philanthropy. Rather brilliant on his part I think.
Bill Gates is an interesting study. He had no interest in philanthropy, despite the example of his wealthy public spirited parents. Then when he got married and had children it helped open his heart. His wife and father teamed up on him and said “Bill, you’re interested in two things. Solving problems others can’t, and dominating whatever field you’re in. In philanthropy you can do both.” Melinda took him to remote African villages where there were people whose problems were more basic than that they didn’t have laptops, which opened his eyes. And the Gates Foundation is doing impressive, innovative work that hopefully will change the world, like developing childhood vaccines that can be used anywhere in the world by non-medical professionals without needles.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:15 am
Just had another thought about the difference between status symbols and fashion, two ways we show off to each other.
Status symbols start with people with high status, generally the rich and work their way down. Things like cars and houses.
Fashion on the other hand often starts with the marginalized — minorities, gays, teenagers — and works its way up. Think of men’s clothes, trendy clubs, popular music, etc. You can see what’s going to be worn by straight white guys in 5 years by looking at what’s being worn by Black teenagers today, then diluting it.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:13 am
Michael,
Nice theory about the status symbols=top down, and fashion=bottom up. Fits in well with your earlier post (#15) about the range of products necessary for a new category to fully become integrated in society.
With a couple of more ideas, I think you have the foundation of a book. Really,
I know I’m going to remember these concepts, pull them out from time to time, and see how they fit with the real world as new situations present themselves.
Thanks for sharing!
b.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Michael, thanks for the correction.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Bert, I think you’re on the right track to separate ‘frugality’ from ‘green’.
It is certainly possible to spend a *lot* of money on being green (example: Highly efficient washing machines command a premium price *not* particularly justified by the savings in energy and water).
“Perhaps our new status symbols can be compact, efficient, and green… as long as they are very expensive.”
Exactly. The phrase you’re looking for is ‘conspicuous conservation’. The Prius is something of a minor ‘greener than thou’ status symbol partly because it looks obviously different from a ‘normal’ car (there’s no particular technical reason it’s exterior silhouette is different, it’s just styling) and the Honda Civic and Accord hybrids are not. Future status symbols will follow and expand on this trend.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
very interesting.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
MichaelB,
Good points. I remember reading something how Toyota ‘won’ with the Prius because they promoted it as a distinctly hybrid vehicle. People could identify it and easily understand it. Other manufacturers made the mistake of cloaking the hybrid identity under an existing brand, such as a “hybrid Accord” or “hybrid Yukon.”
I like your ‘conspicuous conservation’ tag. Speaking of which, that Smart car is certainly the car du jour. That’s got to be the poster child for ‘conspicuous conservation.’ But what a disappointment. Given the tradeoffs of the form factor, I would expect 60-70 mpg. Instead, it’s barely more efficient than a vanilla Honda Civic, which is much more usable.
Recent review of the Smart on Slate - “Shrimp My Ride.” The verdict? “…not so much a car as a trendy gadget.” Fits in well with our discussion
I’d like to see a hybrid Honda Fit. That would be a great around-town car.
Best, Bert
August 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
When the VW Bug hit America in the early 1960’s, it was fashion rather than a status symbol — in fact sort of an anti-status symbol of the counterculture. Given the times, this had a growing following. But the real thing was, it was mechanically a good vehicle, it didn’t break down all the time like the other small European cars. It was cheap, got good gas mileage and you could fix it yourself with a crescent wrench. So the word spread and it earned a following in the larger society. VW owned the small car market, but they took their eye off the ball trying to boost profits and the Japanese stole it from them.
Lessons for a mass electric car.
Style is necessary, but not sufficient. It has to be significantly better then the competition. The iPod looks cool, but if it didn’t work better and easier than other MP3’s it would be just a niche product.
Fashion starts with a core audience. But to go beyond that there needs to be a reason for others to want it — quality, ease, price.
I have a daughter who is a late adopter. Her husband is a gadget geek and will get things early. When cell phones came out she looked at his and said “its too big”. When they made a smaller one she bought it. She waits for the market to come to her. She’s consciously, politically green but will wait for the electric car to be most of what she wants before taking the plunge.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Money is a toll for something else.
Who has real money doesn’t look like rich as a Christmas tree.
They already know how not to show up.
Money is a tool for something else.
All those who worship money don’t live, but die for them.
Money is a tool for something else.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Bert, ‘conspicuous conservation’ isn’t original to me, though I can’t recall where I originally encountered it.
You might find it interesting to watch the ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’ documentary, and also ‘Garbage Warrior’.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
MichaelR - Well, it’s new to me, so you get credit as far as I’m concerned. (In a similar vein, have you noticed how many quotes are erroneously attributed to Mark Twain?)
Yes, looking forward to seeing ‘Electic Car’. With a plot involving world domination, assassination, and trick autos, it sounds like a James Bond flick.
b.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“Will frugal be hip?”
I think the real question is whether or not frugality and going green can become automatic…natural…routine. Hip, trendy…they connote transitory. The phrase “green fatigue” is already taking hold…that’s not a good sign.
What we need are permanent, lasting changes…or we will fail at meeting our goals. We need to ask: “how can we recondition ourselves to think FIRST about the consequences of our choices–even the pricey ones?”
Frankly, I believe whether or not this happens depends upon how involved women choose to help lead the shift at the grassroots and national levels.
No offense meant AT ALL, guys, but these online conversations too often drift into discussions about automobiles. That’s because such talk is still primarily male-dominated. And yet building even one new car (Prius or Tesla) puts a lot of stuff (including tons of carbon emissions) into the atmosphere.
We simply can’t buy our way out of this.
Watch for a wider, more energetic discourse about local eating, food preservation, mending and reusing goods. These are traditionally “feminine” concerns, but they are in many ways the fastest routes to a truly environmentally-responsible lifestyle. And they can be helpful tools in economically troubling times, too.
And, yup, there are indeed ways to make these things status-y…look no further than the fact that some wealthy San Franciscans now pay $300 upfront plus $35 per week to have farmers plant and tend veggie gardens in their own backyards. If a fancy homestead gets people moving toward sustainability, I’m all for it. Beats spending that much money on pesticides, water and gas-powered motors. I also predict we’ll start to see more businesses seeking to provide old-fashioned, home ec-style courses for grown-ups–men and women (sign me up!).
Note too that within the peak oil crowd–which includes lots of knowledge workers, women are definitely leading the way out of fear and into action by returning to the aforementioned essential homesteading skills. Riot 4 Austerity, Casaubon’s Book and Hen & Harvest are three sites with nice followings and eco-responsible messages. All three of them are related to New York academic-turned-farmer Sharon Astyk who has two books coming out on peak oil, sustainability and related topics. You will hear more about her. And then there’s the Ideal Bite and Eco-Moms circles, both of which seem to be referenced in every magazine I read. Since I’m in their target demo–upper mid. income, educated, suburban mom– that’s very telling about whom they are already engaging, too.
Finally, when it comes to triggering action among women, I’m convinced there’s something powerful inherent to the “Theory of Anyway”…a notion that comes out of the aforementioned peak oil crowd. You can read about its origins here: http://tinyurl.com/6atclx (not my site, btw!). For me, it’s a nice rationale that can appeal to a broader audience.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
PPRice, thanks for the very thoughtful comment.
Good point, it’s about awareness, which then evolves to become a reflex. I get to NYC pretty often, visiting various business partners. There is often the usual array of beverages in bottles and cans, and when I’m done with one I instinctively look for the appropriate recycling container. I’m always taken aback when my host shrugs, and suggests throwing it in the garbage (with the others.) I’m surprised just how much of a shock it is to me.
By way of background, Oregon introduced the first ‘bottle bill’ in 1972. This is an example of your external influence (a deposit of 5 cents) resulting an instinctual behavior.
But I’m not so sure about your male/female theory of women leading the slack-jawed mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers to a higher state of green consciousness. If I’m suffering any fatigue right now after the Democratic primary, it’s the whole men/women thing. I’ve always been more than ready to give anyone respect, no matter how many X chromosomes they have. (You go, person!)
Make no mistake, the last 40 years have been really important to gaining a level of sexual and racial equality. Now we’ve got some other really big issues to face together, and I hope we can all work towards that without breaking down into fractious groups.
Best, Bert
August 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
True, that gender bit was overkill. Good point well-taken right down to the need to avoid fracture! In fact, I’ve actually tended to run with personality type dictating choices more than gender. Not sure why I went that way…too much convention coverage tainting my POV this week? lol.
Then again, I’m not sure that less-informed, less-active Americans are ” slack-jawed mouth-breathing knuckledraggers,” either. They are, right now, the majority, so I think we have to tread carefully in referencing them, too. I think a lot of it boils down to time-strapped, hard-working folks with shorter-sighted objectives, ranging from surviving to excessive consumption. And when we (men and women–see I learned and adapted!) let conversations about cars dominate our concerns over practical solutions to reinforce habits such as the ones you and I both mentioned here.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Oops…last line should have read:
And when we (men and women–see I learned and adapted!) let conversations about cars dominate our concerns over practical solutions to reinforce habits such as the ones you and I both mentioned here, we lose valuable time.
(Sorry about the cut off!)