ANTI-PRESS EZINE #03 "We're Positive About The Negative" A November E-dition (for you temporal meatspacers) (C) Copyright 1998 Anti-Press NOTE: This ezine may be shared with others as long as such sharing is free of charge and full credit is given to Anti-Press with notice of copyright. WARNING: A student at Arizona U downloaded an Anti-Press article and submitted it to his Journalism 101 class as his own work. After receiving an "A" from his unsuspecting professor, he walked away smirking, proud of his theft and deception. A runaway Good Humor truck careened around the corner and flipped on top of him with bone-crushing force. Keep this in mind, you potential intellectual property thieves. Do you want to slowly die, pinned under twisted metal, your mouth pried open as you drown in your own blood mixed with the melting goo of black licorice ice cream? AN ANTI-DOTE TO THOSE SMARMY THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY EDITORIALS We're not like most others who have family and friends so share the "good times" during the "happy" holidays. We usually end up trying to mind our own business during a holiday, getting through it without any stores, cafes, or libraries open. (Maybe all these "Closed For The Holiday" establishments should add a note to their signs: "Sluff Off, You Lonely Loser".) We don't want pity-- and we sure as hell don't want your freakin' resentment because we are unable to appreciate your experience. That's the problem with holidays. EVERYONE is supposed to conform to certain images projected by popular culture (TV, magazines and movies) and by materialistic companies trying to pry money out of your wallet. You are supposed to be HAPPY. If you're filled with seasonal joy, fine, just don't inflict it upon the rest of us. At least save the crappy Xmas music until AFTER Thanksgiving. Now we're hearing it played in the stores right after Halloween! Hey, the pumpkins are still sheeny; let 'em shrivel up a bit. And if you have your own problems with the Happy Syndrome, don't take it out on us either. One Thanksgiving afternoon we went for a walk to check out the deserted streets of downtown Plattsburgh, NY, the freeze-breeze stirring around loose scraps of unwanted trash. We found someone lying on the cold sidewalk, primed for frostbite, then death. We tried to help him out but the bastard got up and tried to take a punch at us. Someone else was walking by and he restrained this pugnacious drunk before we could kick said bastard in his ungrateful alcohol-sodden ass. Good memories. That's what holidays are made of, eh? "BUT AREN'T YOU THANKFUL ABOUT ANYTHING?" Security, grab that Pollyandroid and kick their butt out the door. Damn plastic humanoids, go on about how happy they are during the holidays and that a frown uses more muscles than a smile-- but the fugging assholes won't invite you over for a warm meal. Where were we? Thankful. Sure. Morbus and http//:www.disobey.com. Check out the Low Bandwidth section where previous issues of _Anti-Press_ are archived. We're listed under the _Activist_ category or you can take the more direct route: http://www.disobey.com/low/listings/anti-press.htm. While you're at www.disobey.com you can also check out _Viewer Discretion_ and the other fine plain-text ezines offered in the Low Bandwidth section. We're also thankful when we check our email and find more requests to subscribe to _Anti-Press_. Puts off for another day the tubful-of-warm- water-with-razor-blade option... DIAMONDS: HOW TO CORNER THE BULLSHIT MARKET Diamonds are as plentiful as pimples on Courtney Love's ass-- so why are they so valuable? Simple. Most of you believe everything you see advertised on TV and in the local newspaper. You've fallen for the "scarcity illusion". In front of me is a special section from the Local (news)Paper with a light blue banner across its top announcing "For The Bride And Groom". This section features articles-- actually the word "stories" is more appropriate-- about planning for a wedding, especially selecting the diamond engagement ring that "will win her heart". Hey, pal, if your love by itself hasn't won her heart, then screw it. This alleged "article" has no byline. There's a clue. How many advertisements have bylines? Nowhere on the page, even in teeny-weeny type, is the disclaimer "Advertisement". Anyway, according to this "news" article on buying the right diamond, under the heading of "Determining a budget": "The benchmark that many men use here is two month's salary guideline. Spend less, and the relatives will probably talk." Pal, who are you getting married to-- your girlfriend or her materialistic, status-sucking relatives? We've heard this "two months" crap before on TV with those stylish ads promulgated by the De Beers company. You've seen them, the violins, the man and woman as shadows on the wall, the only solid image in the ad the glowing almighty diamond. While your eyes are locked into the images, the pseudo-happiness of some rich fugger with too much money to spend giving his fiancee (or mistress) a hunk of transformed carbon, Oh The Joy!-- then the brainwashing line is slipped in: "How else can two months salary last forever?" Sure, it'll last forever when the bitch walks out on you and pawns the diamond to support her new lover and his cocaine habit. Who says you have to spend two months of your hard-earned money on something that as plethoric as Ronald Reagan's inactive brain cells? A while back there was a program on PBS on the great diamond $cam, how the whole market is controlled by keeping most of the diamonds off the market and releasing them bit by bit to keep the price inflated. Of course, poor black Africans, including children, were exploited to dig the raw material out of the ground to make "the ultimate symbol of enduring love." (Hey, lady, we've got an ultimate symbol, right here...) How many rich black Republicans buy gems and conveniently ignore the history behind the market, a business that was built upon economic slavery, the suffering and sweat of their have-not brothers and sisters in Africa? Then again, a black Republican is like an Oreo cookie... But the issue of exploitation isn't simply "black or white"; there is a grey area. _The Diamond People_, the book by Murray Schumach, mentions how De Beers or "the Syndicate" fought for better conditions for blacks in South Africa when the white-dominated government was in power. At the same time critics dismissed the creation of better housing and other benevolent acts towards blacks during that period. According to the cynical POV the Syndicate was only trying to head off a black uprising and also was currying favor with the future rulers of South Africa. _The Diamond People_ also explained how the Syndicate dealt with the Soviet Union when a shitload of raw diamonds were found in Siberia. The Merchants of Empty Dreams made sure The Russians understood the advantage of selling their rough diamonds through them. By not "disturbing the market", as the head of De Beers inferred at that time, the Russians found it more profitable to get behind the Syndicate's program. You've seen that spy thriller plot before, some criminal mastermind is going to steal from the great diamond reserves and flood the market, driving down the price, unless his blackmail demands are met. Such a scenario points to the absurdity of the whole diamond business. Does such a market reflect the "natural" law of supply and demand, a cartel strictly holding back the supply and creating the demand through news "stories" and slick TV ads? Let's take a look at the history of the De Beers cartel and its marketing arm, the Central Selling Organization (CSO). In the late 1920s there were too few buyers for a surplus of diamonds. De Beers Chairman Sir Ernest Oppenheimer offered to buy all the diamonds worldwide to keep the price up. By 1934 he had set up the monopolistic practice of single-channel marketing, keeping surplus diamonds off the market until the consumers (i.e. suckers) were ready to swallow it all, hook, line, and gem sinker. Thus De Beers created "fundamental stability" unlike the other markets in minerals. But the times they are a'changing and there is more competition out there from other companies. According to "Breaking News" at www.diamondsinfo.com dated 2/16/98, De Beers is launching a "gem defensive" against the lower tier of the diamond business, the cheaper market that falls outside CSO's price control machinations. The main feature of this defense is "branding", the same way Coca Cola sells you overpriced sugared water in cans and bottles, beating out the sales of the other sodas flooding the supermarket shelves. There's a new perception being created. You're not supposed to be concerned about buying a diamond, any diamond-- now it has to be a "De Beers Diamond". Hey, you lame-brained lemmings out there who fell for the "Intel Inside" scam, buying a computer based solely on the type of microchip they popped inside the appliance. If you went for that, you'll go for anything. ("Joe, why did you pay $300 for that two-pound bag of bullshit scraped up from a dairy pasture?" "It's not ordinary bullshit. See the classy logo on this bag? There's 'Manure Inside'!") Since diamonds can all look the same, how can De Beers differentiate its product from all the other pretty crystals out there? After all, you can easily tell the difference between a Pepsi and a Coke from the label on the can (even thought they taste equally crappy). How do you label a gemstone? Invisible inscription. De Beers spent millions of dollars on research to find the method where its name and a security number can be inscribed on the upper half of a diamond while remaining invisible both to the naked eye and a loupe. This method is clouded in secrecy as if that will stop counterfeiters. (We won't be surprised when a high school kid with his home computer and a toy laser kit find a way to duplicate the process.) The diamondsinfo.com article also explains the inscription itself is not expensive but handling fees, shipping, administration, (add whatever you want: sunspots, El Nino, Alan Greenspan's headcold, etc.) will drive up the price. For 10-15 percent more than other diamonds you will get a "real" diamond: a De Beers Diamond. It's that old scam, "Value added." And we all know how intangible value can be, whether you've talking about diamonds or old comic books or retired Beanie Babies. So De Beers has decided to let the competition have the cheaper market while it will control its own "better market". Two choices (supposedly): De Beers Diamonds and "junky" diamonds. De Beers is using this tactic because increased diamond mining has made it hard to preserve the "scarcity illusion". To quote from diamondsinfo.com: "In a competitive market, one of the most significant ways in which firms gain an edge is by trying to make their product unique relative to other products on the market. The reason is that the more differentiated is one's product, the more one is able to act like a monopolist... In a way, branding will allow De Beers to become a 'monopolist' again." Monopoly: Friend of the Consumer. So get ready for a new round of brainwashing ads in magazines and TV. Now the woman will throw her engagement ring back at her beau because (gasp) it's NOT a De Beers. (What will her relatives say?) Why are we telling you this? Simple. As long as your local (news)paper accepts out-of-house (outhouse) advertising sections disguised as news, you're not going to hear the other side of the story about a lot of consumer issues. And don't forget-- the jewelry shops in your area pay for slick ads in the paper to promote the latest "heartship" ring or "anniversary" necklace or "Kidney Stone of Jesus" or almost any shape and event they're trying to push this month. They've got all sorts of options with that great hoard of crystallized dinosaur dung (or whatever constitutes a "real" diamond). Ever see the old Superman TV show or the comic book where the Man of Steel picks up a piece of coal and squeezes it into a diamond? He hasn't been doing that lately. Apparently the Merchants of Empty Dreams threatened to sue his invulnerable ass before he flooded the market and drove down the price. STOLEN: FAITH AND TRUST! A while back we discussed how the Local (news)Paper handled an incident about "one of their own". A deliveryman claimed in a TV news story that he had been cheated out of overtime pay while employed by the Local Paper. What was odd about this is that the TV station, not the Paper, broke the story. You see the Official Policy of the Paper is to report the news pertaining to anyone, good or bad, including all of its employees, whether it be the lowly janitor or the highfalutin publisher. Anyway, we've been waiting for a follow-up story on how this embarrassing incident was resolved (if it ever was). Since then another story about a Paper employee popped up and the Paper reported on "one of their own"-- or did it? Weasel wording. You expect a squirming politician, not the Paper, to keep its distance from crap right in its own tent. According to the article, a woman who had been employed in the telemarketing department had been sentenced for embezzlement. It was stated the woman had created false payrolls, forged signatures, and then collected the money. But while reading the article one gets the impression that the woman only worked for a company with no direct connection to the Paper or the chain it belongs to. It is stated that she worked at a telemarketing company "housed" at the Paper's building. Oh, the company is only "housed" there, the Paper is just renting out space to the telemarketing company and so the Embezzler is THAT company's employee, separate from all the respectable employees of the Paper. So why does the Paper's publisher comment on one of THOSE employees? Is the telemarketing company only "housed" there or is it part of the operation that the Publisher rides herd on? The Publisher was quoted that the woman "had stolen more than money from us". So who is US? Anyway, the Publisher went on to say that the Embezzler had also stolen "faith and trust". Yeah, faith and trust. Reminds us of another embezzlement story published years ago in the Paper about another woman accused of stealing from her employer and who was found dead in a parking lot, a suicide. What was interesting was the placement of this article. If you had that edition flat on the table, you would notice on one page the embezzlement-suicide story and on the other page the obituary notice for the same woman. We wonder how much "faith and trust" the relatives of the unfortunate woman had put in the Paper when they had submitted the info for the obit. Then again, the maybe Local Paper has good taste "housed" somewhere in its building. (It could be they have to keep the good taste locked up; only the Publisher has the key...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Submitted works must be ready for publication (edited and proofread). Word Limit: 1000 words. No sci-fi, poetry, sci-fi poetry, poetic sci-fi, etc. Do some research and read a couple of issues to find what we want. Submissions and readers' comments should be sent to Antipress1@aol.com. Anti-Press Ezine and its sporadically published issues are available at: http://www.disobey.com/text/ Copyright 1998-2000 Anti-Press Publication by Disobey. http://www.disobey.com/ TO SUBSCRIBE: majordomo@disobey.com BODY: Subscribe APE TO UNSUBSCRIBE: majordomo@disobey.com BODY: Unsubscribe APE ------------------------------------------------------------------------