First rule of every good drug pusher: don't be a victim of your own merchandise.
First rule of every good schoolyard pusher: get 'em while they're young.
First rule of every good schoolyard pusher with kids of his own: don't let your kid be victimized by the drug you're pushing on their schoolmates.
The first rule is just good business; the second is genius, since, if successfully followed, while you're profiting hugely from crippling the other kids, your kid becomes even stronger in comparison; especially if the particular drug you're 'marketing' is in fact immensely powerful when properly used, both by your kid, and against the others, as they all grow up.
But how? How to achieve this ideal of every schoolyard pusher with kids, given that your kid too will inevitably be exposed at some point to the same drug that's crippling all your victims at great profit to you (and your kid)?
Inoculation. Knowing the drug inside and out as you do, because in fact you have invented it; and even more importantly, knowing the subtle but highly effective strategies and tactics you yourself employ in 'marketing' it, making junkies of the children and willing procurators of their own parents; you expose your own children, when young, to just enough of the drug, in just the right way, to render them and them alone, effectively immune to the drug's crippling effects, when they are later fully exposed to, and indeed, successfully using it, as above.
I trust that the penalty for this behavior, for a career of this behavior--making immense profits by encouraging the disablement of other peoples' children in their most vulnerable and formative years, while consciously and assiduously protecting your own from the same fate--would be severe; morally of course, but also legally, as parasites and criminals of the most disgusting sort.
I trust also that that penalty would be magnified if one's victims numbered in the thousands and millions; as in the case of the kingpins of drug cartels, for example.
I'd be interested and grateful to understand how Steve Jobs and his legion of emulators are not precisely of this sort.
And if they are even slightly of this sort, given the severity and magnitude of the damage being done (in the candid opinion of Steve Jobs and his legion of emulators), to understand how they are allowed to walk the same streets as my child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html?_r=0
“When Steve Jobs was running Apple, he was known to call journalists to either pat them on the back for a recent article or, more often than not, explain how they got it wrong,” Nick Bilton reports for The New York Times. “I was on the receiving end of a few of those calls. But nothing shocked me more than something Mr. Jobs said to me in late 2010 after he had finished chewing me out for something I had written about an iPad shortcoming.”
“‘So, your kids must love the iPad?’ I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves,” Bilton reports. “‘They haven’t used it,’ he told me. ‘We limit how much technology our kids use at home.'”
“I’m sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobs’s household was like a nerd’s paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests like chocolates on a pillow,” Bilton reports. “Nope, Mr. Jobs told me, not even close. Since then, I’ve met a number of technology chief executives and venture capitalists who say similar things: they strictly limit their children’s screen time, often banning all gadgets on school nights, and allocating ascetic time limits on weekends.”
(Bold mine)
It's the gasp and dumbfounded silence, I like.
They're nothing more than traffickers; and as the smart traffickers'll tell you, you don't use the merchandise. They are just inoculating their kids with a tech-drug serum, to immunize them against the very merchandise that put the fucking bowling alley in their basement.
And where is the law here?
Here's a fair law: American children spend an average--an average--of 7 1/2 hours on these criminals' smartphones and other electronic screens, and governments, persuaded by the Great Con, are building them into the very foundation of 21st-century education of children (I'm the editor for the biggest distributor of these devices in Japan, who's working real close with the traffickers to make them ubiquitous, addictive and indispensable--paedagogically and morally indispensable to children, school employees and parents); I say the traffickers must expose their children to at least half that--let's be kind, say 3 hours per day--or have their license to traffic revoked.
What do you think?
Not our fault if they want to flood the classrooms with them (on our advice), surround their children with them (with our blessing and persuasion), and above all, abandon their children to them (Marvelling shoulder shrug).
I mean, really. Does no one else think there's something seriously and obviously wrong here? (Which should be pretty easy to correct.)
Where is the outrage? And where is the covenant to resist it? What a world.
|
Author
