New World Order

or, another step closer to Orwell's 1984.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKL295567120090402

Denial / self-acknowledgment

"I'm only a near-perfectionist."

Is orthodoxy carbon-neutral?

Officially, according to guardian.co.uk's terms of use, I can't reproduce the article here (even for non-commercial ops). Oh hell, here it is anyway, you never know how long it'll be available for at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/feb/25/religion-christianity, and rationalization of religious customs (like burning vs stoning people and sacred cows) always makes for great discussion:

It is good to know that two bishops are undertaking a "Carbon fast" which will require them to turn off their computers every night, rather than leaving them on standby.

Unfortunately, I am not very good at piety and it made me wonder, in a rather irreverent way, about the the environmental consequences of burning heretics. Is orthodoxy carbon-neutral? It turns out to be quite difficult to calculate this. Cremation is less green than burying people, but this is partly a result of the attempts that crematoria now make to avoid pollution, which requires burning the bodies at very high temperatures.

But an auto-da-fe does not need to be nearly as hot as a modern crematorium. The purpose of the fire is not to reduce the heretic to ashes, but to impress the onlookers with the horror of the crime. But even at these lower temperatures it seems at least as environmentally sinful as a barbecue and we know we are meant to be giving those up, too.

Perhaps the greenest religion ever developed was that of the Aztecs, who kiled their victims with stone knives. In fact their entire way of life has been analysed from an ecological point of view by the late anthropologist Marvin Harris, who concluded that human sacrifice was an ecological necessity for an urban civilisation in central Mexico. So far as I know, they did not sacrifice heretics, only enemy prisoners, but you can see how heresy was discouraged by the practice all the same.

It is a commonplace of anti-Aztec propaganda that the hearts of the sacrificial victims were offered to the gods, after being cut, still beating, from their bodies. This was a waste, and would of course have required fuel for the sacrificial pyres. But Harris was the first man to ask what happened to the rest of the prisoners; and he concluded that their bodies were also cooked, and then eaten. Central America had very few native domesticable sources of animal protein – only birds and dogs, in fact. So the meat from these vast temple sacrifices would have made a noticeable difference to the soldiers lucky enough to be fed. By the same token it would have increased their zeal in battle very considerably. To be taken prisoner really was a fate worse than most other deaths. You can see how the system could become self-perpetuating.

Harris is rather out of fashion now: he analysed all sorts of religious taboos as disguised ecological rules: the sacredness of cow, he thought, was an expression of the fact that the farmer who eats his bullock in a famine year might as well be dead, since when the rains come he will be unable to plough.

Similarly, the taboo on pork in Judaism and Islam makes sense in the Middle East, where the pig is a bad ecological bargain.

Obviously, if you are a true believer, this kind of explanation will be unsatisfactory. It's also unsatisfactory if you are the kind of rationalist who wants all religions and all superstitions to be equally ridiculous and unscientific. And it offends, finally, people like me who dislike the idea that religious practice can be explained away or reduced to anything else.

None the less, the link between religion and ecology is worth thinking about. One of the things that all religions have are prohibitions which have to be obeyed "just because". Heresy is shunned not because it is rationally wrong, but because it is heretical. But these attitudes aren't confined to religion. Nor could they be, because they are indispensable for any large scale social organisation. If everyone stops to question everything, nothing gets done. What religions do, to some extent, is to internalise social disciplines so that they come to seem morally binding and quite impossible to analyse coldly. We're going to need that kind of social discipline to cope with the shrinking resources of the world.

Actually fiddling around to discover the precise carbon footprint of everything we do is absurdly time consuming and in any case unlikely to come up with the right answer. In this sense, environmentalism is indeed a religion, though one without any defined supernaturalist dogmas. Trust in authority, whether Pope Benedict or George Monbiot, is the only way we can hope to link the greater rationality of wanting to preserve humanity with the rationality of the small scale decisions we make all the time about how to live. Of course it is absurd. But so are all the alternatives; and they are worse.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/feb/25/religion-christianity

at least they are committing environmentally sound murder

Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

• Story Highlights
• Green bullets are those that don't contain lead, a toxic metal
  
• Last year, California banned lead bullets in the area where an endangered bird lives
  
• Copper bullets are the main alternative to lead
  
• Hunting and gun groups oppose bans on lead bullets, saying they pose no risks
  

By John D. Sutter
CNN

(CNN) -- Three years ago, Phillip Loughlin made a choice he knew would brand him as an outsider with many of his fellow hunters:

He decided to shoot "green" bullets.

"It made sense," Loughlin said of his switch to more environmentally friendly ammo, which doesn't contain lead. "I believe that we need to do a little bit to take care of the rest of the habitat and the environment -- not just what we want to shoot out of it."

Lead, a toxic metal that can lower the IQs of children, is the essential element in most ammunition on the market today.

But greener alternatives are gaining visibility -- and stirring controversy -- as some hunters, scientists, environmentalists and public health officials worry about lead ammunition's threat to the environment and public health.

Hunting groups oppose limits on lead ammunition, saying there's no risk and alternatives are too expensive.

The scope of the trend is difficult to measure. Americans spent an estimated $1.08 billion on ammunition in fiscal year 2008, according to tax reports from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. But the bureau does not track ammunition sales by type.

Industry groups are tight-lipped about their sales figures. Manufacturers contacted by CNN declined to release specific numbers.

Barnes Bullets, which manufactures copper bullets because, the company says, they perform better than lead, is seeing increased interest in its non-lead products, said Jessica Brooks, the Utah company's spokeswoman.

Loughlin, of Union City, California, has noticed new manufacturers jumping into the green bullet game.

"They're definitely coming out. Winchester and Remington, all the big-name ammo makers are loading green ammunition now," he said.

Some firing ranges are banning lead for safety reasons. Lead bullets contaminate military training grounds across the country and are the subjects of many environmental cleanups.

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

Last year, California banned lead bullets in the chunk of the state that makes up the endangered California condor's habitat. The large birds are known to feed on scraps of meat left behind by hunters. Those scraps sometimes contain pieces of lead bullets, and lead poisoning is thought to be a contributor to condor deaths.

Arizona, another condor state, gives out coupons so hunters can buy green ammunition. Utah may soon follow suit.

In North Dakota, a hunter has raised concerns about lead's potential impact on humans.

Dr. William Cornatzer, a dermatologist and falconer, saw a presentation about the potential dangers of lead at a board meeting of the Peregrine Fund, a group devoted to conserving birds of prey. He decided to collect and test venison samples that were going to be donated to a local program for the hungry. About half of the 100 samples -- all shot by hunters -- tested positive for lead, he said. Food banks and shelters pulled the meat from their shelves after the report.

"When we did this, I about fell out of my shoes," he said. "The scary thing is these fragments are almost like dust in the meat. They're not like metal fragments you would feel when you bite down."

States in the area started investigating the issue after Cornatzer's findings.

Working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North Dakota Department of Health ran a test to find out the health effects of lead-shot game. The agency compared blood-lead levels of people who regularly eat meat shot with lead bullets with the levels of those who don't eat much wild game.

The results were inconclusive. Those who ate the lead-shot meat had slightly higher blood-lead levels than those who didn't, but none of the 738 people in the study had levels above the government's threshold for danger.

Still, the health department recommended that children younger than 6 and pregnant women stop eating venison shot with lead bullets because those groups are at particular risk for lead poisoning, even at low levels.

The department also recommended lead-free bullets as the simplest solution to possible contamination.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources followed with its own study, which found that when lead bullets explode inside an animal, imperceptible particles of the metal can infect meat up to a foot and a half away from the bullet wound -- farther than previously thought.

More research is needed to tell for sure if lead-shot meat poses a risk to people, said Dr. Steve Pickard, an epidemiologist at the North Dakota Department of Health. But until that research is done, people should take sensible precautions, he said.

"There is no cause for alarm, but it is another source of lead in the environment," he said of lead ammunition.

Hunting groups say lead bullets pose no risk to people or the environment.

Available studies -- particularly the one from North Dakota -- prove that point, said Ted Novin, spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation.

"The CDC study confirmed what hunters have known for centuries: Consuming game hunted with traditional [lead] ammunition has never been shown to pose a health risk to anyone," he said.

Pickard said Novin's group is misrepresenting science.

The NSSF and the National Rifle Association say efforts to ban lead ammunition are veiled attempts to take guns away from hunters. They also point to the fact that lead's main alternative, copper, is more expensive and isn't available in all calibers.

Novin said the added expense will drive many people away from a sport that is part of American heritage.

"Many hunters believe lead is the best metal to be used for hunting," he said. "Add into that that it [lead] is very affordable and it is very available. We think this absolutely should be left up to hunters."

Dr. Joseph Graziano, interim department chair of environmental health sciences at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, said the public should switch away from lead bullets -- even if the research is still developing.

"It's hard to imagine that you could make a bullet out of something more toxic than lead," he said.

Loughlin, who switched to green ammo and blogs on the issue, said that lead shouldn't be banned from hunting but that hunters and the public should be more aware of lead's potential to cause harm.

"Lead will get into you, and we need to be working towards getting it out of the system," he said. "I think it's something we could do away with over time."

------------------------------------
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/04/green.bullets/index.html

Messed up dream

Dreamed a few nights ago that I was in a sky-diving (or similar sport) program with a military-like academy.  The program required certain inoculations.  We were en route in a shuttle bus and got caught in a Republican pro-vaccination rally (a point not immediately important) on the way to the training facility where I was to receive the 2nd dose of the vaccine before starting the training regime.  The nurse did an independent blood check and did not find any of the antibodies that I was expected to have with the supposed vaccine, and informed me of a possible conspiracy where the pharmaceutical companies were pushing this substance that would detect changes in brain chemistry when you think seriously (and passing it off as a vaccine).  That substance would then trigger a signal that could be detected remotely electronically.  I had a few newspaper articles and other quasi-evidence stashed in my room on campus that supported that story and that I felt compelled to leak to some organization (one of the few still independent and professional media?), so a few trusted friends and I started bundling, protecting and disguising them as a package that wouldn't rouse suspicions by "authorities" whose integrity (dedication to free will and independent thought) may or may not be compromised   Meanwhile, legislation looking into this matter was being proposed in an Asian government body (china?) with a complex procedural voting process.  When the lawmakers were asked to vote on the bill, machine guns popped out of walls and ceilings and started shooting all them.  Though fatally wounded (limbs shot off etc), they still managed to summon enough composure and last breaths to hobble through the complex voting process and the legislation passed despite the bloody chaos.  Still, it was too late, mind control had already been achieved and bloodily demonstrated for anybody else in the world to dare do anything about it.

Victims of their own virtues

Science proves climate change threat
By David Suzuki - Victoria News

Published: March 05, 2009 4:00 PM
Updated: March 05, 2009 4:18 PM

Why does the public often pay more attention to climate change deniers than climate scientists? Why do denial arguments that have been thoroughly debunked still show up regularly in the media?

Some researchers from New York's Fordham University may have found some answers. Prof. David Budescu and his colleagues asked 223 volunteers to read sentences from reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The responses revealed some fundamental misunderstandings about how science works.

Science is a process. Scientists gather and compare evidence, then construct hypotheses that "make sense" of the data and suggest further tests of the hypothesis. Other scientists try to find flaws in the hypothesis with their own data or experiments. Eventually, a body of knowledge builds, and scientists become more and more certain of their theories. But there's always a chance that a theory will be challenged. And so scientists speak about degrees of certainty. This has led to some confusion among the public about the scientific consensus on climate change.

What Prof. Budescu and his colleagues found was that subjects interpreted statements such as "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent" to mean that scientists were far from certain. In fact, the term very likely means more than 90 per cent certain, but almost half the subjects thought it meant less than 66 per cent certain, and three quarters thought it meant less than 90 per cent.

According to an article in New Scientist, the researchers concluded that scientists should use both words and numbers to express certainty. For example, the IPCC considers "virtually certain" to mean more than 99 per cent likely; "very likely" to mean more than 90 per cent certain; "likely" to be more than 66 per cent; "more likely than not" more than 50 per cent; and so on.

It's important to understand the distinctions. People who recognize the urgency of the situation are more likely to get behind solutions. And businesses and governments are more likely to work toward solutions when the public demands that they do.

And how urgent is the situation? The IPCC has concluded it is "very likely" that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface. Remember, that means they are more than 90 per cent certain. That's about as close to unequivocal as science gets. The IPCC has also concluded that the consequences could be catastrophic.

This is science that has been rigorously peer-reviewed and that has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as well as more than 50 scientific academies and societies, including those of all G8 nations. There has been no peer-reviewed scientific study that has called into question the conclusions of the IPCC, which represents the consensus of the international scientific community.

So why does the debate still continue? Why are we fiddling while Rome burns? Well, as Prof. Budescu's research shows, some people don't really understand how science works. And people with vested interests, many of whom work with the oil and coal industries, are all too willing to exploit that lack of understanding by sowing confusion.

It's also true that many people fear change. We've seen examples of economic prosperity and job creation brought about by investments in green energy in places such as Germany and Sweden. And leading economists, including former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, have warned that not doing anything to confront climate change will cost us far more in the long run than acting now. But many people still fear that any profound change will upset the economy or diminish their quality of life.

We may never reach 100 per cent certainty on climate change and its causes – that's not what science is about – but one thing is certain: if we don't get together to work on solutions now we'll have a much tougher time dealing with the consequences later.

Take David Suzuki's Nature Challenge at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Find this article at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/opinion/40810628.html

boring, but solid

Canada is now "remarkably responsible" - but don't tell them yanks or our last month's trade deficit will have been more than a blip...
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/2/9/4086913.html

dirty oil, "made in canada"

Amazing how western politicians mesmerized us with the notion that we were an energy superpower, while so much damage was being caused...
I'm glad somebody's trying to get the message out there that this may not be the ideal solution to our energy "woes."
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=533

Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

Given that religion gives rise to all sorts of intellectual, uhm, "self-satisfaction" at the best of times, such as whether Christians got the day of rest wrong, and provides motivation for wars in the worst of cases, the atheist bus campaign is really refreshing.

Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city

just sent this to the local paper and ward councilor in response to this article http://www.yourkanata.com/StittsvilleNews/article/10022

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 22:46
Subject: Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city


Re: What cost development? Feb 4 2008

I believe that pushing the urban boundary for new developments is extremely shortsighted, and plain wrong on all other levels.
We have lived in a time when growth was considered good - as long as there were more people coming, more consumers in the market, more agricultural land to deplete, more forests to clear-cut, more oil to burn, more credit to stretch - things were supposed to be good. However, "measuring economic growth – as the current crisis proves – is no way to rate the health of the planet" (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/02/climatechange-economicgrowth for details).

What exactly does building more homes achieve? Canadians have already outpaced our American neighbors in terms of spending on credit (a very bad habit of overconfidence fueled by recent political statements like "ours is the most robust banking system in the world" and "we are sheltered from this storm"). Is this really the time to encourage people to buy new homes and stretch their mortgages even more? Is it really beneficial for the city to increase the new areas it has to service while the infrastructure in older neighborhoods is on the verge of collapse? From what I've heard the construction trades in Ottawa were already over-stretched, with houses taking 16 months to build rather than the normal 9. It sure is fun and exciting for people to obsess over new homes, but what does that do for us in the long term? For example, what are we going to do in fifteen years, when the existing neighborhoods currently bedlocked by the babyboomer bulge are finally available, but all the new families have moved ever further out?

I profoundly disagree with the comment that "growth" - at least in the sense of construction - is "good" for us, even if it generates "profit" for the lucky few, who then spend much of it offshore for electronic gadgets that our own labour force is too expensive to manufacture here, because too many people are tied to construction... Just moving money around simply does not create wealth. You can't export homes. You can't really export residential construction expertise to other parts of the world. All you can do is increase demand for natural resources best left untapped and artificially boost wage expectations due to false labour shortages (because people are working on the wrong things). How is that supposed to be good for us in the long run?

Let's focus on ruban renewal instead - better services, better quality of life. The charm of old cities like Montreal and Boston arose directly from the intensities of their populations. Rather than obsessing over manicuring their 5,000 square feet of grass and driveway with pesticides and oil products, and filling their homes with ephemeral gadgets, residents should be able to gather in cafes, markets, theaters, pubs and parks, and focus on the finer qualities of life.

It's easy, and politically convenient to focus attention on shiny new things, especially when the old things aren't turning out as well as we had hoped. It's simple and simple sells. But praising expansion is also cheap politics, and poor public policy.

Never taken such a public stance before; we'll see where this goes. I wonder if it'll even be published. At least my local councilor is already a strong proponent for intensification.

short-term politics fail to address underlying issues

'Western' democracies usually allow a few years of actual governance between pre-election orgies. That kind of directional stability is usually pretty good provided it doesn't drift too far off-ideological center. However, when it comes to generational trends, 4-year terms doesn't even come close to even giving them the time to grapple, let alone understand or even communicate, the magnitude and complexity of the problem.

But here's a key primer from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152765213
:

PLAINLY, A key to reducing violence is to reduce birthrates. According to Heinsohn, this could be achieved through widespread knowledge of birth control measures and the will to use them. Such an option, however, is unlikely because of religious opposition among traditional Muslims.

Since they can't tackle religion, they can, and do (especially in the current budget) focus on jobs. Giving people opportunities to work forces them to think (hopefully at least a little) more carefully about their own future. A little employment uncertainty (take too much time off and you might be fired) probably "helps" in that regard.

But this is still terribly short-sighted. Jobs in the service industry (Home Depot, Tim Hortons etc) may keep people busy, but they aren't as rewarding as, say, having a loving family. And the construction industry is only going to last as long as the city centres and old suburbs are bedlocked with aging baby-boomers who don't want to turn their 4-bedroom homes over to new families.

Expect the perfect storm in 10 years or so: the boomers will be buried, after straining our healthcare system to the breaking point, there will be a ton of real-estate available (housing market collapse), service industry will follow (no boomers sipping coffee all day every day at Tims anymore), and the public service will be left with a massive gap of experience, and industry as a whole will be staffed with people who were raised in perpetual economic growth and will resent no longer having what they've come to believe as entitlements rather than a reward for a strong work ethic. Economy as a whole will implode, people will stay at home with nothing to do but have kids, and you're set for another generation of extreme violence.

This is why I think the current budget, or even 4-yr politicking, doesn't even come close to trying to balance the underlying pressures that contribute to social stability or collapse. It's purely reactionary and terribly short-sighted.

I'm still hoping for a politician with a vision for the future, that can carve a proper role in the world to give Canadians from shore to shore to shore a sense of pride, common long-term purpose, and opportunity to share peace and prosperity. Perhaps that should be added to the Constitution, so the Senate can fulfill that as part of their mandate to defend, protect and promote it.

I can't believe their childishness

I don't know how many rants I've emailed myself with the intention to post, but I just came across this and can't get over it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/01/stalled_investigation.html

this is the type of protective action I would find amusing in a 5 or 6 year old who knows he's doing something wrong; from a party charged with leading the country, that's a whole other story.

and do they expect to lead a minority government "in good faith" ??

and the budget's gonna be a good one, "trust us" ???

it's almost as principally offensive as their communications campaign aimed squarely at the gut.

this nails it right on the head

I've felt something has been profoundly wrong with the Conservative Party's communications strategy for a few years. Now I know exactly what it is. Read the 2nd review (the one by Stephen Haines):

http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0771032994/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.s=SUCCESS&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.v=1&voteError=0

in those words, what makes me react so is that the communications campaign is so deliberately aimed at "the gut" to silence "the head," that we (the public) become very susceptible to being manipulated and gladly give them "absolute power" / corruption a la evil Empire. Not that I expect them to be that way, but I can't help but wonder why they choose a strategy that sets that up so beautifully?

righteousness vs self-righteousness

context: ottawa bus drivers are on strike (this is now week 6), severely inconveniencing ottawa residents. negotiations broke off several times; the city refused to comply with a mediator, the union refused to put the city's final offer to its members, etc. meanwhile, both sides held wildly different public relations programs: the mayor has been on the news daily nd city council is taking full page ads in the local papers, while the union is refusing to speak to media outlets that don't paint them in a neutral (if not positive) manner (side note: that ugly tactic worked with the Harper Conservatives, but the union doesn't quite have the same clout). anyway, the results of a public opinion poll were released last week, indicating something like 90% of residents agree with the city's approach to stand firm and not give in to the scheduling demands of the union. the city (especially right-wing nutsoid radio stations) now claim that gives them a clear mandate to maintain its position.

point: Besides the fact that both sides aren't negotiating in good faith and are holding the residents hostage in this debacle, it really bothers me that they are using public opinion as a weapon, and claiming "the right thing to do" on public opinion after a deliberate media campaign.

I'd like to remind them that an effective communications strategy does NOT in itself give them the moral high ground!

from hell to television

according to some ideologies, transgressors of social/moral customs (usually called "sinners") go to a place called "hell" though sometimes only after spending some time in a decision-making process ("purgatory") until a time when history (or some conventionally-accepted authority) has decided they are "good" or "bad" (called "judment day").

IMO, hell is therefore only a dark place in people`s minds where they associate memories of dead people with negative emotions (jealousy, anger, hate, contempt, resentment, etc). sometimes people dwell or even thrive on those negative emotions, and anybody who merely harbour them passively are vulnerable to being hijacked by others (kinda like a computer infected with a virus predisposing it to hacker control). if you forgive them, you let go of those negative emotions, you can focus on things that are more likely to contribute to your good health, and you ensure you cannot be taken advantage of through your emotions.

easier said than done, I know.
deep stuff; I should be charging for this. or at least write a book or run my own cable tv channel.

demographics - not fully digested yet

I haven't figured out what makes people want to have kids/not have kids. Might not make sense. Likely oversimplified. Probably not politically acceptable. Certainly not complete.

I think it has something to do with a combination oflifestyle:
--For you "haves" who have none or few kids: is it because it is inconvenient when both work and you want to give each other (and your one/few kid(s) if you have any) the best because that's what you've had/known and you want them to be able to experience it too one day?
--For you "have nots" (who seem to have more kids than the "haves" think they can afford to care for but you seem to manage anyway): Is it because hardship is all you've ever known and you see nothing wrong with raising your kids that way too?

and Social pressure and optimism/faith:
--I suspect majority of peoplesocial groups with no or few kids are ok with that because it makes it easier to control the variables in their favor of their legacy/lineage; they have bought into the "establishment"; they are (over)confident everything is fine and don't see any cause for it to change now (or ever);
--I suspect majority of peoplesocial groups with many kids are doing so partly in the hope of future generations outnumbering and taking down the dwindling but ever-ascending "elites".

Either way, I suspect our "western" ways are leading us to reproductive insufficiency. Comment/email me if you have any thoughts to share.

peeve

I'm really getting annoyed at shows and journalists that interview people on the street or callers and report what they say on some event as the "news." I want the details of the controversial event itself, with commentary from reasonably credible and informed "experts" providing pertinent context and justification.

580 CFRA ("the heartbeat of the city") (puke) is a local radio station that makes me ill. At least I'm not alone in thinking that's where the crazies gaggle. And don't anybody get me started on that idiot "News, Understood" slogan/attitude from Global.

This whole right-wing anti-elitism trend (the FOX network, Harper's Conservatives, the Sara Palin phenomenon, et al.) is making me lose respect for many segments of society that I previously considered equal, which annoys me because it effectively labels me as "elite" - I'm certainly not going to choose sides with self-appointed "real" people who want to hear the same bigoted spitup again and again and can't see that they've fallen for propaganda from power-hungry ideologists who can only truly attain absolute power if people feel good being stupid.

thoughts for 2009

Whereas:
-Support for socialism died (in most parts of the world) due to corruption and ineffectiveness, leading to non-responsive to the needs of the people; and

-Nationalism is going the same way, mired in stakeholder consultation/communication planning loops and poisoned with petty partisanship; and

-Capitalism is imploding because of the rotten core and the absence of regulatory assurance; and

-Consumerism, the punch-drunk high of unbridled environmental exploitation and nouveau-riche giddiness, is environmentally unsustainable and economically doomed;

I ask you,
What -ism do you think will drive the next generation??
(this is a serious question - the first to answer "geo pr-ism" wins a kick in the ass)

I wish you a balanced 2009.
Happy Festivus!

what's the frequency kenneth?

my mental song dial is stuck between stations right now; i can tell there are a couple of songs competing in the background noise but its too vague and broken to be discernable. kinda neat.

petition

http://causes.ca/signatures/petition?cause_id=2