Monday, December 29, 2008
On a Lighter Note
Douche-bag and Winnipeg MP, Rod Bruinooge, plans to re-open the abortion debate after 20 years of legalization. Harper says that he'll have non of it, but is this guy for real? Fundamentalists should not be allowed to run in political ridings. 
Disclaimer for the post below this one:
I don't understand anything about Marxism beyond the basics, and I only know it as a stereotype.
Unfortunately, that will not stop me from writing inflammatory posts directed at Marxists. I even plan on using the phrase "worker's paradise" somewhat incorrectly. If you have a short temper and are a Marxist, skip the next post.
-Spineless Liberal (Graham Krenz)
Unfortunately, that will not stop me from writing inflammatory posts directed at Marxists. I even plan on using the phrase "worker's paradise" somewhat incorrectly. If you have a short temper and are a Marxist, skip the next post.
-Spineless Liberal (Graham Krenz)
Why the auto union is the cause of conspiracy theories and why they're both out of their minds
I just threw up in my mouth writing that title. Anyways. I have often wondered why I care at all about cars. They aren't particularly interesting mechanically, there's no mechanism under the hood that's going to blow any minds. I don't even own a car. But for some reason I'm interested in them as objects and thus I believe I am entitled to have an opinion about the recent approval of a payout to the three largest American companies.
So far, the worst coverage I've seen of this was surprisingly on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. His first obvious mistake was comparing the Auto industry to the banking industry. While we're comparing things, why not discuss the salvation army in context with the Marine Corp.? They both have the word "army" in their vocabulary, but lets not kid ourselves by saying that "auto company" can be compared to "banking company".
Now here's why we need to save the auto industry: to get rid of the UAW. I understand the argument for unions, I understand that they do some good things, but at this stage we need to start reigning them in. Mollycoddling auto workers leads to one thing: shitty products with huge health-care premiums.
I used to work in a foundry. I worked in a factory that literally turned molten steel into finished products, and it was a shitty job. Standing in a 6-foot wide by 7 foot tall by 6 foot deep station between a furnace blazing at 1500 degrees and a ten foot tall forming machine rotating in a 10000 gallon vat of toxic oil really makes the paychecks a big deal. We were not unionized. The harder we worked and the more pieces we created the more money we made. Direct capitalism!
Now let me be blunt: The only jobs worse than mine in the auto industry are the ones that involve people doing exactly the same thing I did: forming metal. There's nothing worse.
Now here's the difference: They make 100K a year, they have full health benefits, and if they get laid off, they get paid for 3 years.
Excuse me, what? Is their labor worth more?
Unions would work if it was a unified labor union. Unions would work if they were subjective instead of operating each in their own seperate bubble. The so called "workers paradise" controlled by beneficial unions is a figment of anyones imagination and now we're suffering the consequences: shitty products, bad moral and overhead operating costs that have allowed imports and outsourcing to rape the economy and people's opinions of their country. The UAW has done more than George Bush to damage the American psyche. They have no confidence in their products, their technology or their people, because workers, tired of not getting paid to suck, banded together.
At first this was brilliant. It gave us the 5 day work week and steady paychecks and we finally got all those mafia ties we've been after, yet we still failed to think of a way to get rid of unions once they served their purpose.
There's a few things I'd like to see:
1. No unions in manufacturing and production. Things will get worse before they get better, but in the end we'll have products we're proud of.
2. Moratoriums on negotiation. I want a mandatory period of 10 years before a contract can be negotiated, or better yet, negotiation periods that occur a minimum of 2 years after a government announces a change.
Now part 2 of this post is in relation to the burgeoning world of conspiracy theories. We're so sure the government is out to get us that we re-negotiate a contract based on every rumor or political statement. People's livelihoods are being decided by arguments between arrogant union heads and selfish company heads based on what a semi-educated, melodramatic and otherwise useless to society politician said on a whim. I thought I'd use that as a segue, but I cant see any way to tie it in to what I want to say next so:
Why all of the sudden has this conspiracy theory jazz become such a huge issue? True, we've had this idea of "not everything is what it seems" for millenia, but only in the last couple decades has it started to really affect the normal person's life.
My theory is that its entirely because on confidence, and I think the auto industry is one of the major causes of this. One thing as a society that we all have in common, conspiratorial or not, is the need to move and displace. Our jobs are rarely our neighbors, and our friends and family are often somewhere distant. We need to get there. We need cars, we need buses and we need planes. The people who manufacture these objects are usually unionized heavily (and I mean heavily). The products coming out of those industries with the obvious exception of airliners, were pretty much complete garbage for 30 years. This crucial, massive and widespread part of our society was produced about people who cared for the wage, not the product. We've lost our confidence in our own ability to have a good society, and incompetent governments have only provoked an already annoyed population by claiming "you're being taken advantage of by the current government".
Well, newsflash, you're being taken advantage of by both parties. Self help books work by convincing you that a) you have something wrong with you and b) they are the only ones who can fix it.
a) You cant produce valuable merchandise or services as a society
b) We're going to make this a workers paradise so you have pride again, except products won't be important because we, as quick study marxists and lo-rent swedish socialists, don't understand the intricacies of the economy very well. We are the NDP.
Fairly familiar, non?
Anyways, in conclusion, I believe we have conspiracy theories because we are so filled with self doubt that even our elected officials are representations of our own insecurity. We are a society of isolated groups and individuals who do not trust, and instead must, MUST believe that something else is up. We are so dissilusioned with what we must see every day that we invent things, like the often thrown about "jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel" which is both incorrect and irrelevent, because steel loses 80% of its strenght at 1000 celcius, well below jet fuel burning temperature, which I believe is 3406 celcius or something. Its bait and switch, every one of them, and we're skirting the root problem:
We don't believe ourselves to be materialistically valuable as a society, and what's more, we now believe that we are idiologically valuable as a more enlightened society due to our standard of living. We are doomed.
Disclaimer: this is not directed at my fellow bloggers, it's directed at the idiot on the train last week who refused to listen to anything I had to say about the september 11 jazz, including me at one point looking up the insurance information on my phone in regards to WTC 7 and completely shutting him down. At least when I'm wrong I allow people to show me why.
So far, the worst coverage I've seen of this was surprisingly on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. His first obvious mistake was comparing the Auto industry to the banking industry. While we're comparing things, why not discuss the salvation army in context with the Marine Corp.? They both have the word "army" in their vocabulary, but lets not kid ourselves by saying that "auto company" can be compared to "banking company".
Now here's why we need to save the auto industry: to get rid of the UAW. I understand the argument for unions, I understand that they do some good things, but at this stage we need to start reigning them in. Mollycoddling auto workers leads to one thing: shitty products with huge health-care premiums.
I used to work in a foundry. I worked in a factory that literally turned molten steel into finished products, and it was a shitty job. Standing in a 6-foot wide by 7 foot tall by 6 foot deep station between a furnace blazing at 1500 degrees and a ten foot tall forming machine rotating in a 10000 gallon vat of toxic oil really makes the paychecks a big deal. We were not unionized. The harder we worked and the more pieces we created the more money we made. Direct capitalism!
Now let me be blunt: The only jobs worse than mine in the auto industry are the ones that involve people doing exactly the same thing I did: forming metal. There's nothing worse.
Now here's the difference: They make 100K a year, they have full health benefits, and if they get laid off, they get paid for 3 years.
Excuse me, what? Is their labor worth more?
Unions would work if it was a unified labor union. Unions would work if they were subjective instead of operating each in their own seperate bubble. The so called "workers paradise" controlled by beneficial unions is a figment of anyones imagination and now we're suffering the consequences: shitty products, bad moral and overhead operating costs that have allowed imports and outsourcing to rape the economy and people's opinions of their country. The UAW has done more than George Bush to damage the American psyche. They have no confidence in their products, their technology or their people, because workers, tired of not getting paid to suck, banded together.
At first this was brilliant. It gave us the 5 day work week and steady paychecks and we finally got all those mafia ties we've been after, yet we still failed to think of a way to get rid of unions once they served their purpose.
There's a few things I'd like to see:
1. No unions in manufacturing and production. Things will get worse before they get better, but in the end we'll have products we're proud of.
2. Moratoriums on negotiation. I want a mandatory period of 10 years before a contract can be negotiated, or better yet, negotiation periods that occur a minimum of 2 years after a government announces a change.
Now part 2 of this post is in relation to the burgeoning world of conspiracy theories. We're so sure the government is out to get us that we re-negotiate a contract based on every rumor or political statement. People's livelihoods are being decided by arguments between arrogant union heads and selfish company heads based on what a semi-educated, melodramatic and otherwise useless to society politician said on a whim. I thought I'd use that as a segue, but I cant see any way to tie it in to what I want to say next so:
Why all of the sudden has this conspiracy theory jazz become such a huge issue? True, we've had this idea of "not everything is what it seems" for millenia, but only in the last couple decades has it started to really affect the normal person's life.
My theory is that its entirely because on confidence, and I think the auto industry is one of the major causes of this. One thing as a society that we all have in common, conspiratorial or not, is the need to move and displace. Our jobs are rarely our neighbors, and our friends and family are often somewhere distant. We need to get there. We need cars, we need buses and we need planes. The people who manufacture these objects are usually unionized heavily (and I mean heavily). The products coming out of those industries with the obvious exception of airliners, were pretty much complete garbage for 30 years. This crucial, massive and widespread part of our society was produced about people who cared for the wage, not the product. We've lost our confidence in our own ability to have a good society, and incompetent governments have only provoked an already annoyed population by claiming "you're being taken advantage of by the current government".
Well, newsflash, you're being taken advantage of by both parties. Self help books work by convincing you that a) you have something wrong with you and b) they are the only ones who can fix it.
a) You cant produce valuable merchandise or services as a society
b) We're going to make this a workers paradise so you have pride again, except products won't be important because we, as quick study marxists and lo-rent swedish socialists, don't understand the intricacies of the economy very well. We are the NDP.
Fairly familiar, non?
Anyways, in conclusion, I believe we have conspiracy theories because we are so filled with self doubt that even our elected officials are representations of our own insecurity. We are a society of isolated groups and individuals who do not trust, and instead must, MUST believe that something else is up. We are so dissilusioned with what we must see every day that we invent things, like the often thrown about "jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel" which is both incorrect and irrelevent, because steel loses 80% of its strenght at 1000 celcius, well below jet fuel burning temperature, which I believe is 3406 celcius or something. Its bait and switch, every one of them, and we're skirting the root problem:
We don't believe ourselves to be materialistically valuable as a society, and what's more, we now believe that we are idiologically valuable as a more enlightened society due to our standard of living. We are doomed.
Disclaimer: this is not directed at my fellow bloggers, it's directed at the idiot on the train last week who refused to listen to anything I had to say about the september 11 jazz, including me at one point looking up the insurance information on my phone in regards to WTC 7 and completely shutting him down. At least when I'm wrong I allow people to show me why.
The Security State
The thing i hate about the state of politics so far in the 21st century is the extreme amount of paranoia. From the right, we have the fear of terrorism which caused two wars. and then recently we have the enormous fear of economic collapse. the right chooses to watch news that reinforces these fears, rather than allowing them to live their own lives in ignorance.
The left is paranoid about different things. They choose to be paranoid of their own government. instead of wanting to live in ignorance of the true reality, they create their own reality which is even more paranoid. they revert to a third world citizen who is unsure if the government is working in their best interests. as if capitalism could work for peoples best interests!!!!! the lefts cure is left wing parties winnning election or a revolution. but most are too afraid to do anything because they believe that we live in a security state: a further testament to how paranoid they are.
Paranoia is the perfect approach to fostering peoples political ideology. when the right is paranoid about losing their job, they will rally behind a leader who can save the economy. when the left is paranoid about their president, they will rally against him. both are constructing political ideology.
Is it possible to construct an ideology that is not indebted to paranoia? Or is fear the reason that people turn to their government? Maybe Hobbes is right and without our government wee would be even more scared.
The left is paranoid about different things. They choose to be paranoid of their own government. instead of wanting to live in ignorance of the true reality, they create their own reality which is even more paranoid. they revert to a third world citizen who is unsure if the government is working in their best interests. as if capitalism could work for peoples best interests!!!!! the lefts cure is left wing parties winnning election or a revolution. but most are too afraid to do anything because they believe that we live in a security state: a further testament to how paranoid they are.
Paranoia is the perfect approach to fostering peoples political ideology. when the right is paranoid about losing their job, they will rally behind a leader who can save the economy. when the left is paranoid about their president, they will rally against him. both are constructing political ideology.
Is it possible to construct an ideology that is not indebted to paranoia? Or is fear the reason that people turn to their government? Maybe Hobbes is right and without our government wee would be even more scared.
how to set start times in youtube videos
in the youtube embedded code, after the url you see fs=1. after fs=1 you type "&start=197". this will make the movie start at the three minute and 17 second part. that is what i have done here for this zizek movie
Criticism of the Extreme Left and the Extreme Right
Robespierre before he achieved the French revolution stated that he wanted "a revolution without having a revolution." What he meant was that he wanted to dramatically change the french system of government without being killed. Robespierre eventually achieved revolution and he was also hung.
Much like Robespierre, the left witnesses a society that they hate. George Carlin actually made a smart comment in his video when he said "why should i want to make the world a better place when i can't even fix myself?" Carlin has so many personal problems that he doesn't even want to think about the problems of the world. He jokes that left wing radicals often transfer their own dissatisfaction with themselves into their vision for a broken world. then by fixing the world they would also be fixing themselves.
Its much like my post about 'the perfect gift'. The left sees problems with the world, and they want to change those problems. But once they achieve their change they are never satisfied. they envision that saving the whales will make them happy and bring them fulfillment. but once they save the whales they will eventually transfer their disatisfaction to another cause. The night before the government announces their policy change on saving the whales, is excatly like christmas eve. and on the day the govenrment makes changes, there will be a celebration, they will go to the bar and talk about what comes next. but can they ever be fulfilled? Can the perfect cause ever be achieved.
You witness the excact opposite (and equally as misled approach) within the radical right. rather than transferring their disatisfaction with themsleves into a political vision of disatisfaction, the right denies that they are disatisfied with the world. they believe the world is perfect the way it is and doesn't need change. the extreme right are too scared to admit that there are shortcoming in the world so they cover their ears and sing themselves lullabyes that their mom used to sing them as a child. they choose leaders who promise not to change things very much and will uphold the status quo of capitalism. for these people, Stephen harper is the greatest PM in history because he's boring, doesn't change very many things, and is an economist before he is a politician.
Much like Robespierre, the left witnesses a society that they hate. George Carlin actually made a smart comment in his video when he said "why should i want to make the world a better place when i can't even fix myself?" Carlin has so many personal problems that he doesn't even want to think about the problems of the world. He jokes that left wing radicals often transfer their own dissatisfaction with themselves into their vision for a broken world. then by fixing the world they would also be fixing themselves.
Its much like my post about 'the perfect gift'. The left sees problems with the world, and they want to change those problems. But once they achieve their change they are never satisfied. they envision that saving the whales will make them happy and bring them fulfillment. but once they save the whales they will eventually transfer their disatisfaction to another cause. The night before the government announces their policy change on saving the whales, is excatly like christmas eve. and on the day the govenrment makes changes, there will be a celebration, they will go to the bar and talk about what comes next. but can they ever be fulfilled? Can the perfect cause ever be achieved.
You witness the excact opposite (and equally as misled approach) within the radical right. rather than transferring their disatisfaction with themsleves into a political vision of disatisfaction, the right denies that they are disatisfied with the world. they believe the world is perfect the way it is and doesn't need change. the extreme right are too scared to admit that there are shortcoming in the world so they cover their ears and sing themselves lullabyes that their mom used to sing them as a child. they choose leaders who promise not to change things very much and will uphold the status quo of capitalism. for these people, Stephen harper is the greatest PM in history because he's boring, doesn't change very many things, and is an economist before he is a politician.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Why Anarchists are thankful at Christmas
Another year has rolled around and the capitalist system is still in alliance with greater humanity for another holiday season. Christmas is the perfect opportunity for society to entrench capitalistic desire into the citizenry. Kids think for months on what they are going to include on their christmas lists. They realize that they must earn their present (by being nice not naughty) and they begin to attach values to all of their fall/winter actions. Should i pull susy's hair if i know it will cost me an Ipod Chrome and instead i will only get a 4 gigabyte nano? is the joy i recieve from pulling susy's hair greater than the joy i will recieve from the upgrade to an ipod chrome? If i can settle for the 4 gigabyte nano i will certainly be willing to pull susy's hair.
Kids are taught from a young age that capitalistic desires are more important than "naughty" desires. The kid suppresses his naughty desires for the reward of capitalistic possessions. eventually, all evil desires of the human being are replaced by capitalistic desires. It is interesting that capitalism at xmas suppresses the naughty desires and not the good desires. have we not just proven that capitalstic desire is evil because it replaces the naughty desires instead of the nice desires?
Not only does xmas allow kids to place a material goods based value on all actions (ie. act nice and get an ipod chrome), but it allows them to envision a better life for themselves that is actually fictitious. Kids write their xmas lists, dreaming of the future and how different their life will be with their christmas presents. Life will be fulffilling and happy once i get batman the dark night on blu ray for xmas. unfortunately, the capitalistic desire can never be completely fullfilled. We approach the fulfillment of our capitalistic desire on christmas eve (thats when our fulffillment reaches its pinnacle because we still have not recieved the present and we are envisioning our soon-to-be enhanced lives). However, christmas morning proves very anti-climatic. we get the present, and we pretend to be surprised when we open the present,but as soon as we open the box we realize that this new material good has not completely fulfilled our desire like we initially thought it would. we are happy that we got the gift and gracious to the person that bought us our present. But our capitalistic desire is not fulffiled, we still desire more (we still desire the ideal present that will be completely fulfilling). The best proof of this is how our capitalistic desire does not end on chritmas. In fact, we are so starved to fulfill the desire even more that we go shopping on boxing day as well. why on earth does the most spending all year occur on the day after chistmas? shouldn't xmas have been fulfilling enough to avoid extreme capitalistic desire the very next day? The truth is, we are so depressed about not being able to fulfill our capitalistic desire, that we spend even more the next day. Like the alchoholic who realizes that his drinking is a problem, but instead of facing his problem he attempts to drink away all of his grievances. boxing day spending is the worst type of spending of all, because it occurs in the wake of our own emptiness.
the ideal present would be a present that is so fulfilling that it ends capitalistic desire to purchase more presents. a present so good that it stops us envisioning a better future with new gifts for a while. But, the ideal present is just like santa clause... it doesn't exist. We can never achieve compete fulfillment.
Kids are taught from a young age that capitalistic desires are more important than "naughty" desires. The kid suppresses his naughty desires for the reward of capitalistic possessions. eventually, all evil desires of the human being are replaced by capitalistic desires. It is interesting that capitalism at xmas suppresses the naughty desires and not the good desires. have we not just proven that capitalstic desire is evil because it replaces the naughty desires instead of the nice desires?
Not only does xmas allow kids to place a material goods based value on all actions (ie. act nice and get an ipod chrome), but it allows them to envision a better life for themselves that is actually fictitious. Kids write their xmas lists, dreaming of the future and how different their life will be with their christmas presents. Life will be fulffilling and happy once i get batman the dark night on blu ray for xmas. unfortunately, the capitalistic desire can never be completely fullfilled. We approach the fulfillment of our capitalistic desire on christmas eve (thats when our fulffillment reaches its pinnacle because we still have not recieved the present and we are envisioning our soon-to-be enhanced lives). However, christmas morning proves very anti-climatic. we get the present, and we pretend to be surprised when we open the present,but as soon as we open the box we realize that this new material good has not completely fulfilled our desire like we initially thought it would. we are happy that we got the gift and gracious to the person that bought us our present. But our capitalistic desire is not fulffiled, we still desire more (we still desire the ideal present that will be completely fulfilling). The best proof of this is how our capitalistic desire does not end on chritmas. In fact, we are so starved to fulfill the desire even more that we go shopping on boxing day as well. why on earth does the most spending all year occur on the day after chistmas? shouldn't xmas have been fulfilling enough to avoid extreme capitalistic desire the very next day? The truth is, we are so depressed about not being able to fulfill our capitalistic desire, that we spend even more the next day. Like the alchoholic who realizes that his drinking is a problem, but instead of facing his problem he attempts to drink away all of his grievances. boxing day spending is the worst type of spending of all, because it occurs in the wake of our own emptiness.
the ideal present would be a present that is so fulfilling that it ends capitalistic desire to purchase more presents. a present so good that it stops us envisioning a better future with new gifts for a while. But, the ideal present is just like santa clause... it doesn't exist. We can never achieve compete fulfillment.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Canada is great?
Someone told me today that Canada was the best country to live in on earth. I agree. But I reject the concept of the state/country. Indeed Canada is a great place to live; but, we are second in the world for the amount of waste we produce per person, which is not sustainable. Furthermore, Canada relies in part on the large scale exploitation and export of natural resources in order to provide enough jobs and GDP to fund our high standard of living. In addition, we accept a large number of immigrants – which is fine- in part to maintain population growth/economic growth and to maintain some semblance of a tax base in order to fund our generous welfare state. However, when I walk down the street the majority of conversions are not in French of English: our two official languages. Granted, it's not illegal to speak in a language of your choosing, but I personally don't feel comfortable in my own country/city when I can't understand what most people are saying to each other. It's not that I don't trust people; it's that I feel alienated or excluded when it happens and it happens on a regular basis. Next, Canada's idea of 'multiculturalism' is a freedom that many enjoy; however the problem could be a gradual or rapid dilution of what it means to be a citizen. I argue that we are losing social cohesion as a result of growing pains – both demographic and economic; too much rapid economic development and rapid population growth scarcely allows time for 'society' to adjust. Furthermore, in the state's efforts to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people, we allow many freedoms: freedom of speech, religious belief, mobility, to name a few, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. My main issue is with the last right - security of the person. If we are raping the land at the current rate and the emissions and exhaust travel through the air, and the chemical byproducts travel through the waterways and water tables, is it any wonder there is an increase in cancer, asthma and numerous birth defects? These ailment's directly and indirectly affect people's health, a phenomena that is clearly related to the security of the person. The government is supposed to guarantee this right and yet the pass the policies that allow development to degrade our health with little accountability because the effects of development are spread thin and hard to track and locate. This is unacceptable. But – in closing – it is difficult to mobilize in this country because the system of federalism, whereby power is divided between each province and territory and the federal government in Ottawa, makes it very difficult for geographically dispersed and affected populations, to be successful in seeking and gaining positive change. Federalism is designed to further the interests of developers and business to the detriment of the environment and people's health. Thus, although Canada is currently the best country to live in, we are destroying the country at a fast and unsustainable rate and people's health and general wellbeing is currently being compromised on a daily and increasing basis.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
This is why I am glad I joined the blog this year
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.htmlTuesday, December 16, 2008
two different thoughts: George Bush and the Barry Mantelope Recipe to Seduce Women
bush's approval rating started out pretty good. september 11th helped him out big time. most US presidents are hated by the end of their term. clinton was one of the few American presidents to still be liked when he left office, and i dont think he was over 50 percent. Americans love to build up their politicians and then tear them down via media. It happens in the celebrity world as well aka Tom cruise and britney spears (unfortunaly i think its becoming fashionable to like tom cruise again). a can obama still be liked on his way out of office or has the media built him up as the next messiah just so they can tear him down? nyways, i hope that was some food for thought.
I've been thinking a lot lately about how to seduce political science girls. Many of the girls at uvic read a lot of feminist material. Unfortunately, the feminist debates around abortion and other things are not my cup of tea. However, Judith Butler is a real cool feminist political theorist that talks about everything. chicks love her and reading her would help spark some very interesting first date conversations. If you're going to bring a political science girl home, make sure to have some judith butler on your bookshelf next to your copy of bikini babes from space. heres a link to butlers take on obama:
http://angrywhitekid.blogs.com/weblog/2008/11/uncritical-exuberance-judith-butlers-take-on-obama.html
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A Response to Pillon
I thought this deserved its own post rather than a small comment. I thought Pillon's account of the coalition crisis was very good. his argument surrounds the fact that the coalition is not doing anything unconstitutional. it is probably the most intellectual argument that i have heard from the left yet. he takes a very ironical approach to the scare tactics employed by Harper. Harper's scare tactics stem from making the coaliton seem "separatist", "marxist", "undemocratic". It gets the right scared of the left.
By suggesting democratic values are at stake, Harper is using the oldest liberal trick in the book. trying to cling onto power by telling canadians the fundamentals of democracy will be ruined if he does not hang onto power. this is the same tactic used by American Liberals when they suggested that we shoul have invaded Iraq because the freedom and equality of Iraqi citizens are at stake.
Harpers fear tactics are a response to the Liberals trying to take away his power. But Pillon's argument is very dangerous because it falls into even more horrific scare tactics then those invoked by harper. Heres Pilon's ultimate irony:
"I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting we may be heading for violence. But the actions of this Prime Minster are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule. Harper is ramping up the heat of his rhetoric by invoking democracy and patriotism and insinuating that his opponents are attacking our democracy and that they are risking the unity of the country for their own gain."
Pillon sees harpers desperate attempt to cling onto power as a potential cause of mob rule. Thus upping the scariness of "the other" by another notch. I don't think Pillon escaped the rehtoric that he criticizes harper for using. Rather he is bringing the rhetoric to a new level that will be very advantageous for the support of the coalition.
However, now that Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberals i think the coalition is over. Ignatieff will likely wait until another election in a couple years, and compromise with harper in janauary making him look like a cooperative politician. canadians are unfamiliar with iggy and he needs some face time as an opposition leader before winning an election. afterall, the guy has lived in america for the past 20 years of his life. he was even one of those liberals that supported iraq that i mentioned earlier, and criticized chretien big time for not invading (now im caught up in right wing rhetoric). the coalition crisis will go down in the history book as a small win for the liberal party that made the conservatives look very desparate. Dion was the ultimate pawn for the liberal party after he lost the election for the liberals. so he does something very controversial that ends up being a win-win situation for the libs! If it backfires and canadians didn't support the coalition then dion could take the fall. and if it works and you get power, then liberals have the PM. Harper played the only card he could play to hold onto power: prorogue. its a win win for the liberal party and this could be the start of a trend to revitalize the liberal party. if anyone can do it it will be ignatieff... hes a trudeau type.
By suggesting democratic values are at stake, Harper is using the oldest liberal trick in the book. trying to cling onto power by telling canadians the fundamentals of democracy will be ruined if he does not hang onto power. this is the same tactic used by American Liberals when they suggested that we shoul have invaded Iraq because the freedom and equality of Iraqi citizens are at stake.
Harpers fear tactics are a response to the Liberals trying to take away his power. But Pillon's argument is very dangerous because it falls into even more horrific scare tactics then those invoked by harper. Heres Pilon's ultimate irony:
"I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting we may be heading for violence. But the actions of this Prime Minster are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule. Harper is ramping up the heat of his rhetoric by invoking democracy and patriotism and insinuating that his opponents are attacking our democracy and that they are risking the unity of the country for their own gain."
Pillon sees harpers desperate attempt to cling onto power as a potential cause of mob rule. Thus upping the scariness of "the other" by another notch. I don't think Pillon escaped the rehtoric that he criticizes harper for using. Rather he is bringing the rhetoric to a new level that will be very advantageous for the support of the coalition.
However, now that Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberals i think the coalition is over. Ignatieff will likely wait until another election in a couple years, and compromise with harper in janauary making him look like a cooperative politician. canadians are unfamiliar with iggy and he needs some face time as an opposition leader before winning an election. afterall, the guy has lived in america for the past 20 years of his life. he was even one of those liberals that supported iraq that i mentioned earlier, and criticized chretien big time for not invading (now im caught up in right wing rhetoric). the coalition crisis will go down in the history book as a small win for the liberal party that made the conservatives look very desparate. Dion was the ultimate pawn for the liberal party after he lost the election for the liberals. so he does something very controversial that ends up being a win-win situation for the libs! If it backfires and canadians didn't support the coalition then dion could take the fall. and if it works and you get power, then liberals have the PM. Harper played the only card he could play to hold onto power: prorogue. its a win win for the liberal party and this could be the start of a trend to revitalize the liberal party. if anyone can do it it will be ignatieff... hes a trudeau type.
REVIEW OF THE NEW X FILES MOVIE
spoiler alert (but its not worth seeing anyway)
The movie is a terrible movie for the revolution. It works with the very same principles of the bond movie, except instead of encouraging the viewer to follow the truth at all costs like bond did, this movie suggests there is no point in following the truth. the protaganist fox Mulder (played by duchovny) has been plagued by one desire his entire life: to find his kidnapped sister. his sister disappeared when he was just a child, but he swears it was aliens that did it. The tv show followed him as an FBI agent solvin paranormal investigations that would lead him to his sister.
the movie starts off with a pastor that is having visions of disappearing girls. Fox Mulder is called in to deal with the paranormal side of things. mulder thinks this case might be able to lead him to his sister because it involves disappearing women. He follows the Christian pastor around, trying to have more visions that could explain how these girls are disappearing. mulders partner skully (the scientifical perspective) urges him not to follow through on this case. she feels mulder is still trying to solve his sisters case when he should have put it behind him years ago. he refuses to give up and continues to follow the visions of the pastor.
Eventually we find out that the pastor is having visions from the perspective of a man that the pastor sexually assaulted at a catholic school. this man that was sexually assaulted as a boy, is now kidnapping women to steal their body parts and add them to himself to cure his cancer and a debilatating injury that he suffered at the hands of a garden ho yielding kidnapee. eventually both the pastor and the kidnapper die of lung cancer on the same night. the case is solved concerning the missing women, but mulder does not come any close to finding his sister.
Like usual, Mulder is asked to follow the paranormal in the face of his disapproving peers. he refuses to give up on his sister no matter how many times skully asks him to stop. skully even threatens to withold sex and this does not phase mulder. but in the end what is his reward? not his initial desire of finding his sister. instead he gives up on his initial desire and goes to fiji to make sweet sweet love to skully in a little outrigger canoe.. the movie suggests that some searches for truth are worth abandonding in favour of consolation prizes.
In the bond movie, bond had one ultimate motivation behind his killing spree: finding out whether his lover actually loved him. he succeeded in doing this even though he gave up on getting revenge on mr white. For Mulder it is the other way around. He gives up on his initial desire and instead settles for a secondary desire (skully). che guevera would be turning over in his grave if he saw this movie.
The movie is a terrible movie for the revolution. It works with the very same principles of the bond movie, except instead of encouraging the viewer to follow the truth at all costs like bond did, this movie suggests there is no point in following the truth. the protaganist fox Mulder (played by duchovny) has been plagued by one desire his entire life: to find his kidnapped sister. his sister disappeared when he was just a child, but he swears it was aliens that did it. The tv show followed him as an FBI agent solvin paranormal investigations that would lead him to his sister.
the movie starts off with a pastor that is having visions of disappearing girls. Fox Mulder is called in to deal with the paranormal side of things. mulder thinks this case might be able to lead him to his sister because it involves disappearing women. He follows the Christian pastor around, trying to have more visions that could explain how these girls are disappearing. mulders partner skully (the scientifical perspective) urges him not to follow through on this case. she feels mulder is still trying to solve his sisters case when he should have put it behind him years ago. he refuses to give up and continues to follow the visions of the pastor.
Eventually we find out that the pastor is having visions from the perspective of a man that the pastor sexually assaulted at a catholic school. this man that was sexually assaulted as a boy, is now kidnapping women to steal their body parts and add them to himself to cure his cancer and a debilatating injury that he suffered at the hands of a garden ho yielding kidnapee. eventually both the pastor and the kidnapper die of lung cancer on the same night. the case is solved concerning the missing women, but mulder does not come any close to finding his sister.
Like usual, Mulder is asked to follow the paranormal in the face of his disapproving peers. he refuses to give up on his sister no matter how many times skully asks him to stop. skully even threatens to withold sex and this does not phase mulder. but in the end what is his reward? not his initial desire of finding his sister. instead he gives up on his initial desire and goes to fiji to make sweet sweet love to skully in a little outrigger canoe.. the movie suggests that some searches for truth are worth abandonding in favour of consolation prizes.
In the bond movie, bond had one ultimate motivation behind his killing spree: finding out whether his lover actually loved him. he succeeded in doing this even though he gave up on getting revenge on mr white. For Mulder it is the other way around. He gives up on his initial desire and instead settles for a secondary desire (skully). che guevera would be turning over in his grave if he saw this movie.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Accountability
Advocate is right. Harper is confusing representative government with responsible government. the coalition actually understands responsible government according to the constition.
Responsiblity is a simulacrum to accountability. the prime minister must remain accountable/resonsible to the house, by making sure that the house has confidence in him. the liberal government says they don't have confidence in harper and therefore harper is not responsible. why does the liberal government not have confidence in harper? not sure yet.
how is it possible to be responsible when you need the confidence of the house of commons as a presumption to being responsible? and those people that you need to have confidence in you are the same people that want to grasp power away from you. responsibilty and confidence are directly related to each other, and this is unfortanate to the efficeiency of the canadian system.
ps) when you write a post, there is a box above the "save now" icon where you can enter words that will make the posts appear on google.
Responsiblity is a simulacrum to accountability. the prime minister must remain accountable/resonsible to the house, by making sure that the house has confidence in him. the liberal government says they don't have confidence in harper and therefore harper is not responsible. why does the liberal government not have confidence in harper? not sure yet.
how is it possible to be responsible when you need the confidence of the house of commons as a presumption to being responsible? and those people that you need to have confidence in you are the same people that want to grasp power away from you. responsibilty and confidence are directly related to each other, and this is unfortanate to the efficeiency of the canadian system.
ps) when you write a post, there is a box above the "save now" icon where you can enter words that will make the posts appear on google.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Coalition Crisis
I will try my hardest not to mention anything concrete about political news in Canada on this blog, so don't be scared of the title. The media went crazy over the coalition and there was a big back and forth of support for the Coalition and the Conservatives in the media. I found CBC started out very much in favour of the conservative position, but then loosened its grip as the days past. The ultimate question to be asked from this crisis, is "what is responsible government?"
(im making these quote up myself, but they are very accurate...no doubt
Harper: "responsible government is getting the most votes in the election... its a parliamentary convention."
Dion: "Responsible governmet is having the support of the house of commons... its actually in the constitution...or maybe its not i forget.
The next big debate will surround responsible government. why on earth is 'responsibility' the word we use? Resp gov has been the most important value of the Canadian parliament since 1867. But what does responsibility mean? The Canadian government thinks responsibility means having the support of other people. From the eyes of the Canadian parliament, responsibility stems from ones ability to hang onto power (or grasp power) with the support of others. Other people need to have confidence in you (thats why they call it a confidence motion). But why does responsibility necessarilly mean that other people believe you? In order to be a responsible parent, must i force my children to believe that i am responsible, that i can be a good parent throughout their childhood. If other people believe that i am an unresponsible parent, they can rat me out to Child services and take my kid away. Does responsibility have to stem from 'the other' having confidence in you. or could responsibility stem from having confidence in yourself. Was Brian Mulroney being irresonsible when he introduced the GST even though all of Canadians hate it. Or were CAnadians being irresponsible for not wanting to help the economy by being taxed more?
If the Canadian government and the institutions of Canada are framed in a way that teaches Canadians values, then i think they are misteaching us the value of responsibility. The current capabilities that the Canadian media has at their disposal, does not allow the news to capture a valuable understanding of 'responsibility'. I think now is the perfect time to rethink what responsibility is, and how our government can offer it to us.
(im making these quote up myself, but they are very accurate...no doubt
Harper: "responsible government is getting the most votes in the election... its a parliamentary convention."
Dion: "Responsible governmet is having the support of the house of commons... its actually in the constitution...or maybe its not i forget.
The next big debate will surround responsible government. why on earth is 'responsibility' the word we use? Resp gov has been the most important value of the Canadian parliament since 1867. But what does responsibility mean? The Canadian government thinks responsibility means having the support of other people. From the eyes of the Canadian parliament, responsibility stems from ones ability to hang onto power (or grasp power) with the support of others. Other people need to have confidence in you (thats why they call it a confidence motion). But why does responsibility necessarilly mean that other people believe you? In order to be a responsible parent, must i force my children to believe that i am responsible, that i can be a good parent throughout their childhood. If other people believe that i am an unresponsible parent, they can rat me out to Child services and take my kid away. Does responsibility have to stem from 'the other' having confidence in you. or could responsibility stem from having confidence in yourself. Was Brian Mulroney being irresonsible when he introduced the GST even though all of Canadians hate it. Or were CAnadians being irresponsible for not wanting to help the economy by being taxed more?
If the Canadian government and the institutions of Canada are framed in a way that teaches Canadians values, then i think they are misteaching us the value of responsibility. The current capabilities that the Canadian media has at their disposal, does not allow the news to capture a valuable understanding of 'responsibility'. I think now is the perfect time to rethink what responsibility is, and how our government can offer it to us.
Friday, December 5, 2008
A case for apathy
Denying that humanity is contributing to global warming is pretty ridiculous at this point. There's quite a bit of an evidence gap and deniers spend more time denying than bringing forth actual proof. It's like debating creationists at this point.
But assuming what we do at this point will have any great effect is probably wrong. Imagine the earth's climate as a giant metaphorical balloon. putting air in and taking air out will return the balloon to its original size, but it's not instant. The cause effect equation is not simple, it's a complicated equation
Ya. Enjoy Adam. Anyways, pressure change isn't instant, neither is heat transfer or gas exchange or anything like that.
The current hypothesis is that if we quit outputting carbon into the atmosphere today, the environment wouldn't have noticeable decrease for hundreds of years. Yikes. Anyways I just heard this today I'll post a more coherent and hopefully more optimistic conclusion when I'm less lazy.
But assuming what we do at this point will have any great effect is probably wrong. Imagine the earth's climate as a giant metaphorical balloon. putting air in and taking air out will return the balloon to its original size, but it's not instant. The cause effect equation is not simple, it's a complicated equation
Ya. Enjoy Adam. Anyways, pressure change isn't instant, neither is heat transfer or gas exchange or anything like that.
The current hypothesis is that if we quit outputting carbon into the atmosphere today, the environment wouldn't have noticeable decrease for hundreds of years. Yikes. Anyways I just heard this today I'll post a more coherent and hopefully more optimistic conclusion when I'm less lazy.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
A word about consumption
The world is filled with too much
But not enough
We separate ourselves from nature
But that’s how you lose touch
Impulsive purchases
But can we reimburse the soil?
We hurt the future’s kids
In a world driven by oil
Like the Romans going down
See the omens all around
Consumerism culture
Will be our sepulcher
Dependent on consumption
What legitimacy?
One needs to find the gumption
To oppose explicitly
Not this, not me
But sustainability
We can’t just plant a tree
How many people disagree?
Not just a choice between the isms
Paths are fractured like a prism
Be the change you wish to see
Change starts with a vision
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Review of the New Bond Movie
Fighting for personal justice: Its represented in the movie poster where bond is using the AK47 as his 'weapon of choice' instead of the MI6 assigned Walther PPK and lets the viewer know that bond will going renegade if you watch this movie! Bond is typically an instrument of the state, but in this movie he fights a battle for personal reasons in the face of opposing American and British Itelligence Services. It goes to show how "revenge" and"truth" must be won by the heroe with the most virtu. Bond is sumultaneously fighting a battle where he is extracting revenge for his lovers death, while attempting to discover if his lover truly loved him. If he gives into the demands of his boss (the british government) he'll never know the truth. The movie asks the viewer to fight for truth in the face of one's own authorities. It is an excellent movie for the revolution. Viva la revolution!
Continuation on the last post
I was going to discuss the viability of ecological terrorism, but what was represented in the movie was not terrorism. The goal of the perpetrators was not to frighten or demoralize, it was to gain money.
Let me first state that I am an atheist. I am probably the most atheist atheist you will ever meet. Now then.
So lets talk about morals, and religion. Are they mutually exclusive? Of course they are, shut your god damn mouth, they are and always will be exclusive. I will fight to the death for that belief, that morals do not have to be religious. But I'd be wrong. We've made them mutually dependent, and we've completely screwed ourselves. Here's the timeline I believe we've been living in.
Prehistory. Morals are defined by religion. Up until this point morals were an abstract idea only enforceable by brute force. A large organization is required to uphold these morals, or we have anarchism.
I realize my audience here. I've been reading the posts on this site closely. I can't tell if you're all anarchists or just think you are, but I will come out and openly say that anarchism is as likely as communism to work, ie. not at all. Anarchism cant work for the same reason unorganized farming cant work. Food production dwindles, people die. The same thing happens without organization of society, laws and rules. Production fails, the economy comes unglued. People can no longer feed their families. Worse, pretend we survive this turbulent transition. Pretend (and I mean pretend, because it will never happen) that we have become an anarchist society. We're back at square one. Does anyone actually believe that barter and helping your neighbor works? What the hell do you think we did BEFORE government? Picked flowers? We brutally killed and tortured each other.
Here's my theory on government: it crystallizes. A lot of otherwise intelligent people think the universe is organized by an outside force. I believe it organizes itself through chemical and other scientific means, but I do not believe outward input is required. A self evident form of this is bees. Who decided a hexagon was the best shape for a cell? God? No. Each bee in each hive slowly but surely evolved a way to work with this shape. There is no organization. This is chaos theory at its most practical. The behavior that causes these shapes, just like salt forming a crystal, grew from otherwise "nothingness" by additive evolution. Each element piled on another element until a general 'hive' idea was formed. They just know how to be efficient. Efficiency creates itself.
A government is the most efficient way to keep people happy, to keep them productive. You can say what you want about oppression, but we have never been as free as we are now, and we have never been as efficient as we are now. We will get better.
Time-line step number 2. We have morals. Unfortunately, the group that could create enough hysteria and fear to crystallize was religion. Religion also crystallizes. You put enough humans together, fear of the unknown will create doubt in themselves. They will seek alternatives, and religion almost always fills the void. Religion becomes at this stage both hammer and sickle. It becomes the law and it becomes the provider. It crystallizes into a hive of humanity, feeding off fear. But we have morals. We have superficial morals that can be bent, but they are literally written in stone (after a few millenia) and that leads us to stage three.
Step three: we question religion. How can any person not? When science became a unified movement towards knowledge (I would love to say it was Darwin, but my hunch says it first became really important and free from religion in either early, early Greece or more likely Mesopotamia). That was the root. Obviously freedom from religion has not occured yet, and it never will. Freedom from religion is a false dichotomy. There is a spectrum of freedom from religion, right now I'd say we're at about 60%.
Now we're at this stage where we realize we've let a group of people run our lives. At one point in the middle ages it's safe to say they were an influence in every single aspect of our lives, and in many middle eastern countries I'd be surprised if someone contradicted me. So is this bad? Is religion inherently bad? I don't think anyone believes that. I can make a fairly short list of reasons I believe religion is necessary.
1. A large group of strong, powerful and charismatic people are initially needed to reform the moral system of society. Religious founders are righteous people who generally want to help people, so more the better.
2. Without a large unified group that says "don't question us" we wouldn't know we had to question them. We don't realize we dont like living in our parents house until we start questioning their rules.
3. They set societies up, they get farming working. This is not to say that an atheist society cant sort this stuff out, but historically they havent.
Now the last step (my fingers hurt from typing so I'm starting to trail off) is the point where we don't have to think about religion any more. It hasn't stopped existing, it has simply stopped mattering. As long as we have zero, AND I MEAN ZERO openly atheist politicians in the leading countries of the world, I don't see this happening.
Sounds sweet right? Step four, the last step, is where society will fail. People are starting to really get behind this anarchism bullshit. People HATE the police. I can't stand them, not because of what they are, but because they are simply annoying. Some people hate them for enforcing morals, they see them as a symbol of the old world. They want to brush them aside, get rid of them, live free and peacefully like hippies thought they were (the idea that hippies were free living is at minimum the most retarded thing anyones ever thought). Bad move. Bad, bad move.
The anti-religious people are playing a dangerous game. They have finally succeeded in lumping morals in with religion, and forgetting they're doing so. They're fighting religion, as they should, but they're fighting the upstanding moral values they created as well. They're questioning some very important societal rules that to be honest, I have no desire to live without. Communal living leads to theft. Polygamy leads to rape, murder and for some reason, sexual deviency. I don't believe this is a fact of life, but again, history says otherwise.
So what if the anarchists win, what if they destroy this religiously saturated society? Reform? Ha! We start over. The steps I've outlined, are in my opinion, set in stone. Anarchy leads to religion, which leads to atheism, which leads people to question religion, which leads to anarchy, which leads to religion and so on.
Again, I don't believe this, but history has taught us otherwise.
Let me first state that I am an atheist. I am probably the most atheist atheist you will ever meet. Now then.
So lets talk about morals, and religion. Are they mutually exclusive? Of course they are, shut your god damn mouth, they are and always will be exclusive. I will fight to the death for that belief, that morals do not have to be religious. But I'd be wrong. We've made them mutually dependent, and we've completely screwed ourselves. Here's the timeline I believe we've been living in.
Prehistory. Morals are defined by religion. Up until this point morals were an abstract idea only enforceable by brute force. A large organization is required to uphold these morals, or we have anarchism.
I realize my audience here. I've been reading the posts on this site closely. I can't tell if you're all anarchists or just think you are, but I will come out and openly say that anarchism is as likely as communism to work, ie. not at all. Anarchism cant work for the same reason unorganized farming cant work. Food production dwindles, people die. The same thing happens without organization of society, laws and rules. Production fails, the economy comes unglued. People can no longer feed their families. Worse, pretend we survive this turbulent transition. Pretend (and I mean pretend, because it will never happen) that we have become an anarchist society. We're back at square one. Does anyone actually believe that barter and helping your neighbor works? What the hell do you think we did BEFORE government? Picked flowers? We brutally killed and tortured each other.
Here's my theory on government: it crystallizes. A lot of otherwise intelligent people think the universe is organized by an outside force. I believe it organizes itself through chemical and other scientific means, but I do not believe outward input is required. A self evident form of this is bees. Who decided a hexagon was the best shape for a cell? God? No. Each bee in each hive slowly but surely evolved a way to work with this shape. There is no organization. This is chaos theory at its most practical. The behavior that causes these shapes, just like salt forming a crystal, grew from otherwise "nothingness" by additive evolution. Each element piled on another element until a general 'hive' idea was formed. They just know how to be efficient. Efficiency creates itself.
A government is the most efficient way to keep people happy, to keep them productive. You can say what you want about oppression, but we have never been as free as we are now, and we have never been as efficient as we are now. We will get better.
Time-line step number 2. We have morals. Unfortunately, the group that could create enough hysteria and fear to crystallize was religion. Religion also crystallizes. You put enough humans together, fear of the unknown will create doubt in themselves. They will seek alternatives, and religion almost always fills the void. Religion becomes at this stage both hammer and sickle. It becomes the law and it becomes the provider. It crystallizes into a hive of humanity, feeding off fear. But we have morals. We have superficial morals that can be bent, but they are literally written in stone (after a few millenia) and that leads us to stage three.
Step three: we question religion. How can any person not? When science became a unified movement towards knowledge (I would love to say it was Darwin, but my hunch says it first became really important and free from religion in either early, early Greece or more likely Mesopotamia). That was the root. Obviously freedom from religion has not occured yet, and it never will. Freedom from religion is a false dichotomy. There is a spectrum of freedom from religion, right now I'd say we're at about 60%.
Now we're at this stage where we realize we've let a group of people run our lives. At one point in the middle ages it's safe to say they were an influence in every single aspect of our lives, and in many middle eastern countries I'd be surprised if someone contradicted me. So is this bad? Is religion inherently bad? I don't think anyone believes that. I can make a fairly short list of reasons I believe religion is necessary.
1. A large group of strong, powerful and charismatic people are initially needed to reform the moral system of society. Religious founders are righteous people who generally want to help people, so more the better.
2. Without a large unified group that says "don't question us" we wouldn't know we had to question them. We don't realize we dont like living in our parents house until we start questioning their rules.
3. They set societies up, they get farming working. This is not to say that an atheist society cant sort this stuff out, but historically they havent.
Now the last step (my fingers hurt from typing so I'm starting to trail off) is the point where we don't have to think about religion any more. It hasn't stopped existing, it has simply stopped mattering. As long as we have zero, AND I MEAN ZERO openly atheist politicians in the leading countries of the world, I don't see this happening.
Sounds sweet right? Step four, the last step, is where society will fail. People are starting to really get behind this anarchism bullshit. People HATE the police. I can't stand them, not because of what they are, but because they are simply annoying. Some people hate them for enforcing morals, they see them as a symbol of the old world. They want to brush them aside, get rid of them, live free and peacefully like hippies thought they were (the idea that hippies were free living is at minimum the most retarded thing anyones ever thought). Bad move. Bad, bad move.
The anti-religious people are playing a dangerous game. They have finally succeeded in lumping morals in with religion, and forgetting they're doing so. They're fighting religion, as they should, but they're fighting the upstanding moral values they created as well. They're questioning some very important societal rules that to be honest, I have no desire to live without. Communal living leads to theft. Polygamy leads to rape, murder and for some reason, sexual deviency. I don't believe this is a fact of life, but again, history says otherwise.
So what if the anarchists win, what if they destroy this religiously saturated society? Reform? Ha! We start over. The steps I've outlined, are in my opinion, set in stone. Anarchy leads to religion, which leads to atheism, which leads people to question religion, which leads to anarchy, which leads to religion and so on.
Again, I don't believe this, but history has taught us otherwise.
Quantum of Solace made very little economic sense
I don't understand it. By stockpiling the water for an entire country, an evil fake environmentalist plans to profit off the sales of utilities to the Bolivian government. A government, I may add, that has fuck all for cash anyway. A country, I may add, that is harshly divided (like many South American countries) between Government/military and poor traditional tribesman.
So what the fuck was the plan here? Charge more for water, ya I get it. Does anyone think this would go unnoticed? I mean blocking underground rivers and whatever is fine in the short run, but I seriously doubt that that one giant underground river feeds Boliva exclusively. Ya, I get it, Quantum is some big huge organization that controls practically every government in South America. Wait. So basically the plan here is to charge... for water... a human necessity... to a continent.
For some reason I don't see that going over well. What happens when people are dying and cant AFFORD to pay the ridiculous prices? I mean this is, at best, the worlds shortest sighted scheme for domination. People get dehydrated and die in a teeny tiny amount of time, which means this brilliant scheme will dry up (laugh track) so fast that the enormous cost of DAMMING A SERIES OF UNDERGROUND RIVERS will completely bankrupt this collection of well dressed dipshits.
All in all though this movie had better just be the mediocre chapter between two very good action-thrillers. And get rid of this annoying camera-shaking fight scenes. It worked for Matt Damon, but its getting old.
If you want to see a movie that gets it right, watch this clip, it's from a movie called "Old Boy" and you will agree with me when I say:
The directors of American movies have no fucking idea how to represent the brutality of violence actually found in their subject matter. They are ignorant pansies who think this gritty camera shaking is a replica for actual story telling and clever cinematography. Shape up.
So what the fuck was the plan here? Charge more for water, ya I get it. Does anyone think this would go unnoticed? I mean blocking underground rivers and whatever is fine in the short run, but I seriously doubt that that one giant underground river feeds Boliva exclusively. Ya, I get it, Quantum is some big huge organization that controls practically every government in South America. Wait. So basically the plan here is to charge... for water... a human necessity... to a continent.
For some reason I don't see that going over well. What happens when people are dying and cant AFFORD to pay the ridiculous prices? I mean this is, at best, the worlds shortest sighted scheme for domination. People get dehydrated and die in a teeny tiny amount of time, which means this brilliant scheme will dry up (laugh track) so fast that the enormous cost of DAMMING A SERIES OF UNDERGROUND RIVERS will completely bankrupt this collection of well dressed dipshits.
All in all though this movie had better just be the mediocre chapter between two very good action-thrillers. And get rid of this annoying camera-shaking fight scenes. It worked for Matt Damon, but its getting old.
If you want to see a movie that gets it right, watch this clip, it's from a movie called "Old Boy" and you will agree with me when I say:
The directors of American movies have no fucking idea how to represent the brutality of violence actually found in their subject matter. They are ignorant pansies who think this gritty camera shaking is a replica for actual story telling and clever cinematography. Shape up.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Answer: A device that will change how politics function
Question: What is a space elevator?
Let me explain. Space elevators are a device that connects the ground, literally, to space... via a cable. This was proposed in the late 19th century and has since been fodder for science fiction. Arthur C. Clarke is famous for making the device a pivotal issue and practically a character in several of his books. Why the fascination, you might ask? Well before I answer that, here's some scientific context.
A space elevator consists of three main components. A tether, an anchor, and a carriage system. The anchor consists of an orbiting satellite that (at least, as far as I can figure) will keep the cable tensioned through centripetal (not centrifugal, which is not the correct term) and allow climbers (or gondolas) to travel up the tether (but probably not down).
Probably not down, you say? Confused by the many brackets in the last paragraph? Well most people figure that the carriages used to thicken the cable (think weaving robots) will be most efficient if used to build up the counterweight at the end of the rope, and "down" will come a lot later, probably not until we start sending people.
How cool! But it gets more fantastic. They want to power the cars by either
a) Shooting lasers at them. Seriously.
b) Using the SUPERCONDUCTIVITYof the CARBON NANOTUBE structure of a second, parallel cable. This would require building two cables. Out of motherfucking carbon nanotubes.
Carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991, and are long fibres of nano-scale carbon tubes that are both stupendously strong and fantastically light.
And the first person to sort out the counterweight, cable and car powering methods is instantly god. You will own space. Literally. No one can compete with this technology. Whichever country gets this first will lower the cost of putting objects into space by so much that chances are the economic boost gained will make that country so fabulously rich that they'll be able to construct cables anywhere and monopolize the space cable industry. Lets put it in economic context: It costs eleven thousand dollars per kilogram of whatever you want to put into space. An elevator could lower this to 200$ at the start, and who knows how little after establishment. That means space based industry, like zero gravity manufacturing and things like that will instantly be ~50 times less insane.
So there you go. If this technology is pioneered by the good old USA, good game. If its pioneered by the Japanese (who actually already have a program working on doing just that), prepare to be assaulted by the most technologically advanced space ninjas you've ever seen. I'm talking actual space pikachu robots that shoot lightning out of their eyes and crush cities with each footstep, spreading mayhem and ichiban as far as the eye can see.
The space cable is the future.
Let me explain. Space elevators are a device that connects the ground, literally, to space... via a cable. This was proposed in the late 19th century and has since been fodder for science fiction. Arthur C. Clarke is famous for making the device a pivotal issue and practically a character in several of his books. Why the fascination, you might ask? Well before I answer that, here's some scientific context.
A space elevator consists of three main components. A tether, an anchor, and a carriage system. The anchor consists of an orbiting satellite that (at least, as far as I can figure) will keep the cable tensioned through centripetal (not centrifugal, which is not the correct term) and allow climbers (or gondolas) to travel up the tether (but probably not down).
Probably not down, you say? Confused by the many brackets in the last paragraph? Well most people figure that the carriages used to thicken the cable (think weaving robots) will be most efficient if used to build up the counterweight at the end of the rope, and "down" will come a lot later, probably not until we start sending people.
How cool! But it gets more fantastic. They want to power the cars by either
a) Shooting lasers at them. Seriously.
b) Using the SUPERCONDUCTIVITYof the CARBON NANOTUBE structure of a second, parallel cable. This would require building two cables. Out of motherfucking carbon nanotubes.
Carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991, and are long fibres of nano-scale carbon tubes that are both stupendously strong and fantastically light.
And the first person to sort out the counterweight, cable and car powering methods is instantly god. You will own space. Literally. No one can compete with this technology. Whichever country gets this first will lower the cost of putting objects into space by so much that chances are the economic boost gained will make that country so fabulously rich that they'll be able to construct cables anywhere and monopolize the space cable industry. Lets put it in economic context: It costs eleven thousand dollars per kilogram of whatever you want to put into space. An elevator could lower this to 200$ at the start, and who knows how little after establishment. That means space based industry, like zero gravity manufacturing and things like that will instantly be ~50 times less insane.
So there you go. If this technology is pioneered by the good old USA, good game. If its pioneered by the Japanese (who actually already have a program working on doing just that), prepare to be assaulted by the most technologically advanced space ninjas you've ever seen. I'm talking actual space pikachu robots that shoot lightning out of their eyes and crush cities with each footstep, spreading mayhem and ichiban as far as the eye can see.
The space cable is the future.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Standing in Relation to Politics
It calls me,
in the middle of the day,
as i listen to the radio for music,
it calls.
Its not peter Mansbridge,
but it mine as well be,
the voice on the radio squeaks in,
I was enjoying the solitude of my room,
and the classical music,
but the voice becomes political.
A political prisoner of doom,
sitting in my room,
i listen and consume.
Politics is no choice,
I am called to it,
By Pete Mans to the Bridge
My escape:
I turn of the radio,
if its not too late
Oh but wait,
hostages in India,
80 dead,
by brain must be fed
I want more,
and when i've had my share of indian grief,
give me some dion and harper to top it off
What a delicious recipe for an afternoon of schizophrenia
in the middle of the day,
as i listen to the radio for music,
it calls.
Its not peter Mansbridge,
but it mine as well be,
the voice on the radio squeaks in,
I was enjoying the solitude of my room,
and the classical music,
but the voice becomes political.
A political prisoner of doom,
sitting in my room,
i listen and consume.
Politics is no choice,
I am called to it,
By Pete Mans to the Bridge
My escape:
I turn of the radio,
if its not too late
Oh but wait,
hostages in India,
80 dead,
by brain must be fed
I want more,
and when i've had my share of indian grief,
give me some dion and harper to top it off
What a delicious recipe for an afternoon of schizophrenia
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
A Universal Concept of Revolution with a Cosmopolitan Intent
To Revolt is to see,
the anarchy,
within thee.
and know that the future holds,
an opportunity for change,
creating a better reality,
splendiforously
To leaders we look
but the thinking that got us here won't get us out of here
working together with our enemies,
will be our salvation,
and our downfall
the anarchy,
within thee.
and know that the future holds,
an opportunity for change,
creating a better reality,
splendiforously
To leaders we look
but the thinking that got us here won't get us out of here
working together with our enemies,
will be our salvation,
and our downfall
Monday, November 24, 2008
Global Catharsis
Global Catharsis
So in class we were asked what we think is sacred
I said that everything was but can’t forget the hatred
We have family and friends with whom we break bread
And some of us make ends meet on streets we make red
I’m sure it’s right and wrong and it’s been debated
But how many soldiers in the war still feel vindicated?
Still the economy’s recessed and press is syndicated
Do we believe what figures and figureheads have stated?
Conservatives don’t conserve and the Liberals heartless
Am I just pessimistic or are too many hard pressed?
Just trying to speak my mind as a tormented Marxist
Still searching to find global catharsis
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Anarchist Potluck
Yesterday i went to an anarchist potluck and had a lot of stimulating conversation with 'anarchists'. They were selling home brewed beer at their potluck, they had cranberry, eucalyptus and peppermint flavours (the cranberry tasted like cheese but the peppermint was delicious).
Apparently they are already getting organized for protests for the 2010 olympics. It sounds as if a lot of activists are going to be helping Canadian first nations protest the olympics. The goal is to teach foreigners the truth about Canada: that we're not such a peaceful place and we have an evil state just like all other countries.
The most interesting think i heard all night was during a conversation i was having about direct action. I was considering direct action to be when a group of protestors are willing to resort to violence if the police attack them. But one anarchist thought that every moment of one's life could be direct action. Instead of buying a carrot from the grocery store, he uses direct action and grows his own carrot (and brews his own beer). Every movement of his body is an expression of his political beliefs. Pretty cool.
Apparently they are already getting organized for protests for the 2010 olympics. It sounds as if a lot of activists are going to be helping Canadian first nations protest the olympics. The goal is to teach foreigners the truth about Canada: that we're not such a peaceful place and we have an evil state just like all other countries.
The most interesting think i heard all night was during a conversation i was having about direct action. I was considering direct action to be when a group of protestors are willing to resort to violence if the police attack them. But one anarchist thought that every moment of one's life could be direct action. Instead of buying a carrot from the grocery store, he uses direct action and grows his own carrot (and brews his own beer). Every movement of his body is an expression of his political beliefs. Pretty cool.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Global Warning
So what now in the aftermath of G twenty
And deflation in the US with people saving money
You can try fiscal stimulus by borrowing from China
But if we stay the same course then the worst is not behind ya
I speak about a coming shift of power to east
Try to appease the dragon while at home we calm the beast
Don’t get me wrong I know it’s hard to develop strategies
But global markets constrain and yet we call them free
All the while we demand to have social equality
And others take a stand to focus on ecology
Given that what do I see as a corollary?
Collapse and renewal but first catastrophe
Check out:
Beyond the Limits by Meadows, Meadows and Randers
Collapse by Jared Diamond
A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright
The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon
Evolution’s Edge by Graeme Taylor
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Labryinth of Freedom
Search through the labryinth,
of endless despair,
fighting for truth,
but finding none there.
But wait!
A shining light come hither,
Freedom is near,
its time to give er'.
navigating the passage,
at the speed of light,
get to the end,
and become a knight.
Trade the walls of the labryinth,
for a metal cast suit,
freedom is a drug,
that knights must shoot.
of endless despair,
fighting for truth,
but finding none there.
But wait!
A shining light come hither,
Freedom is near,
its time to give er'.
navigating the passage,
at the speed of light,
get to the end,
and become a knight.
Trade the walls of the labryinth,
for a metal cast suit,
freedom is a drug,
that knights must shoot.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Free Speech
Interpreting interpretations
Through the double hermeneutic
Asserting verbal permutations
Some spit while others spew it
We should be deconstructing
And reconstructing structures
Now the gears are slowly rusting
So it’s time to cause a rupture
We’ll start it off with words and vids
Supported by subversive kids
Learning through discursive bids
Day by day we can disperse the grid
Is there really any doubt
That we're striving in vain?
While big businesses offshore
Are hiding their gains
It’s not worth it anymore
Who’s deciding the same?
Indeed we’re passengers
And also flying the plane
Let’s get off autopilot and
Start relying on our brains
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Charter of Rights/Restrictions and Freedoms/Unfreedoms
It is weird to think that a government document outlines our rights and freedoms. It would seem to me that anyone who goes to the government to recieve rights and freedoms is the least free person of all. The charter says i have a right to 'freedom of opinion'. Is the charter giving me the right, or is it explaining a pre-existing right. This is not clear. Maybe the charter is a useless document only to be used by lawyers.
Truduea's Counter Argument: You need the government to help you be free because you can not become free alone. Becoming free is a fight and the charter can help you in your fight. Becoming free is like paddelling a canoe against the stream of the river. Every Canadian must learn to paddle against the stream and seek their own freedom in the face of the homogenizing forces of the modern world.
My rebuttal: if every Canadian is being encouraged to paddle against the stream and find personal freedom, have we not already constructed a homogenizing concept for the freedom of canadians.
Nardwar's interuption:
Truduea's Counter Argument: You need the government to help you be free because you can not become free alone. Becoming free is a fight and the charter can help you in your fight. Becoming free is like paddelling a canoe against the stream of the river. Every Canadian must learn to paddle against the stream and seek their own freedom in the face of the homogenizing forces of the modern world.
My rebuttal: if every Canadian is being encouraged to paddle against the stream and find personal freedom, have we not already constructed a homogenizing concept for the freedom of canadians.
Nardwar's interuption:
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Justice or Just is?
Despite uncertainty, our voices still remain
But it’s not clear to me to what extent our choices are constrained
I mean look at all the money the Fed spent for the nation
To perpetuate pervasiveness of gentrification
We can criticize the lenders but the system is to blame
Maybe AIG rejoices but the peasants feel the pain
Citizens losing houses and others questioning their pensions
Passing policies previously beyond comprehension
Struggling to work with realist and liberal assumptions
But Neoliberalism’s dead because the system doesn’t function
So what now? At least a substantial wealth transfer
We can wear a band-aid but that doesn’t cure cancer
To my fellow bloggers
I didn't feel like sending out an email to you all, and this is relevant to anyone (if we actually have readers) reading this site.
How do you like the theme? I really enjoy the graphics side of the site, and if there's anything anyone wants improved, please comment on this post. If you hate the banner, want the colors changed, whatever, just tell me. If the font is too lame and you're tired of changing it, then maybe we should change the default font. I enjoy this silly fiddling so lay it on me
Note: my sister reading over my shoulder said this sounded sarcastic. Let me assure you that I do in fact enjoy the graphics side or I wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars getting a fine arts degree. I would also like to say that my sister is a doo-doo head and her face looks like a butt.
How do you like the theme? I really enjoy the graphics side of the site, and if there's anything anyone wants improved, please comment on this post. If you hate the banner, want the colors changed, whatever, just tell me. If the font is too lame and you're tired of changing it, then maybe we should change the default font. I enjoy this silly fiddling so lay it on me
Note: my sister reading over my shoulder said this sounded sarcastic. Let me assure you that I do in fact enjoy the graphics side or I wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars getting a fine arts degree. I would also like to say that my sister is a doo-doo head and her face looks like a butt.
The death of Canadian landscape
Landscape painting has died. All that remains are husks, shells of soaring cedar trees that once saw the caress of Emily Carr; naive but strong. We're left with the crumbling cliffs of the group of seven, the eroding Canadian shield, barely represented in its current stage of developed exploitation by soaring brush strokes executed by our ancestral sons of industry. The beauty of Canada is a much more private pleasure now. Art has turned a blind eye to beauty. Art has laced the shoes of context and conflict to the bare, muddy feet of the running rivers of Canada.
You can no longer create a landscape piece. I have no problem with this. The legendary group of seven were rich kids who could afford oil paints, which were quite expensive at the time. If you think it's hard to get your hands on real cobalt blue pigment now, imagine it before the Trans Canada High-way. So this is not a eulogy. This is simply an opinion piece. I believe that the public art domain has removed any form of simple nature appreciation away from the eyes of the viewers. This has happened quite literally in our current time; landscape paintings are bought and sold by a die-hard group of fans, and patronized as wallpaper by hotels and businesses. It's as if there's nothing left to say about nature. It's become a prisoner of cliches.
A major sidestep of the issue is something I came up with when I was thinking of counter-points to my argument. There as a philosopher (epicurius?) who said that positive and negative are all matters of perception. This is obvious, but it does make a good personal mantra when you're cut off driving. It applies to my thesis in this post quite well. All you have to do to appreciate landscape art is treat it abstractly. Focus on the lines, focus on technical skill and composition rather than context and ideas. This is really easy to do with landscape, but it really doesn't get you far in the world we're currently stuck in.
One example is what I deal with the most often: Environmental Art. I capitalize Environmental because currently, it's a proper name for a movement that's been going on since the vague idea of pollution came up. Art that is a picture of a beautiful landscape is now a tool to get people to have shorter showers, and take the bus. Go to a landscape exhibition, and you WILL hear, at least once, "too bad there wont be much left of this to paint pretty soon". Really. Shut up. I don't care, and you don't get it. The world will happily float around after we fuck up the rain-forests. You think we'll run out of beautiful landscapes? Because even one of the worst consequences of desert warming, desertification, creates fantastic spirals and pinnacles of sand and dust. It creates stunning rock formations, it turns urban sprawl into beautiful desolation. Landscapes will always exist. It's the artists that need to adapt.
Leave the message to the curators, I'm tired of not being able to paint Fish Creek Park. I never will, because I personally would rather light myself on fire than paint a landscape, but the point stands.
You can no longer create a landscape piece. I have no problem with this. The legendary group of seven were rich kids who could afford oil paints, which were quite expensive at the time. If you think it's hard to get your hands on real cobalt blue pigment now, imagine it before the Trans Canada High-way. So this is not a eulogy. This is simply an opinion piece. I believe that the public art domain has removed any form of simple nature appreciation away from the eyes of the viewers. This has happened quite literally in our current time; landscape paintings are bought and sold by a die-hard group of fans, and patronized as wallpaper by hotels and businesses. It's as if there's nothing left to say about nature. It's become a prisoner of cliches.
A major sidestep of the issue is something I came up with when I was thinking of counter-points to my argument. There as a philosopher (epicurius?) who said that positive and negative are all matters of perception. This is obvious, but it does make a good personal mantra when you're cut off driving. It applies to my thesis in this post quite well. All you have to do to appreciate landscape art is treat it abstractly. Focus on the lines, focus on technical skill and composition rather than context and ideas. This is really easy to do with landscape, but it really doesn't get you far in the world we're currently stuck in.
One example is what I deal with the most often: Environmental Art. I capitalize Environmental because currently, it's a proper name for a movement that's been going on since the vague idea of pollution came up. Art that is a picture of a beautiful landscape is now a tool to get people to have shorter showers, and take the bus. Go to a landscape exhibition, and you WILL hear, at least once, "too bad there wont be much left of this to paint pretty soon". Really. Shut up. I don't care, and you don't get it. The world will happily float around after we fuck up the rain-forests. You think we'll run out of beautiful landscapes? Because even one of the worst consequences of desert warming, desertification, creates fantastic spirals and pinnacles of sand and dust. It creates stunning rock formations, it turns urban sprawl into beautiful desolation. Landscapes will always exist. It's the artists that need to adapt.
Leave the message to the curators, I'm tired of not being able to paint Fish Creek Park. I never will, because I personally would rather light myself on fire than paint a landscape, but the point stands.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
I had a dream where I watched the tower fall from on top of it… someone else started to make it fall and I was on the roof with a large number of other people. For some reason, I ran towards the side of the roof that would have hit the ground first but I accidentally slipped because of something to do with my current state.. I slipped and a slid for a long time as the tower was already falling in the direction in which I was sliding… my feet finally hit the short wall on the edge of the building, giving the tower more momentum to fall and at that moment, people saw me , people who had been working on the tower as their job, people who depended on the employment of the tower for their living. There were 8-10 people who knew me as a fellow coworker and a few of those 8-10 who saw me at the moment I hit the edge.. For some reason, one or two of those people immediately blamed me for making the tower fall…Even though the tower was falling long before I slipped and hit the wall they blamed me for bringing about its collapse. How could that be? I spent a good part of the rest of the dream trying to convince people that I was not me who caused the initial collapse of the tower. But the crazy thing is this.. this was a real tower and it was easy to see that it was collapsing because of the angle and the time that it took for it to fall from my vantage point on top.. But in real life when you and I talk about ‘the system’ and the collapse of the system, we socially construct the system and it is not 100% clear the extent to which it is collapsing and where we locate ourselves within the tower (on the roof or close to the bottom levels). Can I still defend myself in real life by saying the system was already collapsing and I just slipped and lost control which cased me to hit the edge and further the momentum of the collapse? Or am I just as guilty as any other person trying to bring about a collapse because we are not sure what the tipping point is that will cause the system to begin to fall, unless it has already begun to do so..? There are still real people with real jobs depending on the system and I happen to be one of them, so not only am I in the tower, I am part of the tower itself. Am I trying to bring about my own collapse? And lastly the whole metaphor of the tower is just an analogy for the way the system might be and we shouldn’t even think about the collapse as a falling tower because that is just some form of imagery I thought up in a dream.. what if the metaphor of revolution was more like tilling the soil and planting seeds in order to make new and amazing things grow?
Friday, November 14, 2008
They Do Not Know That They Hold Their Freedom In Their Mouths
We call ourselves civilized, however, I would rather call ourselves tamed. We are beasts of a great circus that is run by beasts. We, the people, are as a great and mighty lion, yet we are whipped and starved into a broken dependency upon our master – the ring leading lion tamer. Generations roll by and our offspring are born into the circus subservient and captives to their masters. They accept life in their cages; denied of the truth and freedom of the natural world. To the broken and caged lions, life is the circus; there is no other way to live. They do not know that they could eat and drink freely under a shelter that is free of bars. They do not know that freedom lies in their mouths every night when the tamer is selling his show. They do not know that the tamer has no show without his lion. They do not know that freedom lies in their mouths every night when the tamer sells his show. They do not know that they have the freewill and power to bite the hand that feeds. They do not know that they hold freedom in their mouths when the lion tamer is selling his show. They do not know that they can feed themselves. We, the people, are as a mighty lion, yet we are whipped and starved into a broken dependency upon our master.
On Tom Cruise
First off: Tom Cruise is an actor. Now he seems to be an actor with an agenda. Fame brings you money, money brings you power, power buys you. However, it is rumored that Tom was more or less wrangled into scientology shortly after Top Gun had blown away the audiences of the 1980's. They kept records of all of his personality testing results. Perhaps Tom was blackmailed into Scientology. Perhaps that is why he gets so intense about what he is talking about - he's pissed off!!
Perhaps he knows that there was a huge opportunity to make a lot of money. Perhaps Tom saw Scientology as a business venture that prays on the stupid and confused sheep of society. After all, he could be not only be raking in the doe, but also be permanently in the limelight of believers - a new messiah. Plus, he would also be able to create a Tom Cruise fan base that would ensure the success of each and every one of his movies. I think Oprah gets a cut too.
Nicole Kidman is so totally hot. She's even hotter to know that she didn't buy into this shit.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Anti Scientology Group
sorry guys but im still not done with scientology. I found a very interesting movie that attacks scientologists now. the people that made it hold flash mob protests in the streets. they post a date and time on the internet and everyone does a brief protest where they sing songs and dance. im going to be in vancouver this weekend, i might check out the flash raid on the 15th. Even though this is just a group of religious haters, they have very interesting means of politicizing themselves in the 21st century. I think This is a well-done movie and the idea of flash mob protests is brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
