“I will support STV,” said Denise Savoie, the MP for Victoria. It's a personal position, she said, not that of her party. “I'm not sure that's the best alternative, but it's better than the system we have.”

votes that elected no one in Carol James riding 43.0%

The vote was 123 to 31 in favour of STV as the best alternative to First Past the Post by the citizens assembly of bc.

68% percent of the people in Carol James Riding Supported STV in the last election, while 32% voted against it.

The NDP won't take a stance on STV, however they have said that if STV fails they will promote MMP... so they do kinda have a stance on stv

George Lazenby as James Bond

George is neither over-rated nor under-rated. He only did one bond role in his entire life which was 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. The movie starts with Bond saving a girls life. The girl ends up being the daughter of one of Europes biggest crime syndicates. instead of turning the criminals in, bond decideds to befriend them so he can get to know the girl better and also work his way up to bigger criminals such as Ernst Stavos Blowfeld. This plan works, Bond infiltrates into Blowfeld's criminal organization Spectre, and saves Spectre and the Soviets from having complete domination of the Earth.

in the brief prologue to this action packed film, James Bond gets married to the daughter of the crime syndicate. this is the only time in book or film history that bond gets married. The movie ends with Bond and Mrs. Bond's marriage. They are driving through the swiss countryside on their honeymoon.

watch this scene, because it is the final scene of the movie and possibly the most important film moment in james bond history:



The scene is so important to establish James Bond as a character. Bond finally puts his sexual escapades behind him, and decides on a women to hold his attention for the rest of his life. But thirty seconds in film time past their wedding, bond's wife is dead on the side of a swiss road. it proves to bond that given his career as a spy, he will be unable to truly love anyone because he will always put them in danger. it is the same problem that peter parker confronts when he has to withold the truth of his identity from Mary Jane, even though telling the truth would definitely get him laid.

therefore for bond, the only women he can truly love is the Queen, in his duty on "her majesty's secret service." and that is why the title is so fitting for this role. george lazenby sets the stage for James Bond, because he is the actor that endures bonds most emotional moment. it is the moment that bond realizes that he will never be able to truly love anyone.

Something really interesting to keep in mind is the camera angle employed at the 1:05 mark of the scene. We see the police officer pull up in the background. as soon as the officer gets beside the car, the camera angle shifts to the view of the officer. because of the shift in camera angle, the audience becomes the officer and bond is pleeing to us... the police man/audience. From the officer's point of view, it looks like a drunk bride and a car that had a rock hit its windshield. Bond tries to escape the situation of having to show his dead wife to the police officer, by lying to the police officer saying "it's alright. it's quite alright really. she's having a rest." the audience knows much more than the police officer, and they will not be as easily duped. james bond is playing a role for the police officer, and he continues to play this role. we know that as long as James Bond can play this role, he will never truly have to confront his wifes death. if the police officer stays, and gets into a conversation with Bond, Bond can continue playing the role of the husband with a drunk wife. This inability to truly express his emotions, and having to play a role instead, is the male chauvinistic message that george lazenby conveys. and it is a quality that bond maintains even to this day. in the recent casino royale movie, after James bond's girlfriend dies, his words are "the job is done, the bitch is dead, its time to move on." again, Daniel craig continues the george lazenby emotional disconnect, and refuses to handle the death of his girl friend with emotions.

But, in the final seconds of the clip he begins to cry. However, this crying is not something that the police officer has the ability to pick up on. if you watch the 1:48 mark of the movie in mute, you will notice that bond hides his face in his wife's gown so that the officer can not see him crying. Again, refusing to show his emotions and therefore continuing his role as the happy husband. However, the audience has the ability to hear the whimper. And therefore the audience realizes that James Bond is trying to hide the fact that he is crying. But that's all we see! we don't see bond cry, we just see bond hide the fact that he is crying!

This is important because it is the only scene in James Bond history where Bond cries. it shows that he is uncomfortable displaying this level of emotion to others. he sets the male-chauvinistic standard that it is not alright for men to show themselves crying.

Roger Moore as James Bond

Normally I would write something that has something to do with this blog, but due to the startling inactivity shown by myself, I'm going to go off on a tangent to get myself back into things. Poor Roger Moore! He's consistently named the worst bond... hang on, I have something to say before we say any "Moore":

George Lazenby, the man who played bond in "Her Majesty's Secret Service" was once divorced for punching his pregant wife in the face and breaking her nose while his son was dying of cancer.

You should probably read that twice. George Lazenby later went on to work for AIG Financial Products.

Roger Moore was consistently named the worst bond. Let's try to dispel that rumor with a one movie citation: Live and Let Die. Let's break down some of the things Moore did in this movie with a critical eye towards the "bond-ness" of the actions and the strange view of morality said actions impose. I believe this movie was both a revolution within the bond franchise, and more importantly, one of the greatest trans-racial documents produced in recent times. In short, I want to argue that the actions depicted in this movie paved the way for mainstream acceptance of both African American culture and drug culture as both feasible alternatives to the nuclear family model of the 50's, and legitimate issues to the conservative white community. I would also like to touch upon what impact I feel this movie may have had on the African American community in the United States at this time. As a clear example of "Blaxploitation", Live and let die serves as shallow thesis for the equalization of rights in 1970's America.

Lets start with what is inevitably the most interesting part of any James Bond movie: The girl. We're introduced to Rosie fairly early in the film, and she meets her untimely demise just as quickly. Why is Rosie important? Because she was an idiot. She was ideologicaly driven and all the more incompetant because of it. She was painted as a useless agent whos only saving grace was her good looks. As an African American woman and an undercover CIA agent, she truly embodied the vision of the "outsider". However I think the directors were very clever here: they weren't afraid to depict her as a stereotypical "dumb woman", and they weren't afraid to depict her as a "fearful zealot" of her religion as well. Risky! Archetypes like that are what drive controversy and I don't believe for a second that they're actual phenomenon. There's just as many dumb men and fearful non-zealots. I'm not anti woman or anti voodoo priest. I am pro woman and pro voodoo (as a hobby, not as a belief). Just so we're all clear.

Anyways, the directors make her stupid. She's the first African American woman to ever be a bond girl, and she's horrendously incompetent. Racism? No! This is the sincerest form of anti-racism there can be! Bond girls are always idiots, and they gave her no special treatment. Is it possible Stephen Colbert's "I don't see race" philosophy was shared by the casting director in charge of bond girls? Is it shared with the writer in charge of her part? I postulate that yes, it is. It totally is.


Now let's look at Roger. What a douche! And that's my argument: that he was, in fact, a douche. Bond, despite all his chiseled features and government funding, is a total asshole. Just admit it so we can continue on with this post. Okay? Great. What I'm saying is that Roger Moore does just fine in this respect. In one key scene Bond gives Rosie a choice: either die by the hands of a voodoo priest and tell me what you know, or die because I shoot you in the head after we just had sex in this jungle clearing. He seriously bangs her, then threatens her with death. Guess what? She dies after a voodoo priest uses a robot scarecrow to shoot a blow-dart in her neck. Later, on a boat, he jokes about her being a moron then tells the man he's sailing with that "at least she's good looking"... before he slaps her ass and sends her down into the boat. Several seconds later he follows her, and most likely has 1970's sex with her, which is like the sex we have now, only without protection and with more hair.

Roger Moore is often accused of being a sillier, less intense and more boring version of Sean Connery. I think that anyone who has carefully studied Live and Let Die would disagree. I'd like to end this installment of "Live and Let Die as Socio-racial commentary" with the promise we'll get into the nitty gritty in about a weeks time.

To be Continued...

The Suze

I was reading an article by David Suzuki today. In the article it seems like he is struggling with the problem of how his enviromentalism makes todays world seem so much worse than the world that he grew up in. Here's his conclusion:

"Have I become a grumpy old man who sees only the past as wonderful and decries the modern? I don’t think so, but I mourn the time when nature was still rich. I know we can’t change the past, but together we can create a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. We know where the problems lie, and science offers many solutions. Now it’s time for action. If I’ve learned one lesson in my 73 years, it’s that everyone, including those in government and business, must pitch in if we want to change things for the better."

Suze puts together a noble article. What he is most worried about is that the future world will be unlivable for his grandchildren, and his grandchildren's-grandchildren. He looks back at the world when he was a child and his ability to drink water right out of the stream, and he romantacizes this world as being better than today's world. Today's world has traded the ability to drink fresh stream water, for the ability to have seasonal chemical grown fruits and buy cell phones every year. For Suzuki, the 21st century is only about petty capitalistic treasures, while the 20th century was about cherishing the beauty of earth.

I am surprised by Suze's vision for the future. He still thinks that it is possible to achieve the change that will make this world a healthier place to live. He plans to achieve this by science and the government. This is where I think Suze goes wrong. He is still caught in the trap of the 20th century thinking that has got us trapped in enviromental devastation and has brought us the luxuries of plasma tv's and blu rays. This trap starts when one thinks that science holds the answer to saving the earth's problems. Many companies are investing in green technology. For example, all the major oil companies have branches of their company devoted to wind energy and other alternative energy sources. This is not done for a love of the earth, but is done instead because there is money to be made off of the growing sentiment of people who love the earth. So instead of drilling oil from the ground, we construct a million dollar wind turbine to use wind to power our homes. Hundreds of thousands of wind turbines would certainly cost a lot of money, and newer green technology could end up being the cornerstone of many failing economies around the world. And just like how many people think that they can buy their way to happinesss with blu rays and plasma screens, many people think that we can buy our way out of this enviromental crisis with green technology. Suzuki provides enviromental optism by suggesting that green science and green technology has a saving power.

In the end, there is nothing left but pessimism. The movie Wall-e becomes not a story of fear about our dismall future, but hope that human beings can still live in this universe even once they destroy earth.

Obamamania

Given that Obama was in Canada yesterday, i think it is time to pay tribute to him. here is a link to a video that most say won obama the election. he was still fighting against hillary at this point in the election and clinton dug up some dirt about Obama's old reverand. Apparently Obama's reverend thought that America was only about racial hatred. the reverand sees the main battle in america as whites suppressing blacks. he sees wars taking place in the world based on racist elitism... like israel invading palestine. and most of all the pastor hates america and everything that it does and is doing to subjugate him to his place in society. obama obviously disagrees because he is the example of blacks being able to make a place for themselves in society. Fox wanted Obama to distance himself from the revereand, but obama refuses to stop being friends with the reverand even if he disagrees with the stories that the reverand believes in.

link

ffwd to 13:30 and watch until 1600

Things that seem unimportant but are really bad signs. Also there are some positives

Pontiac, the car brand, is probably going to be a part of history in the coming months. No longer will small badly built Sunfires plague the roads. Unfortunately, we're fucked. Cars exist for one reason: to be exciting. On the surface you can argue with me, but let me elaborate:

• Transportation: I think we can all agree that there are other ways to transport ourselves. In an urban environment. Public transit, annoying as it is, is often faster, absolutely cheaper, and scientifically proven to be less stressful than driving (I have no citations). True, public transit has problems. No one likes walking. But there are several ways that this problem can be solved. One solution is what the prophetic and enjoyable Minority Report demonstrates: Personalized public transit. I picture a residence+vehicle program where an existing infrastructure is used to operate a more personal way of "transit". Small capacity vehicles without driver interface can operate together to greatly increase efficiency, and more importantly, comfort. That's why we don't ride trains and buses: they're run by incompetent (other than BC it seems) organizations that genuinely do not give a shit about their riders. How can I be so sure? Ride an old C-train, the ones from the 60's. I want to point out that the trains in North Korea are 8 years newer than ours, albeit of much worse quality. The seats face each other, the spaces inbetween are inadequate, and all this is fixable by a simple retrofit. Cost > customers, because it's publicly run. Counterintuitive, I know, but because there's absolutely zero competition, there's no incentive to improve comfort. There's only an incentive to use as little of the budget as possible, which explains why we spent tens of millions on new trains in calgary instead of tens of millions of fixing the 7th avenue infrastructure with a series of underpasses.
  
• Utility: So fine. Cars/trucks deliver goods. Well, that problem is in the process of being solved. A new design to replace the double-decker buses in London incorporates seating that converts to cargo room. I see no reason that the same autonomous small-capacity transport vehicles cant integrate either their own cargo space, or latch on to other cargo modules. Once up to speed, only one vehicle needs to use its drive, and the aerodynamic gains will make the old way seem insane. Unfortunately, the bus design was rejected in favor of buses designed by Aston Martin, one of the most insanely wasteful and badly run auto companies ever to inhabit the economy. Yay progress.

So anyway, we've solved all the real bits. Except Cars only exist to be exciting. Pontiac is The excitement brand. If they're gone, what's next? We're running out of whimsy. Nothing I mentioned is exciting. If we get rid of cars, what will that segment of society find exciting next? I nominate extreme marijuana abuse, but I have a feeling that wont pass legislation. Drug addiction is unacceptable, whereas addiction to pointless speed and chemical energy consumption is accepted gladly.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that Pontiac's dissolution is heralding the destruction of the modern transportation industry, the only thing that currently links the vast, vast, vast majority of urban spaces. The first country to embrace this will increase their economic output by such a margin that only a cable to space would upstage it.

While we're on the subject, WHERE IS THE CABLE TO SPACE? GET ON IT JAPAN.

Into the Wild

This movie has affected me in a way I was unprepared for. I have never been physically moved to tears by anything other than the time I ran over someone's kitten and I could have probably saved it, but I was afraid to reverse the car back to check on it. Ya, I'm walking a fine line between being a horrible person and a living saint.

The thing this movie is teaching is so much more than what it realizes. It's a rare film that creates such a layered metaphor it becomes a double helix, seen in profile. One of the helixes is the simple story, the timeless classic tale of a young man who ventures off into the wild. Before you openly mock Emile Hirsch's character, you should know he belongs to the ranks of men who ventured off on epic journeys with almost no preparation; a group that includes Charles Darwin, Andy Warhol (read the biography if you think I'm just being a dick), and the possibly fictional Jesus. He wants to get away. He wants to escape what he's stuck in. Chris Candless had a particularly difficult personal life, and came from a middle class family.

The second helix is the essential part of this movie that Sean Penn has succeeded in capturing: it's wrong to want to isolate yourself. It's inconsiderate. To abandon society because you don't like it is wrong for the same reason ants wither up and die when they're outside the ant-hill. Emile said it best at the end of the movie: happiness means nothing if it's not shared. I am unapologetic about this. If you have the desire to fuck off to Alaska, you make sure you're coming back.

There isn't a ton of happiness in a lot of places. To rob your family, to rob your friends of the unique ideas and concepts contained in your brain is a disgusting crime. To isolate yourself from society is a horrific crime, a slap in the face against every single human being who could benefit from your singular opinions and conclusions. I have as little respect for Chris Candless as I do for suicides. There's no such thing as a reason to kill yourself, with the possible exception of inevitable death caused by sickness.

The really interesting parts of this movie are when the Helixes collide. When the Sine curves overlap, you're in a zone where the metaphor is no longer a flashback, you're at the very last scene of the movie where the tree falls in the forest. The tree is the most beautiful, symmetrical fir you've ever seen. It's had a good summer, wide rings and strong, well covered branches. It's the most beautiful thing you've ever seen grow from the ground, and one strong wind topples it. When those two curves hit each other, the sad fact that people need to leave violently clashes with the equally difficult fact that people need to share.

And you were the only one to see it. You didn't bring anyone with you to share it. It never happened. You wasted your life, Chris Candless. You were a smart guy, and you deprived society of an intelligent mind, something we are lacking. Isolationists think they're fixing their own problems by leaving society, but all they're doing is losing the vital social interaction that creates a human, and at the same time, contributing to a society that is arguably getting out of hand.

So fuck you, hermits. Read my lips: fuck you. I give you ironic permission to end your lives so you may never produce children that insist on making life worse by being selfish. Fuck you with a rake.


*note: I noticed upon editing that I subconsciously typed "christ" instead of "christ" each time

*note: I noticed after my last note that I did it in my note too. I assure you I am still an atheist, albeit an obviously Freudian one.

The Medium is the Message

The medium is the message

Yes it’s all about the media

Not the content on the Googles

CNNs and wikipedias

It’s about electricity.

Just like McLuhan said

Why do you think they call it power?

It’s all extensions of our heads

Accelerating cultures

‘Till they transform or get devoured

Yes our brains give shape to

Commodity chains

‘Mass’ media for the masses

It’s the new gospel truth

Whether communist or fascist

Propaganda has a use

Compressing time and space

With internet and computers

Can you create more change

With a blog or a six shooter?

Scotia Bank Wacky Whore

possible political strategies to deal with crazy people in canada:
1)send them all to mental hospitals until they are sane
2)send them all to camps in the interior and let them be crazy there.
3)grow to tolerate their craziness
4)ignore them and make them feel like outcasts
5) a different version of number 2 except send them to live on icebergs in the arctic.

Last night i was getting my rent money from Scotia Bank. This very eloquent British woman began talking to me from the ATM next to mine. She looked quite normal and i assumed she was intelligent because of her accent. She opened up the conversation with "Do you know the government controls the weather?"
I replied "what?"
she said "the government controls the weather. they send microwaves into the air and everyone is going to be getting cancer."
I said, knowing full well how conspiracy theorists think "are the build-a-burgers involved?"
"oh," she said, "so you already know about the New World Order?" At this point she warmed up to me quite a bit because she realized i wasn't a skeptic that was completely ignorant of conspiracy theories. "yes the billabergers are likely involved. but its impossible to trace them directly to the weather. the people that are really responsible are the police and the military."
I told her "i go to university and my professors are completely unwilling to enter into the pseudo sciences. if what you are saying is true, then either my professors are lying to me to hide the truth, or my professors are completely ignorant of reality. which one do you think it is?"

Unfortunately she didn't have a response to this. If i had to choose a policy option for her it would be a combination of 3 and 4. the lady obviously had no university education. and because of this she doesn't know how to sift through bad sources and has ended up using unreliable website to form her understanding of the political reality. she asked me to do a search in google for "military's pandoras box" and guaranteed me that a University of Ottawa professor was writing articles on the weather manipulation... i didn't find any evidence of this when i checked out the site.

I believe that this lady is not insane. she is unable to understand reality in a healthy fashion. She is old and bored with how this country works. It is partly stephen harper to blame for being so boring that people are forced to buy into science fiction accounts of politics rather than except the true blandness of the canadian political system. but the problem with this lady is that she really demands to be taken seriously. she really wanted to convince me of her reality. she wouldn't stop talking to me even when i told her my friend was waiting in the car. and then when i ran to my car the lady ran after me to hand me a piece of paper with the website that she wanted me to check out. she almost got in the car with me. does anybody know why this lady demands to be taken so seriously? why can't she just think these thoughts without talking about them?

Michael Phelps Secret Weapon

Taken in November 3 months after his 8 gold medal performance at the olympics. He got in trouble and had to apologize to the media for setting a bad example. I'm sure he wasn't smoking weed during his training because that would have turned up on his drug tests (although maybe ross robiglatia set the precedent that THC is not performance enhancing). Anyway, the interesting question is does Usain Bolt smoke weed?


(the weed jamaican him win gold)

Owning Thy Self

There is a big deal to be made whether a country owns itself. if a country relies to heavily on foreign investment, and said country begins to look unstable, then foreign countries begin to pull their money out of that country. Some would argue that this is a big reason why Canada has never became a superpower in the world. Canada relies very heavily on foreign investment, and foreign investors are not willing to keep their money invested in foreign investments that show any signs of weakness. Whereas the patriotic spirit of staying in for the long run, is common when someone invests in their own national economy. This is a big reason why Cooperatives start up. Within a cooperative, the only people investing in the company are those that have genuine reasons (not purely monetary reasons) for investing in the company. These people are typically employees or frequent users of the company, who view it as more than just a capitalistic enterprise.

However, in the global world we rely heavily on foreign investment because its so much easier to get, and it allows a company to have more money than in would if it only asked for domestic investors.

This graph illustrates the percentage of foreign investment as a percentage of GDP for 15 countries. I chose the 13 richest countries in the world, and also included venezuela and Cuba because they would seemingly defy the need for foreign investment. if a countries number is 0.4, that means that 40 percent of that countries wealth comes from abroad.

The numbers for Canada are quite alarming! Canada comes in 4th place for most reliance from abroad, with a number of 41%. Whereas countries like Japan and India only rely on 3 percent of their GDP from FDI. Venezual is surpisingly only tied with Russia and Japan at 13 % (You'd think Chavez wouldn't even accept foreign dollars).

We should not feel comfartable that Canada is not as bad as the UK. The European Union can be treated as one country, and therefore when france invests in the UK, it could still be considered domestic investment on some level. The UK has an allabye for being so high, and that is that investment from other European countries is not entirely considered foreign. If you look closer at the graph and omit the european nations, Canada now comes dead last.

I Mavis Beaconed your Ass

Many are probably wondering what it means to mavis beacon someone's ass. It means to humiliate them by typing faster than them on a computer. At one time mavis beacon was the fastests typer in the world, and a female nonetheless. But then it was found out that she didn't exist. When tests were conducted to find out the worlds fastest typer, a computer entry specialist from russia, that types numbers into databases all day long, was found to be the fastest.

I found a website that tests typing speed.

My record was 76 wpm with 4 errors on my first try. Does anyone dare challenge me?

Who Will Run out of Oil First?

Using the Cia world factbook numbers on known oil reserves and oil production per day per country, i will find out which major oil producing country will run out of oil first. i will not focus on imports, exports or consumption, instead i will only focus on oil production. Oil is taken from the ground by a giant pump like object, then it goes to a factory to be produced into something else (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel) and then it is either consumed or exported. This is my logic, and this is my graph.

World Production will run out in 15,670 days or 43 years at current day paces assuming no more giant oil reserves are found.



It is good to know that canadian oil is in good hands with Stevie-H. He's being smart about our reserves and not selling future genereations out to this generation. At this pace, canada will be the second last country to run out of oil and that will be in 142 years. imagine how much we can charge for oil when nobody else has any except canada and America's 51st state Iraq.

It is amazing that America and China will be running out of oil so soon. America, at its current pace will run out in 6 years, while china only has 12 years left. i would say that america is in better position than china though, just because the invasion of Iraq makes them the preferred trading partner of many iraqi businesses.

I'll buy my toyota hybrid in 143 years i guess. but wait. maybe we shouldn't wait for oil to run out and we should start buying our toyota hybrids today? theres something to think about unless your still thinking about my awesome graph.

Newton Minnow, failed prophet of respectable communications

I've recently been listening to a lot of speeches from mostly obvious sources. I've heard Nelson Mandella's surprisingly frog-like voice after his release from prison, and JFK's almost indecipherable ranting at his party nomination speech.

But only one speech I've heard lately both inspires and criticizes. Here's an excerpt that I will be citing repeatedly:

"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.

But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it."

Right, so he's saying what we all know now. Wait, why IS he saying what we all know now? He was the head of the FCC, and he failed to prevent the problems he's talking about from taking over in his time? Why do we have the problems he's speaking about in 1961, today? The networks must have won! We all know this is in fact the case, but I think the more interesting thing is the FCC in the public eye. We live side by side with proof that Minnow's lofty ideals have little bearing on our day to day life now. We live in a world where our communications are owned by umbrella corporations that little reflect on the lives of their local viewers. Instead of mass dissemination of identical ideas viewed as a bad thing, we are given one viewpoint, from a central location.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/

Arguably, the problem is communication itself. One of the smarter men to die in our generation, Douglas Adams, brings up a good point in his third party memoirs "The Salmon of Doubt". He believes (or at least he did at that moment) that mass communication is an opposing force to both physiological and psychological evolution. He thinks that small groups working in isolation are the cause for most discoveries, and I tend to agree. But I agree with one caveat.

I think both ways can function for a society.

The question you must answer sooner or later is a toughie, however: Are we as a society at the right stage in our evolution to allow mass communication to connect us all?

I think no. I think we as a society we have proven again and again that the small-group model yields the most discoveries. When we start leaving our solar system and establishing colonies, then yes, proportionally, an entire planet working together will be a small group. Until that time, though, I believe that we may actually be slowing discovery by constant dissemination. Yes more mistakes are prevented, but I'm not convinced that's a good thing.

I cite:

Manhattan project, the first particle accelerator, the first lasers, the first radios, the first airplanes, and lately, string theory. Yes, we communicate about it, and yes that's vital, but no one in their right mind would claim that educating the masses about it in its current state will advance the collective knowledge of mankind. I think science should continue functioning like series of pressure cookers until we as a society have figured out earth. I think we need to start putting moratoriums on idea sharing at a high level now, before we stagnate due to overexposure to others ideas and thoughts.

So did Newton Minnow succeed in creating a device and system that educated at a high standard? Surprisingly, yes. Discovery channel, national geographic, BBC, etc. We have what he wanted. Percentage wise education is losing, but that's not due to a failing, that's due to the changing nature of television.

Say what? It still comes out of a box, y'all!

Well lets look at television in 1961. You had local stations with local programming and local TV shows. Can anyone in Calgary name one original show produced and broadcast exclusively in Calgary? You can't because they don't exist. The model for Television has changed. Instead of a menu it is a buffet, almost as navigable and changeable as the internet. Newton Minnows speech may seem relevant to our disturbing lack of content today, but in reality, he's preaching about a system that no longer exists, and this great man's strong moral guidance and fearsome rules are left by the wayside. We can no longer apply "morals" or "quality" to television. Pandora has escaped the box.

Luckily the internet's still sane.

Haiti or Canada: which is a better place to live?

The title may seem a little outrageous to the right wing readers of this blog (unfortunately im not sure if we have any right wing readers). But lately i have been doing a lot of thinking about what is wrong with Canada. I will continue my analysis through a comparative political lens drawing comparisons to Haiti. My goal is not to say that "hey guys, you should be happy that you live in Canada and not Haiti", but rather to show how Canadians and Haitains face many of the same problems but on different scales. I will use the CIA world fact book as my resource.

In haiti there is on average 34 homicides per 100,000 people while in Canada there is 2 homicides per 100,000 per year. To me, this does not seem like a significant difference. I don't know anyone in Canada that has been murdered and i think it would be very easy to be a Haitain citizen that does not know someone that has been murdered as well.

According to the Enviromental Sustainability Index, Canada was the 6th best country while Haiti was 141st out of 146. link That being said, Canada has had the benefit of money to invest in the enviroment while Haiti does not even have the luxury of investing money in food for its own people.

Official unemployment in Haitis ranges from 50-70 percent while in Canada it is about 6 percent. Most haitians live off under 2 dollars a day, i already spent two dollars on nanaimo bars today.

28 percent of Haitains have health care which is supplied by NGO's instead of the government while 100 percent of canadians have health care (i could be wrong on this latter number).

In a poll of Haitains 70 percent said they were thinking of leaving the country. of a current population of 8 million in the country, 2 million haitians live in the US. BEtween 1991 and 1995 the US coast guard intercepted 65,000 boat people fleeing the country. i wonder how many actually made it?

The UN ranked countries based on the best place to live:

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland

I did not have enough finger power to revolve the wheel on my mouse downwards 47 times in order to get to the bottom of the list and find Haiti. But im sure its there.

Never mind. This post does not work. Haiti fucking sucks to live in. Canada is a way better place to live.

But should it give canadians pleasure to know that we are so much better off and that it could be worse if we lived in haiti? i think this would be the most sickening pleasure in the world. but equally as flawed is the approach that Canada is significantly flawed and needs drastic overhaul because this appraoch values the problems at home over the problems abroad.

I think that Canadians have cushy lives. We are at the winning end of the capitalistic game. we are not subjugating others into poverty in order to maintain our stance as winners of the capitalistic game, rather we just don't care about whats going on in the developing world very much because we are too busy eating nanaimo bars. ignorance is bliss my friends, and it comes in two forms:

1) only thinking about the problems at home rather than the problems in the developing world

2) thinking the world is an aristocracy with natural winners and losers and there is nothing that we can do about it.

New Banner - Permanenté

After several weeks of multiple drafts and several mediocre banners, I'm gonna leave this one up permanently unless one of my illustrious and handsome blogging partners has an issue, in which case I will make a better one. I hope it more effectively captures the spirit of this blog, with clear references to revolution and, for Barry's amusement, the Seattle Police Department.

I would once again like to thank my fellow bloggers and Barry for inviting me to write on this website.

Dead Kennedys

Jello Biafra is the lead singer of the Dead Kennedys. You may or may not have heard of him. He's incredibly anti establishment, he's incredibly liberal (actually calling him liberal is insane, he's anti everything, he's like an anarchist who doesn't have any solutions but does a great job of being a loudspeaker for a lot of the anti-government feelings prevalent since 2004. So anyways.

I think the dead kennedy's horse has been beaten to death, but in lieu of M.I.A. I recommend Mr. Jello Biafra instead, because he really does practice what he preaches.

I should also mention that the video contains Nardwuar interviewing the lead singer of the Dead Kennedys.

Paper PLanes

MIA is a British songwriter with a very large hip hop influence. Her father is part of the Tamil Tigers which is a political activist group that has the goal of making sure that the TAmil ethnic Minority in Sri Lanka is not overpowered by the Sinhalese which are the majority in the country. In 1983 the Tamil Tigers killed 13 Sri Lankan soldiers in an ambush. The Sri Lankan government tried to hide the deaths because they did not want an uprising against the Tamils. But the Sinhalese found out and in return somewhere between 1000-3000 Tamils were killed. The Sri Lankan government has considered the Tamils to be a terrorist organization at certain times. If we can assume that the rumours about MIA's dad are true, and that he was part of the militant Tamil throughout the 1980's with very little contact with his daughter, then we should also assume that MIA is a very political musician. Her most famous song, which was recently popularized in the movie pineapple express will be taken for example.

The opening lyrics of the song are about making Visa's. Mia claims she can make people visa's so they can travel to other borders. she is speaking to the fact that many TAmil's (including herself)had to flee Sri Lanka during violent uprisings against their ethnic group.



The most alarming lyrics are in the chrous whre she uses sounds in order to create a beat. the lyrics go: All i wanna do is (the sound of 5 gunshots) (the sound of a gun reloading) (the sound of a cash register) And take your money.

Why does the sound of the cash register come after the gunshots? Does this mean she is saying that all she wants to do is kill people for money? Or is she ironically taking the stance of the Sinhalese? I think regardless, this is an excellent song for the revolution because it encourages violence. I would put it right up there with Bob Marley's song 'burnin and lootin' which i believe is the song that participated in the battle of seattle listened to on that morning when they woke up.

Paper planes ends with:

Some some some I some I murder
Some I some I let go
Some some some I some I murder
Some I some I let go

What is most interesting for me is that she is making large amounts of money in London and America but it seems that she is making the music for the people of her native Sri Lanka. Her stance reminds me a lot of K'naan, who was Somali born but moved to Canada and writes hip-hop that often speaks to the tragedies and lifestyle of somali citizens. Yet Canadians, who are completely unaware of the political ongoings in these other countries, enjoy the music. And slowly, if they are concerned enough, they will become aware of the activism of people in other countries.

any thoughts detroit on what MIA is actually trying to convey in paper planes?