Monday, January 19, 2009

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.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

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.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

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.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

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.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

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.


Wednesday, January 7, 2009

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?

Monday, December 29, 2008

Abortion - Carlin Style ( sorry dudes, but this guy has been rocking my funny bone the last couple days)


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. bruinooge.jpg

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)

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.

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.

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