A short one methinks.
i really dislike Christmas...
If it's not the consumerism.
It's the obligation.
If it's not the Christian tones.
It's the fakeness.
No really, seriously, it strikes me as peculiar, the whole behaviour.
I want family. I want support. I want love.
I want us to realise the key rationalization that should occur (that there should even be a rationalization of our behaviour) is that we should be coming together for the better.
Not for products. Not for our behaviour to be central to capital.
Apologies for the dark tone.
But i'm sure you can agree on some points.
On the plus. It's bright, it's festive and it does bring people together.
Just, perhaps, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way!
LOVE TO ALL.
have a happy xmas.
Saturday 26 December 2009
Sunday 20 December 2009
More reasons to laugh at FarmVille or anti health reform astroturf
I recently discovered a post about an on-line about a scam on farmville!
Over in America where Health Reform is the current hot topic on the legislative agenda, the health insurance lobby is getting social gamers, like those of Mafia wars and the dreaded FARMVILLE, to contact their member of congress (an MP in the UK) and oppose health care reform in exchange for virtual currency...
Apart from horrifically misleading to lawmakers who are trying to help some 12million onto health insurance who don't have it, what does this tell us about the demographic of a Farmville/mafia wars or many other social games?
They're dumb. Unquestioning & passive.
They'd happily sell their country to the control of corporations.... for some fake money and a pig...
Oink.
Oink.
But that is a little unfair, if it was for supporting health care and i played that gaming stuff i probably would.
But the intent is clear, to mobilize individuals into opposing health reform and for this opposition to not appear corporate.
Shame really.
Very deceptive.
Over in America where Health Reform is the current hot topic on the legislative agenda, the health insurance lobby is getting social gamers, like those of Mafia wars and the dreaded FARMVILLE, to contact their member of congress (an MP in the UK) and oppose health care reform in exchange for virtual currency...
Apart from horrifically misleading to lawmakers who are trying to help some 12million onto health insurance who don't have it, what does this tell us about the demographic of a Farmville/mafia wars or many other social games?
They're dumb. Unquestioning & passive.
They'd happily sell their country to the control of corporations.... for some fake money and a pig...
Oink.
Oink.
But that is a little unfair, if it was for supporting health care and i played that gaming stuff i probably would.
But the intent is clear, to mobilize individuals into opposing health reform and for this opposition to not appear corporate.
Shame really.
Very deceptive.
Friday 4 December 2009
Did The Internet Cause The New Athiests?
A gentleman called Vorjack (assuming this gentle person is a man!) over at "Unreasonable Faith" points out that atheism has been around for a while but asks the question: why has this wave of atheism more successful than the last?
Vorjack has suggested that the anonymity of athiests over the internet has allowed much more expression and has closed gaps across countries.
I'd suggest that the current state of Atheism has been more successful for a number of reasons, an amalgamation of:
The internet: (i agree with Vorjack, but the internet has done so much more): The internet is a catalogue of ideas, it takes very little to realize the hyper plurality of believing in a god (which god!) and of not believing. The point here is knowledge on demand, just google: does god exist and there are may websites ready to verbally enlighten you.
On top of this, the growing multiculturalism of our society really does allow for challenges. I know Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and pagans and atheists and agnostics. Not only by their very existence but a dialogue between two of these is easier.
A huge difference i feel is a difference between what is right and what is faith. Many religious people now accept that they cannot readily defend their faith, it is faith, it is a belief. This is the view of fiedism..such a state of affairs could lead to an erosion of godly beliefs.
A funny point which i would like to stand, the growing visibility of Scientology... need i say more?
A view that has been suggested to me before, a growing conciousness of evil. whether it's "terrorism" or "hurricanes", the internet has allowed more effective news-gathering and telling. (i however find this a weak suggestion)
Another thing we must assess is: what is atheism? Do we mean people are more atheistic about the monotheistic Christian god? Or all gods?
And where does this atheism lead, without a god how do people account for many of the problems/miracles that occur, how do people account for the existence of the universe?
By this i am not suggesting one needs god to explain these, but what does one use to explain these, how close are some of the beliefs of an atheist to becoming a dogmatic religion!
I believe as well that the conventional approach to defining a religion or a religious person is extremely haphazard.
The actual name we can give to all these effects is a postmodern feel. This plurality of ideas, this breaking down of distance, this difficulty in definition, this modernity in identity.
Ahwell. I hope neither religion or atheism prevails both only talk of a belief in god. For me, i hope humanism prevails, whether people are religious or not - people are the most important.
Vorjack has suggested that the anonymity of athiests over the internet has allowed much more expression and has closed gaps across countries.
I'd suggest that the current state of Atheism has been more successful for a number of reasons, an amalgamation of:
The internet: (i agree with Vorjack, but the internet has done so much more): The internet is a catalogue of ideas, it takes very little to realize the hyper plurality of believing in a god (which god!) and of not believing. The point here is knowledge on demand, just google: does god exist and there are may websites ready to verbally enlighten you.
On top of this, the growing multiculturalism of our society really does allow for challenges. I know Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and pagans and atheists and agnostics. Not only by their very existence but a dialogue between two of these is easier.
A huge difference i feel is a difference between what is right and what is faith. Many religious people now accept that they cannot readily defend their faith, it is faith, it is a belief. This is the view of fiedism..such a state of affairs could lead to an erosion of godly beliefs.
A funny point which i would like to stand, the growing visibility of Scientology... need i say more?
A view that has been suggested to me before, a growing conciousness of evil. whether it's "terrorism" or "hurricanes", the internet has allowed more effective news-gathering and telling. (i however find this a weak suggestion)
Another thing we must assess is: what is atheism? Do we mean people are more atheistic about the monotheistic Christian god? Or all gods?
And where does this atheism lead, without a god how do people account for many of the problems/miracles that occur, how do people account for the existence of the universe?
By this i am not suggesting one needs god to explain these, but what does one use to explain these, how close are some of the beliefs of an atheist to becoming a dogmatic religion!
I believe as well that the conventional approach to defining a religion or a religious person is extremely haphazard.
The actual name we can give to all these effects is a postmodern feel. This plurality of ideas, this breaking down of distance, this difficulty in definition, this modernity in identity.
Ahwell. I hope neither religion or atheism prevails both only talk of a belief in god. For me, i hope humanism prevails, whether people are religious or not - people are the most important.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Iran and the IAEA
Holding the theme Iran here is a very new current issue.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has passed a resolution against Iran. But Iran calls this resolution "illegal"
So i looked at what the IAEA wants or "urges":
1. Iran should cease construction of it's Qom site. (the one it hid)
2. Give information of the Qom site.
3. Ensure the international community that they are not going to/planning to build more sites (just like Qom).
4. Iran should live up to it's agreements/requirements and obligations.
So... Illegal?
Not really.
I'm very interested to see where this might lead, the international community must ensure that Iran is not proliferating nuclear weapons and that they are respecting the authority of the UN. These must be secured, it's really a question of how.
Other factors that may come into play soon are, Israel - they may chose to respond to the threat that Iran is posing (considering it's anti-Israel stance). and the sailors, it may be the case that their arrest is used for political leverage. (it must be noted however, the sailors were arrested on purely legitimate grounds).
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has passed a resolution against Iran. But Iran calls this resolution "illegal"
So i looked at what the IAEA wants or "urges":
1. Iran should cease construction of it's Qom site. (the one it hid)
2. Give information of the Qom site.
3. Ensure the international community that they are not going to/planning to build more sites (just like Qom).
4. Iran should live up to it's agreements/requirements and obligations.
So... Illegal?
Not really.
I'm very interested to see where this might lead, the international community must ensure that Iran is not proliferating nuclear weapons and that they are respecting the authority of the UN. These must be secured, it's really a question of how.
Other factors that may come into play soon are, Israel - they may chose to respond to the threat that Iran is posing (considering it's anti-Israel stance). and the sailors, it may be the case that their arrest is used for political leverage. (it must be noted however, the sailors were arrested on purely legitimate grounds).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)