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).
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Iran and its Nukes
I'd like to lightly draw an outline of Iran and the future.
and why im a little frightened.
Iran and the Uk/Us have gone back oh so 35ish years - my history sucks.
The current focus is very much on Iran and nuclear energy, it has been for around a decade.
The main states at the UN will not allow Iran to enrich nuclear material because of their fear it could lead to more nukes.
Iran says it wants to use nuclear energy as a more efficient fuel and for research.
You see these two sets of ideas about things cause friction and even tension.
So, the secret facilities in Iran has been brewing an even more serious tension. More so with the UN having to order them shown.
But the whole logical cohesion is crazy:
Why cannot Iran make these nuclear fuels?
Why do they want to?
What do they want the fuel for?
Who is the international community to deny them autonomy?
It's a series of questions for which there is no clear and delineating answer. I'd suggest (and i know little on the subject)
I suspect Iran is both like the child who does the opposite of what he's told, and like the defenceless ant, small, proud, but not without confidence, when considering how they are perceived and how they have been treated by the Bush administration.
(and i'll provide no more references to the Bush administration's actions, just search google.)
They have been marginalised by the international community and nuclear energy certainly represents a milestone. Not to mention their lack of real defence against military superpowers like Russia and the US (in terms of the nukes).
The most reasonable answer i believe is the west: an overbearing parent.
Iran is a state and like most states has a vested interest in it's state. Why the international community denies and sanctions Iran on nukes is immaterial, they are ignoring it, they have interests to further.
(As for why I'm getting bad feelings... )
I do not think it of little relevance to point out the Iranian government's harsh criticism and attacks at the west and Zionism (from the Ayotollah Iran's supreme religous/political leader and from Ahmedinejad Iran's PM)
also the history of Iran & western relations: from when the Iranians took hostage US citizens. the UK/US invasion of middle east and an extremely suspicious and dictatorial re-election of Ahmedinejad...
the re-election was considered rigged. It is interesting to note how candidates for PM secure their candidacy, that they must be accepted by the Grand Ayotollah. As such Iran can be considered a religious government.
The most poignant issue to date, sparking my real fears is Iran's continued dismissal of UN resolutions:
They still can't build nuclear sites. (although we know they have)
THEY ARE PLANNING TEN.
and, as a form of disclaimer let us not forget the rose tinted glasses we have of our own country.
It just seems to me that a lot is and will happen surrounding Iran over the next 4 years, something is up and it is something we should all have at the forefront of our minds. Time is certainly running out.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
... I don't know right now.
Oh!
look!
Right there, in the corner!
is it a message?
A reply?
A comment!
three facebook notifications?!
ftw.
What trash.
Wow. An application...
An application...
An
A-P-P-P-P-LICATION-TION-TION!
COMB-BO-BO BREAKER!
look!
Right there, in the corner!
is it a message?
A reply?
A comment!
three facebook notifications?!
ftw.
What trash.
Wow. An application...
An application...
An
A-P-P-P-P-LICATION-TION-TION!
COMB-BO-BO BREAKER!
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Examples: The Ethics Of Capital
Or rather, the lack of ethics in corporations.
I have mentioned this problem once or twice before, but it is abstract - longer than an arms reach. I saw an article today on the Al Jazeera News Network, and it has prompted me to show you example of this "lack of ethics".
The times, Al Jazeera... Both mention it. The Guardian points it out.
Trafigura, the company, in 2002 polluted a part of Africa and the Africans are still waiting for the money to pay for the damage to their bodies.
Actually look at the lesions on the child's arm. Sulphur.
I hate to be emotive, but really, it feels like this is the only way people take stuff on board these days.
Notice the word i'm using: the africans have to pay for this healthcare. The child needs money for the help.
Why did this corporation leave waste?
simply answer, i'd be pissed if you didn't know it .
IT CHEAPER.
You can make more.........PROFIT. from that, at least.
Let me articulate it in the way a business law website did:
"Probo Koala... attempted to discharge this waste at the port of Amsterdam, but the port service would not accept the waste without an additional handling charge because of the waste’s alleged toxicity. " So they knew about it.
"...After the waste from the ship was discharged in Abidjan, people living near the discharge sites began to suffer from a range of illnesses ... Sixteen people have died, allegedly from exposure to this waste, and more than 100,000 have sought medical attention."
Two final things to point out. Does the company, Probo Koala (used by Trafigura) get shut down? Its executives fired? no.
Who do you think has the best lawyer(s) (yeah, plural!) on the case...
Why do they have the best lawyer(s)... money...
Seriously. Wake up and smell the Sulphur.
(oh... and the company also tried to silence the news... do you think they've tried that before? do you think they have succeeded? Dare i say yes for you. Can money silence the news!? DARE I SAY YES AGAIN?)
I have mentioned this problem once or twice before, but it is abstract - longer than an arms reach. I saw an article today on the Al Jazeera News Network, and it has prompted me to show you example of this "lack of ethics".
The times, Al Jazeera... Both mention it. The Guardian points it out.
Trafigura, the company, in 2002 polluted a part of Africa and the Africans are still waiting for the money to pay for the damage to their bodies.
Actually look at the lesions on the child's arm. Sulphur.
I hate to be emotive, but really, it feels like this is the only way people take stuff on board these days.
Notice the word i'm using: the africans have to pay for this healthcare. The child needs money for the help.
Why did this corporation leave waste?
simply answer, i'd be pissed if you didn't know it .
IT CHEAPER.
You can make more.........PROFIT. from that, at least.
Let me articulate it in the way a business law website did:
"Probo Koala... attempted to discharge this waste at the port of Amsterdam, but the port service would not accept the waste without an additional handling charge because of the waste’s alleged toxicity. " So they knew about it.
"...After the waste from the ship was discharged in Abidjan, people living near the discharge sites began to suffer from a range of illnesses ... Sixteen people have died, allegedly from exposure to this waste, and more than 100,000 have sought medical attention."
Two final things to point out. Does the company, Probo Koala (used by Trafigura) get shut down? Its executives fired? no.
Who do you think has the best lawyer(s) (yeah, plural!) on the case...
Why do they have the best lawyer(s)... money...
Seriously. Wake up and smell the Sulphur.
(oh... and the company also tried to silence the news... do you think they've tried that before? do you think they have succeeded? Dare i say yes for you. Can money silence the news!? DARE I SAY YES AGAIN?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)