11 December 2007
Blog love and absence
Probably 5% of the blog posts I read on a daily basis are excuses for not posting more frequently. Those kinds of posts do tend to annoy for the time wasted in reading them, so I won't gush with excuses and apologies. I have nothing to say... really... except that they annoy me. So there. I know I'll be annoying for the rest of this and I don't care. I'm a badass that way.
I don't really have much to say on environmentalism and atheism these days. Fundies and globalists piss me off so much that dwelling on their world-crushing antics would end up killing me prematurely. That would mean less time to spend with my champion kids and my beautiful, funny, talented partner/wife/lover/friend/co-procreator. I do think of the end of this civilization and the collapse of this culture a lot. I'm just learning right now - and working my ass off, because work is busy right now and why the hell am I blogging when I should be working?
So if and when I find time for myself and a book of rant to vomit out onto these sacred tubes, I will. Until then, enjoy the ones who bring it like it ought to be brought. Bone up on the choice cuts with The Brainsturbator and Hump Jones, then wash it down with some comedic blasphemy by Flumadiddle. If you still aren't laughing enough, sprinkle on some LOLCats and some XKCD. These are my staples. The rest is commentary.
"bring it like it ought to be brought". gack. I shouldn't be blogging.
I don't really have much to say on environmentalism and atheism these days. Fundies and globalists piss me off so much that dwelling on their world-crushing antics would end up killing me prematurely. That would mean less time to spend with my champion kids and my beautiful, funny, talented partner/wife/lover/friend/co-procreator. I do think of the end of this civilization and the collapse of this culture a lot. I'm just learning right now - and working my ass off, because work is busy right now and why the hell am I blogging when I should be working?
So if and when I find time for myself and a book of rant to vomit out onto these sacred tubes, I will. Until then, enjoy the ones who bring it like it ought to be brought. Bone up on the choice cuts with The Brainsturbator and Hump Jones, then wash it down with some comedic blasphemy by Flumadiddle. If you still aren't laughing enough, sprinkle on some LOLCats and some XKCD. These are my staples. The rest is commentary.
"bring it like it ought to be brought". gack. I shouldn't be blogging.
Labels: blog-love
30 July 2007
Resolve tested: satisfactory
I had a debate with a Jehovah's witness at lunch today. I'm not equipped to fall in to that sort of thing, but I let it happen anyway. I don't have a list of supporting facts to back up some of my arguments about the incongruencies and fallacies in the bible - so that sort of fell flat in the beginning. Never argue dogma with a fanatic.
But when the subject matter turned toward the more fundamental philosophical arguments about god, and my opponent's own arguments in favour of belief, I think I managed quite well. Her points about the will of god and the need to prepare for his return fell flat when the question of relevance came about.
I talked about how belief in an afterlife becomes a justification for not giving a shit about this one. That's my enviroatheist persona coming out. I think it's kind of odd that she admitted she doesn't believe in an afterlife (except for a fortunate minority). So I posed the question - if there is nothing for us after this life, why believe in god? That's when the whole thing about him coming back to reclaim the throne like some absentee landlord came up. Why obey the will of a ruler who cedes control over creation to lesser, evil beings? This supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being cocks up and makes mankind, so broken that it can't even follow the only rule it was required to keep. And why make the rule if he knew they'd fuck up anyway. If god does exist, he's an evil prick, no? Even if he can squash you like a bug, what's the point of bowing down to someone or something so evil?
I didn't even get into the problem with incest and Adam and Eve's children procreating. I didn't touch on the problem of original sin and the injustice of having to be accountable for the mistakes of my "forebears".
I must admit, she held her own quite well. But that old backup plan of referring to the scripture gets tiring after a while. She had none of her own opinions at her disposal. It wasn't quite rote memorization, but definitely a slavish bondage to the cult book. I let her give me a pamphlet, but confessed that it was pointless giving me her phone number. Maybe I should have taken it.
I think it would be fun to deconvert a JW or a Christian. The entertainment value of that is not based some sort of sadistic schadenfreude. This JW asked if I got discouraged about the direction the world is headed in and if I felt impotent about changing it. I suggested that "pay it forward" idea that having a positive influence on just a few people can multiply the goodness indefinitely. I think that deconverting someone lost in such a destructive myth would be worth the effort, and an example of that positive effect. One of the many rewards of doing good in the world is the shine you feel afterward. You won't get that kind of sticky goodness from the bleachers at the Cineplex.
But when the subject matter turned toward the more fundamental philosophical arguments about god, and my opponent's own arguments in favour of belief, I think I managed quite well. Her points about the will of god and the need to prepare for his return fell flat when the question of relevance came about.
I talked about how belief in an afterlife becomes a justification for not giving a shit about this one. That's my enviroatheist persona coming out. I think it's kind of odd that she admitted she doesn't believe in an afterlife (except for a fortunate minority). So I posed the question - if there is nothing for us after this life, why believe in god? That's when the whole thing about him coming back to reclaim the throne like some absentee landlord came up. Why obey the will of a ruler who cedes control over creation to lesser, evil beings? This supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being cocks up and makes mankind, so broken that it can't even follow the only rule it was required to keep. And why make the rule if he knew they'd fuck up anyway. If god does exist, he's an evil prick, no? Even if he can squash you like a bug, what's the point of bowing down to someone or something so evil?
I didn't even get into the problem with incest and Adam and Eve's children procreating. I didn't touch on the problem of original sin and the injustice of having to be accountable for the mistakes of my "forebears".
I must admit, she held her own quite well. But that old backup plan of referring to the scripture gets tiring after a while. She had none of her own opinions at her disposal. It wasn't quite rote memorization, but definitely a slavish bondage to the cult book. I let her give me a pamphlet, but confessed that it was pointless giving me her phone number. Maybe I should have taken it.
I think it would be fun to deconvert a JW or a Christian. The entertainment value of that is not based some sort of sadistic schadenfreude. This JW asked if I got discouraged about the direction the world is headed in and if I felt impotent about changing it. I suggested that "pay it forward" idea that having a positive influence on just a few people can multiply the goodness indefinitely. I think that deconverting someone lost in such a destructive myth would be worth the effort, and an example of that positive effect. One of the many rewards of doing good in the world is the shine you feel afterward. You won't get that kind of sticky goodness from the bleachers at the Cineplex.
23 May 2007
Who Wants to be a Terrorist?
So some deranged kid was going to firebomb protesters outside Jerry Falwell's funeral:
Detergent and gasoline? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the recipe for napalm? You know, that gooey flamable shit that sticks to kids? Not very destructive? I guess not in a BOOM BOOM sense. More like an "Oh Christ! I'm on fire and I can't make it stop!!!" sense. What a sick fucker. I wouldn't even wish that kind of torture on a Phelptheist.
The kid will probably get off with a relatively light sentence, with all the frills of due process, bypassing Guantanamo Bay altogether. This is the problem with treating terrorism as an act of war rather than as a crime like it should be: it's almost impossible to stuff a domestic terrorist into that enemy combatant mould, especially if the brainfuck psychosis that drives the terrorist activity is the same as the brainfuck psychosis that runs the country.
Cheers to Kev\Rev\Woodshed dude via Teh Beaver.
The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.
Detergent and gasoline? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the recipe for napalm? You know, that gooey flamable shit that sticks to kids? Not very destructive? I guess not in a BOOM BOOM sense. More like an "Oh Christ! I'm on fire and I can't make it stop!!!" sense. What a sick fucker. I wouldn't even wish that kind of torture on a Phelptheist.
The kid will probably get off with a relatively light sentence, with all the frills of due process, bypassing Guantanamo Bay altogether. This is the problem with treating terrorism as an act of war rather than as a crime like it should be: it's almost impossible to stuff a domestic terrorist into that enemy combatant mould, especially if the brainfuck psychosis that drives the terrorist activity is the same as the brainfuck psychosis that runs the country.
Cheers to Kev\Rev\Woodshed dude via Teh Beaver.
Labels: blog-love, morality, war
04 May 2007
I'm feeling a bit surly today
First, the Pope is an asshat.
Second, 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0.
Now I'm a terrorist AND a pirate. It's a bit silly, isn't it?
Thanks go to Butterflies and Wheels for the link, and to Justinsomnia for his clever revelation of the ongoing encryption revolt.
EDIT: I changed the expletive. On reflection, I think I'd like to be less crude. I tend to regret things said for shock value, not because I don't mean them, but because vulgarity can be misconstrued so easily and can be very imprecise. Plus, "asshat" is much funnier, especially when the asshat in question already wears a funny hat. Props to vjack for the inspiration.
Second, 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0.
Now I'm a terrorist AND a pirate. It's a bit silly, isn't it?
Thanks go to Butterflies and Wheels for the link, and to Justinsomnia for his clever revelation of the ongoing encryption revolt.
EDIT: I changed the expletive. On reflection, I think I'd like to be less crude. I tend to regret things said for shock value, not because I don't mean them, but because vulgarity can be misconstrued so easily and can be very imprecise. Plus, "asshat" is much funnier, especially when the asshat in question already wears a funny hat. Props to vjack for the inspiration.
25 April 2007
Car culture and the Monkeysphere
The car is an expression of power. Aside from the obvious utility inherent in motor vehicles, the form our automobiles take beyond that utility is the manifestation of the power we wish to exert. All possessions are in some way the same. We express our right to own them every waking second of every day. They are the accouterments of the specific way of living that we aspire to. Cars are more so, though. We use them to ply our way through the expressions of power of other citizens. They are our armour and our message. They communicate our rights of way to other motorists. They express our intents: to get there faster, to move ahead, to toodle, to obey the rules, to drive too fast, too inebriated, whatever the cost. They express eminent domain over the fast lane. the HOV lane, or the curb lane, or over more than one parking spot. They also insulate us from the messages of others. The more engine and sheet metal between us and the other denizens of the road, the less they matter.
The rights of the consumer, with the exclusion of its right not to be defrauded, are an odd thing - a bit of a double standard. The right to own and use our things in whatever way we choose seems simple and primary given our immersion into the Dominant Culture from birth. If there is a way to save time or energy through an object that can be purchased, we feel there should be no barrier to our owning and using that object. The path we have chosen in life becomes a qualification for those rights. "I need this for work." "I have this for my kids." "This makes my life easier." "Everybody has one of these." The greater the sense of entitlement, the less the rights of others matter. As we have the right to drive, to eat, to laugh, to relax, so others have the right to walk, to breath, to be safe, to be healthy.
I've heard many times about the idea of the 150 people who matter to us and the rest who don't at all. There's some theory that has evolved about it. Someone even came up with a name for it: the Monkeysphere. If we consume with impunity and that sphere, that Monkeysphere is populated with carbon copies of ourselves, as like minds tend to attract, what we have is a cancer. We have a nebulous growth of humans who don't give a shit about the effect we are having on those outside of our sphere.* We work together, along with the machine feeding our demands, to insulate each individual from the effect of our hedonism.** We will be blind to the existence of slave labour, child labour and sweatshops, of the arms trade and warlords, of backroom deals and underground economies, of resource exploitation and theft, of environmental destruction. But even in those venues where we have direct contact with the victims of our abuse, the online flamee, the waitress or delivery guy, the random pedestrian or chump in a traffic queue, our buffer against otherness objectifies and anonymizes the world around us.
* Of course, I exaggerate. There will inevitably be people within our spheres who aren't carbon copies. The carbon copies, however, will be higher on the scale of influence. Also, the boundaries of our sphere will never be fixed. Unless it's some island tribe with no outside contact, every person's 150 will be a unique set.
** I'm using "hedonism" here purposefully. Even mass murderers, pushed to madness by the ravages of the status quo, spill motes of wisdom. Rather than dismiss them as psychotic ramblings, perhaps some of us should analyze and interpret them. Truths cannot be tainted. Whether it be a campus bloodbath, a few scattered mail bombs, or the keying of a car door***, we cannot write off these reactions as mere bursts chemical noise in the brains of the perpetrators. They are environmental in nature and can claim The Culture, at least in part, as an instigator.
*** Apologies to Marcy for lumping her in with Cho Seung-Hui, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Ted Kaczynski. My intent was not to classify her act as insane or monstrous, but to contrast the enormity of their acts with one I consider benign, but stemming, I believe from a similar cultural breaking point.
The rights of the consumer, with the exclusion of its right not to be defrauded, are an odd thing - a bit of a double standard. The right to own and use our things in whatever way we choose seems simple and primary given our immersion into the Dominant Culture from birth. If there is a way to save time or energy through an object that can be purchased, we feel there should be no barrier to our owning and using that object. The path we have chosen in life becomes a qualification for those rights. "I need this for work." "I have this for my kids." "This makes my life easier." "Everybody has one of these." The greater the sense of entitlement, the less the rights of others matter. As we have the right to drive, to eat, to laugh, to relax, so others have the right to walk, to breath, to be safe, to be healthy.
I've heard many times about the idea of the 150 people who matter to us and the rest who don't at all. There's some theory that has evolved about it. Someone even came up with a name for it: the Monkeysphere. If we consume with impunity and that sphere, that Monkeysphere is populated with carbon copies of ourselves, as like minds tend to attract, what we have is a cancer. We have a nebulous growth of humans who don't give a shit about the effect we are having on those outside of our sphere.* We work together, along with the machine feeding our demands, to insulate each individual from the effect of our hedonism.** We will be blind to the existence of slave labour, child labour and sweatshops, of the arms trade and warlords, of backroom deals and underground economies, of resource exploitation and theft, of environmental destruction. But even in those venues where we have direct contact with the victims of our abuse, the online flamee, the waitress or delivery guy, the random pedestrian or chump in a traffic queue, our buffer against otherness objectifies and anonymizes the world around us.
* Of course, I exaggerate. There will inevitably be people within our spheres who aren't carbon copies. The carbon copies, however, will be higher on the scale of influence. Also, the boundaries of our sphere will never be fixed. Unless it's some island tribe with no outside contact, every person's 150 will be a unique set.
** I'm using "hedonism" here purposefully. Even mass murderers, pushed to madness by the ravages of the status quo, spill motes of wisdom. Rather than dismiss them as psychotic ramblings, perhaps some of us should analyze and interpret them. Truths cannot be tainted. Whether it be a campus bloodbath, a few scattered mail bombs, or the keying of a car door***, we cannot write off these reactions as mere bursts chemical noise in the brains of the perpetrators. They are environmental in nature and can claim The Culture, at least in part, as an instigator.
*** Apologies to Marcy for lumping her in with Cho Seung-Hui, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Ted Kaczynski. My intent was not to classify her act as insane or monstrous, but to contrast the enormity of their acts with one I consider benign, but stemming, I believe from a similar cultural breaking point.
Labels: insulation, morality, otherness
18 April 2007
Capitalism is War
Ok. This is sheer laziness, I know. But Delta over at Freethought Weekly has posted an essay that I should have posted myself. I agree with everything in the post. It's all stuff I've mentioned before, and have been meaning to pull together into some sort of cohesive idea. Now I don't have to.
Labels: blog-love, economics, war
16 April 2007
On Dion and May
Some of my close compatriots have reservations about the recent change in the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada - not that they would ever even vote for a Liberal. The popularity of Canadian progressive politicians tends to run hot and lukewarm around here. In one election a while back, I voted Green, but was still content when Chrétien became Prime Minister. I'll be happy to have the incumbent NDP candidate in our riding be swept into office, but would rather not see her party form the government. Only these newfangled Reforma-Toripublicans manage to muster the kind of partisan contempt that divides America so cleanly. "Anything But Conservative" is a slogan that small "l" liberals in Canada can be comfortable with in these dark times. Just ask anybody who didn't vote for the Tories in Vancouver-Kingsway. If you like your government lite on the christianity and chickenhawk-free, having your elected Liberal candidate cross the floor to the Conservatives the day after the election will make a Cock-blocker out of anyone. Proportional representation needs to hurry the hell up and get here. That, however, is the subject of another conversation.
Back to Stéphane, though. One person in my small circle, who shall remain nameless, dismisses Dion in that she thinks he doesn't posses the leadership qualities that would make a good Prime Minister. I like him. Not only is he intelligent and green, but he beat the odds at the leadership convention. Three cheers for the underdog! I think he could be very shrewd indeed. Take, for example, the joint statement released by Dion and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May - a landmark in inter-party cooperation. As I understand it, May will run without Liberal competition against Peter McKay's Conservative incumbency. Shrewd. Bold. Ballsy. Brilliant. Given her strong showing in previous by-elections, the environmental vote would definitely be split otherwise. If she gets elected, her seat would bolster the causes of both parties.
The tide may be turning.
Gratitude to Scott Tribe for posting about this and linking to the statements. He's got more opinion and analysis of these events well worth checking out.
Back to Stéphane, though. One person in my small circle, who shall remain nameless, dismisses Dion in that she thinks he doesn't posses the leadership qualities that would make a good Prime Minister. I like him. Not only is he intelligent and green, but he beat the odds at the leadership convention. Three cheers for the underdog! I think he could be very shrewd indeed. Take, for example, the joint statement released by Dion and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May - a landmark in inter-party cooperation. As I understand it, May will run without Liberal competition against Peter McKay's Conservative incumbency. Shrewd. Bold. Ballsy. Brilliant. Given her strong showing in previous by-elections, the environmental vote would definitely be split otherwise. If she gets elected, her seat would bolster the causes of both parties.
The tide may be turning.
Gratitude to Scott Tribe for posting about this and linking to the statements. He's got more opinion and analysis of these events well worth checking out.
Labels: blog-love
12 April 2007
Bear with me.
Did you ever have a great idea or wickedly astute insight into the workings of the world, and then try to write about it for your blog, or your memoirs, or your doctoral thesis, or for some other audience who might appreciate some new nugget of wisdom, and then completely lose the key point of the argument in the process of documenting it?
This happens on a weekly basis with me. It's why I post so infrequently. It's why the posts I do submit tend to clumsily ramble and meander and fall short of the eloquence of a punch-drunk Bowery goon.
I want to be profound without stretching the limits of reason. I want to write biting critiques of the thugs and hypocrites pulling the strings without sounding whiney and disaffected - kind of like right now...
More to come.
This happens on a weekly basis with me. It's why I post so infrequently. It's why the posts I do submit tend to clumsily ramble and meander and fall short of the eloquence of a punch-drunk Bowery goon.
I want to be profound without stretching the limits of reason. I want to write biting critiques of the thugs and hypocrites pulling the strings without sounding whiney and disaffected - kind of like right now...
More to come.
05 April 2007
Industry funded greenwashing
I've been irked lately about a recent TV ad campaign put out by the CRFA . It features Albert Howell, of Comedy Inc. fame, in a man-on-the-street role. He's talking to people about biofuels and Harper's mention during a campaign speech of a commitment to require 5% renewable content in fuel. The ad mentions ethanol specifically.
Harper's efforts to mirror the same ethanol greenwash that's happening in the states disgusts me. Not only does this boost support for a dangerous industrial trend, but the ethanol doublethink candies up the image of a man and the stooges who follow him who all couldn't give a shit about the environment unless there was a buck to be made. Call me anti-capitalist. Fine. It's not about that though. If you're going to suck a huge pile of cash out of an idea, at least make sure that you don't fuck anybody over in the process.
Most people have this notion that ethanol is a green fuel. It isn't. Ethanol is essentially a conversion of fossil fuel into another form. The energy boost from the process (if any) is negligible because lots of energy is used up in the production. The final product is less efficient an energy source than the conventional fuel it is intended to replace. This also means that the reduction in greenhouse gasses by ethanol (again, if any) is also negligible.
In North America, the adoption of ethanol into the energy infrastructure will likely result in the redirection of food crops like corn and other grains to be used in its distillation. This means that the value of those foodstuffs and the land that is used to grow them will increase dramatically, driving up the cost of food. This is already happening, and it's just the beginning.
Thanks go to Red Tory, as I copied the code for the embedded video from one of his blog posts. You should check out the post because it brings up some other good points about the ad - notably the resemblance to those ads for the (c.n.g.™) cancelled One Tonne Challenge campaign featuring Rick Mercer.
Harper's efforts to mirror the same ethanol greenwash that's happening in the states disgusts me. Not only does this boost support for a dangerous industrial trend, but the ethanol doublethink candies up the image of a man and the stooges who follow him who all couldn't give a shit about the environment unless there was a buck to be made. Call me anti-capitalist. Fine. It's not about that though. If you're going to suck a huge pile of cash out of an idea, at least make sure that you don't fuck anybody over in the process.
Most people have this notion that ethanol is a green fuel. It isn't. Ethanol is essentially a conversion of fossil fuel into another form. The energy boost from the process (if any) is negligible because lots of energy is used up in the production. The final product is less efficient an energy source than the conventional fuel it is intended to replace. This also means that the reduction in greenhouse gasses by ethanol (again, if any) is also negligible.
In North America, the adoption of ethanol into the energy infrastructure will likely result in the redirection of food crops like corn and other grains to be used in its distillation. This means that the value of those foodstuffs and the land that is used to grow them will increase dramatically, driving up the cost of food. This is already happening, and it's just the beginning.
Thanks go to Red Tory, as I copied the code for the embedded video from one of his blog posts. You should check out the post because it brings up some other good points about the ad - notably the resemblance to those ads for the (c.n.g.™) cancelled One Tonne Challenge campaign featuring Rick Mercer.
Labels: blog-love, energy, insulation, neocon bunk
04 April 2007
Manly man hokum
The Philadelphia Enquirer has an interesting article that explores something I mentioned the other day about the division of labour between prehistoric/pre-agricultural hominids. I got the gist from the article that our flawed notion of the macho male hunter vs the more feminine female gatherer may have to do with the embarrassment about our ancestors use of pre-slaughtered game. It turns out that we may have been merely scavengers. The image of the big game hunter, man against beast, spear against claw, seems to be a more modern fixation. That's not to say that we didn't hunt like that, but it likely wasn't a primary pursuit.
Link from the news feed at Butterflies and Wheels.
Link from the news feed at Butterflies and Wheels.
Labels: blog-love, empire, freeganism
