I visited Foxnews.com yesterday and discovered an alarming news video. It was entitled, Not-So-Green Gore? I watched the whole video through, and really listened to what the right-winged news station had to say. Almost immediately my “Bullshit Alarm” went off. John Gibson’s “The Big Story” segment of Fox News is claiming that at Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion consumes twenty times as much energy in a year than an average American household does in one year. Fox News is known for its right-wing agenda and I’m not surprised that they decided to bash Gore. Right off the bat, he is a prime target for scrutiny and anything Gore does environmentally will be under inquiry. You don’t see Fox News going in depth into the Bush Administration asking any questions about his War in the East do you?
The choice of words that Gibson uses in this segment is astonishing as well. He says that Gore wants people to hop on his “Green Band Wagon”. Using these words is showing the viewers that this is just a trend and it if you do not go green then it's not a big deal. It’s like saying, “Hop on the blonde hair band wagon”, or “Hop on the Doritos band wagon” With those simple words they trivialized Gore’s hard work on the global warming crisis.
Gibson asks the question, “What is Gore doing to make a different, apparently he talks a lot.” The following will be dripping with sarcasm: Um…Hello? I think Gore created this documentary, I think it was about Global Warming. I do also remember hearing somewhere that he travels all over the world to give his lecture about the crisis of global warming. You can’t tell me that Gore isn’t doing anything to make a difference, the very fact that you’re talking about him is because of the documentary, so Gibson, you’ve heard of it?
Next Gibson introduces Drew Johnson the president of the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. Gibson asks him to explain the allegations against Gore. Johnson does not talk about anything else but the fact that Gore uses twenty times as much energy as an average household does in a year and that Gore is a hypocrite. Near the end of the segment between Johnson and Gibson:
Gibson: Is there something Green that Gore is doing that you and I are not discussing?
Johnson: Not that I can see.
Are you kidding me? Again, they are assuming that Gore has all this knowledge about how to reduce carbon emissions and you act like he does not do them. Johnson and Gibson are muddling the facts, what is an average household anyways? Because of Gore I know about the global warming crisis and now so do billions of people all over the world. Again I ask, is that not being green? You can’t tell me that that’s not green enough for ya Gibson.
Johnson then mentions Gore’s carbon credits are, “a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt”. In response to this Gore brought on Laura Swartz, a democratic strategist. She explains exactly what Gore does, he calculates carbon footprint which means how much carbon his house emits, and offset the rest that can’t be cut back, because not everything can be. It’s not electricity, it’s CARBON EMMISIONS. Swartz explains it, and Johnson just ends the segments by saying that he has to look up what she just told him. Basically, Gore is doing everything he can, and they were just stooped.
Max’s Final Thought
Why does Fox need to bash Gore personally? Does this prove that global warming isn’t happening? Does this mean that the ice caps won’t melt and that we should all buy Hummers? If what Gibson is accusing Gore of is in fact is true, and Gore does emit a ton of carbon emission into the atmosphere (which in fact Fox News did NOT prove, but we’ll use this argument to make a point) does this mean that we could just forget about the problem of global warming and just sit back, relax and wait for the earth to warm up? Does this mean that all the hard work Gore has done for this cause should go unwarranted because John Gibson claims that Gore is a hypocrite? No, Fox News has proved nothing of the sort; Gibson actually accused Gore of something that he in fact did not even understand.
Gibson would do better to take a good look at the wonderful job Bush is doing to save the world and comment on that, because isn’t Bush using troops for his own fight for oil or something like that? John Gibson and Drew Johnson should watch Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and then make sure that they understand what carbon is before they try to bash the man who is undoubtedly trying to save the world.
References:
Fox News: John Gibson’s “The Big Story”
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?022707/022707_big_gore2&Big_Story&Not-So-Green%20Gore%3F&acc&Politics&-1&News&387&&&new
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
BSODed destroyers?
So I found some interesting news today: Microsoft is now entering military service. "Windows for Warships", they call this initiative. "Suicide for Suckers", is what I say. By and large most users, including myself, have suffered from the infinitely dreadful Blue Screen of Death, and/or a malware attack. What would happen, if say a Type-45 warship (a British air-defence surface ship) failed to destroy a surface-skimming missile? BOOM. Personally, I don't think I would like that to happen. So why would the British government sign off on this?
I sat back and thought about installing Windows on Navy vessels. An unsecured operating environment installed on the networked command system of a several hundred ton destroyer intended to protect British fleets and land from low-flying, supersonic missiles. Not too sure about that decision. Actually, two pieces of fictionalized media came to my mind: the first is Battlestar Galactica and how the Cylons attacked the Colonies and second is this joke at spacebattles.com. General consensus is that there are inherent dangers to networked computers and to Windows-based computers and these dangers multiply hundred-fold when attributed to the military. There obviously is a benefit to the use of higher-tech computers and operating systems in military craft, especially when the current technology resembles hardware that existed since the 70s or 80s; however, when it comes to computers, networks, and operating systems, the military should go completely proprietary. Less access to the software and network means less likely to hack into the system and cause an issue - this is one of those basic tenets system administrators hold dear.
I frankly believe it was a silly decision to go with Windows as the operating system of choice and it will probably end badly, cost taxpayers a lot of money, and result in turnover at the top of the military organizational hierarchy but at least they'll have learned their lesson. Hopefully this does not become a precedent for all military forces to follow and definitely let us hope that they never Blue Screen of Death (or need an upgrade).
I sat back and thought about installing Windows on Navy vessels. An unsecured operating environment installed on the networked command system of a several hundred ton destroyer intended to protect British fleets and land from low-flying, supersonic missiles. Not too sure about that decision. Actually, two pieces of fictionalized media came to my mind: the first is Battlestar Galactica and how the Cylons attacked the Colonies and second is this joke at spacebattles.com. General consensus is that there are inherent dangers to networked computers and to Windows-based computers and these dangers multiply hundred-fold when attributed to the military. There obviously is a benefit to the use of higher-tech computers and operating systems in military craft, especially when the current technology resembles hardware that existed since the 70s or 80s; however, when it comes to computers, networks, and operating systems, the military should go completely proprietary. Less access to the software and network means less likely to hack into the system and cause an issue - this is one of those basic tenets system administrators hold dear.
I frankly believe it was a silly decision to go with Windows as the operating system of choice and it will probably end badly, cost taxpayers a lot of money, and result in turnover at the top of the military organizational hierarchy but at least they'll have learned their lesson. Hopefully this does not become a precedent for all military forces to follow and definitely let us hope that they never Blue Screen of Death (or need an upgrade).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Harper's True Colours
Stephen Harper did a bad thing.
Now don’t say “what else is new?” because we have to be fair to our conservative readers. I want to establish from the outset that my intention is not to attack all of our Blue friends’ ideas, and though I tend to refer to the NDP leader as “Buddy Jack” and Mr. Dion as “My Hero”, I actually know a number of conservative voters who I’m more than willing to speak with on a daily basis. Mr. Harper himself, however, is fair game, particularly after yesterday’s question period.
I will divulge that I’m a native of Mississauga. And my MP WAS Wajid Khan. I hold him forever in past tense simply because he’s a soulless floor crosser and a waste of my vote. Granted, I voted in Windsor this past election and I voted NDP (I like to feel like a winner) but had I been home, I would have voted for this Khan fellow, and he betrayed what could have been.
Now Harper’s after another Mississauga MP, only this time, instead of stealing him, he’s decided to resort to the most horrifically juvenile character assault imaginable. It’s even better than those absurd election campaign-stylz attack ads he has out against My Hero. See, Liberal MP Navdeep Singh Bains, representing Mississauga-Brampton South, was mentioned in the Vancouver Sun recently, as apparently his father-in-law was “allegedly interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case” (CBC). For those of you who don’t remember, or who, like me, were barely a year old at the time, the Air India bombing took place in 1985 and killed 329 people.
The extent of it is that (bear with me…) “Bains's father-in-law told the RCMP he had met a man who was later convicted of shooting a potential witness in the Air India trial. He also allegedly said he met with Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was later acquitted in the Air India bombing” (CBC). That’s a couple too many “potential”s and “allegedly”s for me.
However, it was enough that during yesterday’s question period, while accusing the Liberals of being in opposition to police officer’s having a voice in judiciary decisions, Harper commented that he was "not surprised, given what I'm reading in the Vancouver Sun today when I read this is how the Liberal party makes decisions." As he began to mention our Liberal MP, the rest of our heroes in Red began to shout and bang on their desks (always a strong choice in politics) until finally the House Speaker stopped the questioning altogether. Bain sat quietly with his head down.
So let’s recap. The schoolyard bully (tubby kid, beady eyes - you know the type) made fun of the brown kid’s dad. A fight broke out, during which the kid who’d been made fun of slinked off while his buddies fought the bully, until the teacher came out and none of them were allowed to play anymore.
Here’s the best part: When the bully was told to apologize to the brown kid, he refused, saying that he didn’t even do anything wrong because all the Liberals, sorry, the brown kid’s friends, started shouting for no reason before he’d even said anything.
I am certainly not suggesting that schoolyard antics are anything new in our esteemed House of Commons. Indeed, these kinds of eruptions are a little more than ocassional. But I have to say, Harper’s getting pretty damn desperate. The attack ads were one thing, but to harp (no pun intended) on the family history of one MP, and in dangerous fashion due to his clear position as an ethnic minority, is something else entirely. He accused the MP with a turban of having a family of terrorists!
CTV covered the incident as well, but with far less emphasis on Harper’s display of character and more on the political issues he tried to use this information to gain leverage on. A quote from Liberal Ralph Goodale explained that Harper was implying “that somehow the decision-making process within the Liberal Party is shaped by some family connection on this very serious issue on what is the right security law for Canada” (CTV).
Why does this feel like an election campaign? Can we have another election? Please?
And meanwhile, Buddy Jack continues to divide his time between his lonely quest to abolish ABM fees and guest starring on Canadian comedy programs with the likes of Sabrina Jalees.
Not that she isn’t funny, but c’mon Jack, we’re tumbling towards a world of privatized healthcare and you think access to our own money should be free?
But I digress. Prime Minister Harper is a middle aged, moderately overweight, caucasian man whom George W. Bush refers to as “my buddy Steve”. Kyoto’s trashed, free trade’s freer than ever (while people themselves require increasing amounts of documentation to cross the border) and we’re quickly losing our reputation as the wickedest country in the world. We’re not the kind of nation that enjoys a terribly conservative government. For goodness sake, we like gays, women and ethnic minorities, not to mention marijuana. Do you remember during the election before last, when the tories’ numbers were soaring and the rest of us were getting concerned, and Michael Moore stepped in to save the day? He made one public comment, something along the lines of “If the Conservatives win, it won’t be long before Canada looks just like the U.S.” and within a day, the numbers changed. Where was our 4am miracle last election? Harper knows his days are numbered, or he wouldn’t be behaving this way. But we’ll have the chance to fix things soon. With any luck, it’ll even be before the polar icecaps melt and we all drown.
References
“Bank Fees No Problem, Consumer Group Says.” CBC. 19 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/02/16/consumers-bank.html.
Bolan, Kim. “Liberal MP’s Inlaw Interviewed in Air India Case.” Vancouver Sun. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=572691d1-56ba-4268-bc33-0abc4afe890d.
“Liberals Shout Down PM Over ‘Base’ Attack.” CBC. 21 Feb. 2007.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/21/harper-house.html?ref=rss.
“Liberals Furious over Harper’s Smear of MP.” CTV. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070221/harper_libs_070221/20070221?hub=TopStories.
“Ontario MP Khan Leaves Liberals to Join Tories.” CBC 5 Jan. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/05/khan-defect-070105.html.
Now don’t say “what else is new?” because we have to be fair to our conservative readers. I want to establish from the outset that my intention is not to attack all of our Blue friends’ ideas, and though I tend to refer to the NDP leader as “Buddy Jack” and Mr. Dion as “My Hero”, I actually know a number of conservative voters who I’m more than willing to speak with on a daily basis. Mr. Harper himself, however, is fair game, particularly after yesterday’s question period.
I will divulge that I’m a native of Mississauga. And my MP WAS Wajid Khan. I hold him forever in past tense simply because he’s a soulless floor crosser and a waste of my vote. Granted, I voted in Windsor this past election and I voted NDP (I like to feel like a winner) but had I been home, I would have voted for this Khan fellow, and he betrayed what could have been.
Now Harper’s after another Mississauga MP, only this time, instead of stealing him, he’s decided to resort to the most horrifically juvenile character assault imaginable. It’s even better than those absurd election campaign-stylz attack ads he has out against My Hero. See, Liberal MP Navdeep Singh Bains, representing Mississauga-Brampton South, was mentioned in the Vancouver Sun recently, as apparently his father-in-law was “allegedly interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case” (CBC). For those of you who don’t remember, or who, like me, were barely a year old at the time, the Air India bombing took place in 1985 and killed 329 people.
The extent of it is that (bear with me…) “Bains's father-in-law told the RCMP he had met a man who was later convicted of shooting a potential witness in the Air India trial. He also allegedly said he met with Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was later acquitted in the Air India bombing” (CBC). That’s a couple too many “potential”s and “allegedly”s for me.
However, it was enough that during yesterday’s question period, while accusing the Liberals of being in opposition to police officer’s having a voice in judiciary decisions, Harper commented that he was "not surprised, given what I'm reading in the Vancouver Sun today when I read this is how the Liberal party makes decisions." As he began to mention our Liberal MP, the rest of our heroes in Red began to shout and bang on their desks (always a strong choice in politics) until finally the House Speaker stopped the questioning altogether. Bain sat quietly with his head down.
So let’s recap. The schoolyard bully (tubby kid, beady eyes - you know the type) made fun of the brown kid’s dad. A fight broke out, during which the kid who’d been made fun of slinked off while his buddies fought the bully, until the teacher came out and none of them were allowed to play anymore.
Here’s the best part: When the bully was told to apologize to the brown kid, he refused, saying that he didn’t even do anything wrong because all the Liberals, sorry, the brown kid’s friends, started shouting for no reason before he’d even said anything.
I am certainly not suggesting that schoolyard antics are anything new in our esteemed House of Commons. Indeed, these kinds of eruptions are a little more than ocassional. But I have to say, Harper’s getting pretty damn desperate. The attack ads were one thing, but to harp (no pun intended) on the family history of one MP, and in dangerous fashion due to his clear position as an ethnic minority, is something else entirely. He accused the MP with a turban of having a family of terrorists!
CTV covered the incident as well, but with far less emphasis on Harper’s display of character and more on the political issues he tried to use this information to gain leverage on. A quote from Liberal Ralph Goodale explained that Harper was implying “that somehow the decision-making process within the Liberal Party is shaped by some family connection on this very serious issue on what is the right security law for Canada” (CTV).
Why does this feel like an election campaign? Can we have another election? Please?
And meanwhile, Buddy Jack continues to divide his time between his lonely quest to abolish ABM fees and guest starring on Canadian comedy programs with the likes of Sabrina Jalees.
Not that she isn’t funny, but c’mon Jack, we’re tumbling towards a world of privatized healthcare and you think access to our own money should be free?
But I digress. Prime Minister Harper is a middle aged, moderately overweight, caucasian man whom George W. Bush refers to as “my buddy Steve”. Kyoto’s trashed, free trade’s freer than ever (while people themselves require increasing amounts of documentation to cross the border) and we’re quickly losing our reputation as the wickedest country in the world. We’re not the kind of nation that enjoys a terribly conservative government. For goodness sake, we like gays, women and ethnic minorities, not to mention marijuana. Do you remember during the election before last, when the tories’ numbers were soaring and the rest of us were getting concerned, and Michael Moore stepped in to save the day? He made one public comment, something along the lines of “If the Conservatives win, it won’t be long before Canada looks just like the U.S.” and within a day, the numbers changed. Where was our 4am miracle last election? Harper knows his days are numbered, or he wouldn’t be behaving this way. But we’ll have the chance to fix things soon. With any luck, it’ll even be before the polar icecaps melt and we all drown.
References
“Bank Fees No Problem, Consumer Group Says.” CBC. 19 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/02/16/consumers-bank.html.
Bolan, Kim. “Liberal MP’s Inlaw Interviewed in Air India Case.” Vancouver Sun. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=572691d1-56ba-4268-bc33-0abc4afe890d.
“Liberals Shout Down PM Over ‘Base’ Attack.” CBC. 21 Feb. 2007.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/21/harper-house.html?ref=rss.
“Liberals Furious over Harper’s Smear of MP.” CTV. 21 Feb. 2007. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070221/harper_libs_070221/20070221?hub=TopStories.
“Ontario MP Khan Leaves Liberals to Join Tories.” CBC 5 Jan. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/05/khan-defect-070105.html.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Electric Car Graveyard
“In 1996 Electric cars began to appear on roads all over California. They were quiet and fast, produced no exhaust, and ran without gasoline.” This quote from the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car” is quite a shocker when considering for decade’s cars primarily ran on gasoline. In 1996 I didn’t know this was going on, granted I was only eleven years old and had no knowledge of cars or even the potential future environmental damage cars would inevitably endorse. In the last six months the talk about the environment was the number one concern on Canadians minds due in most part to the late start of the frigid winter in 2006. It was at this point that people began to actually see the damage first hand and were starting to get scared.
In the past couple of months I have seen more commercials on TV for hybrid vehicles than I had ever seen before. It angers me to see in a CBC article entitled Hybrid cars, written on February 16th, began with, “Auto manufacturers may be touting the age of environmentally friendly alternatives of hybrid, diesel and fuel cell technologies…”. Although it is great that auto companies are finally trying to sell cars that are healthier for the environment and that will lessen the emissions of greenhouse gases, but didn’t we already have this touting age in 1996 with the electric car? The electric car seems to have been completely ignored and forgotten about for the last eleven years since its existence as if it never were, like fairies or democracy in the United States. The idea of never having to use gasoline again with the coming of the electric car seems pristine for the environment, the customers dealing with the soaring gas prices caused by the War in the East and the people dying of cancer and asthma caused by the toxins in the air. But like the documentary title suggests, someone killed that idea and has set back the public knowledge of these scientific advancements of even more and improved fuel efficient cars.
When I see an SUV, I want to take a can of spray paint and write, “I’m killing the environment”, or “I’m the reason you have asthma” across the side of it, much like the animal activists that did to people wearing fur coats. It often seems like people just don’t care, they think that one single person can’t change the environment that much, but every gas powered car that burns a gallon of gas adds 19 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere. Imagine the amount of CO2 and SUV would add.
Without a doubt the main culprits are the oil companies. It only makes sense that oil companies do not want people abandoning oil and going electric, they would lose the billions of dollars they’ve made and of course they would be out of a job, on the streets begging for food, freezing to death with a blanket made of a million dollar bills.
But are Canadians to blame as well? The director of J.D. Power and Associates in the CBC article states, “Canada is already fuel efficient and that is why hybrid technology is not growing as fast as perhaps the public might think…”. Yes Canada is fuel efficient much more than the United States but why be fuel efficient when we can be “fuel-less” and banish the idea of oil all together? It seems like a crazy proposal, but in 1996 this crazy idea was being developed by those who actually cared and people had the hope of a vehicle that would save the environment. This hope ended quickly and it was because of the all mighty dollar.
According to the documentary, “the claim that there is no demand for [an electric] car is false.” In 1996 people couldn’t buy an electric car, only lease it, which meant they had to fill out a ton or paper work and sometimes people would have to submit a resume just to lease one! And of course because all the vehicles were leased, when the auto companies were told to stop offering the cars, they could legally take the cars away from the people who leased them. Then they were all compounded; like hiding the evidence of a murder and throw in an electric car grave yard, never to be seen again. Fortunately, it seems in 2006 and 2007 a hybrid can be actually owned by a person, so it sounds like they cannot be ripped away from their proud owners are here to stay, for now.
Hopefully now that hybrid cars are being sold, eventually people will demand a gasoline and oil free car, but then again, it had been proven it would take more than consumer demand. It will take the integrity and willingness of the oil companies. Some of you probably will scoff and say, “yeah right, that will never happen.” Maybe it won’t, but if it does, it will probably come at a cost. Maybe it will be when all the ice caps melt, sinking half the world in its wake. Maybe it will be intense heat waves killing millions of people all over the world. Or maybe, just maybe it will be the realization that their children and their grandchildren won’t have the same life that they once had; or a life at all, to enjoy the billions of dollars that they’ve inherited from their relatives by knowingly destroying the world.
References:
CBC Article Hybrid Cars
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/autos/hybrid-cars.html
Who Killed the Electric Car?
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
In the past couple of months I have seen more commercials on TV for hybrid vehicles than I had ever seen before. It angers me to see in a CBC article entitled Hybrid cars, written on February 16th, began with, “Auto manufacturers may be touting the age of environmentally friendly alternatives of hybrid, diesel and fuel cell technologies…”. Although it is great that auto companies are finally trying to sell cars that are healthier for the environment and that will lessen the emissions of greenhouse gases, but didn’t we already have this touting age in 1996 with the electric car? The electric car seems to have been completely ignored and forgotten about for the last eleven years since its existence as if it never were, like fairies or democracy in the United States. The idea of never having to use gasoline again with the coming of the electric car seems pristine for the environment, the customers dealing with the soaring gas prices caused by the War in the East and the people dying of cancer and asthma caused by the toxins in the air. But like the documentary title suggests, someone killed that idea and has set back the public knowledge of these scientific advancements of even more and improved fuel efficient cars.
When I see an SUV, I want to take a can of spray paint and write, “I’m killing the environment”, or “I’m the reason you have asthma” across the side of it, much like the animal activists that did to people wearing fur coats. It often seems like people just don’t care, they think that one single person can’t change the environment that much, but every gas powered car that burns a gallon of gas adds 19 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere. Imagine the amount of CO2 and SUV would add.
Without a doubt the main culprits are the oil companies. It only makes sense that oil companies do not want people abandoning oil and going electric, they would lose the billions of dollars they’ve made and of course they would be out of a job, on the streets begging for food, freezing to death with a blanket made of a million dollar bills.
But are Canadians to blame as well? The director of J.D. Power and Associates in the CBC article states, “Canada is already fuel efficient and that is why hybrid technology is not growing as fast as perhaps the public might think…”. Yes Canada is fuel efficient much more than the United States but why be fuel efficient when we can be “fuel-less” and banish the idea of oil all together? It seems like a crazy proposal, but in 1996 this crazy idea was being developed by those who actually cared and people had the hope of a vehicle that would save the environment. This hope ended quickly and it was because of the all mighty dollar.
According to the documentary, “the claim that there is no demand for [an electric] car is false.” In 1996 people couldn’t buy an electric car, only lease it, which meant they had to fill out a ton or paper work and sometimes people would have to submit a resume just to lease one! And of course because all the vehicles were leased, when the auto companies were told to stop offering the cars, they could legally take the cars away from the people who leased them. Then they were all compounded; like hiding the evidence of a murder and throw in an electric car grave yard, never to be seen again. Fortunately, it seems in 2006 and 2007 a hybrid can be actually owned by a person, so it sounds like they cannot be ripped away from their proud owners are here to stay, for now.
Hopefully now that hybrid cars are being sold, eventually people will demand a gasoline and oil free car, but then again, it had been proven it would take more than consumer demand. It will take the integrity and willingness of the oil companies. Some of you probably will scoff and say, “yeah right, that will never happen.” Maybe it won’t, but if it does, it will probably come at a cost. Maybe it will be when all the ice caps melt, sinking half the world in its wake. Maybe it will be intense heat waves killing millions of people all over the world. Or maybe, just maybe it will be the realization that their children and their grandchildren won’t have the same life that they once had; or a life at all, to enjoy the billions of dollars that they’ve inherited from their relatives by knowingly destroying the world.
References:
CBC Article Hybrid Cars
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/autos/hybrid-cars.html
Who Killed the Electric Car?
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Midterms and Time
Sorry folks. I have several stories in the works but none of them finished; however, I do plan on having a story for you folks by tomorrow night at the latest.
Good night!
- T
Good night!
- T
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Capitalism to Save the Planet?
“Bashing flyers has become part of the conversation whenever the chattering classes gather, especially in London, Paris and New York. Admitting in such company that you like to fly is the new farting loudly.” When I read this quote in the article “Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR” from Economist.com, I knew I’d found my subject for this week.
The environment has been a topic of widespread public concern for six whole months now. Of course, science has pointed for decades to the problems we are currently facing, but within the last year, likely due in large part to Al Gore’s staggering documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the issue of climate change has entered the public discourse as a legitimate cause for distress. This after thirty years of attributing warnings to the rants of freedom-hating environmentalist quacks.
The consensus amongst scientists worldwide is that the lifestyles of heavily industrialized first world nations are destroying our planet. It really is as simple as that. But in a society where the supreme being we all fear and worship is the economy, a complete overhaul of the way we live our lives seems a difficult task, particularly without the assistance of lawmakers, happily sleeping with the corporations who benefit from the harmful emissions responsible for global warming.
Though hardly a flawless solution, the Kyoto Accord could have helped, but not without the cooperation of the US. Sadly, the agreement has now lost Canada’s support as well, thanks to our year-old Conservative minority government. The Opposition is attempting to legislate the promises made in regards to Kyoto, details of which can be found in the CBC article listed below.
But while the entire planet faces a crisis of such epic proportions that the sustainability of our entire race is at stake, our human will to survive seems not to be enough to stop us from driving SUV’s. Particularly as I sit at home, with my own little Toyota Echo buried in three feet of snow, I am confident that global warming will not be on the public agenda at least until spring. After an entire six months of public discourse, it became clear to one man that more incentive than continuing life on this planet needed to be offered.
Enter Sir Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin and all of its ventures. His next undertaking, having accomplished his dream of starting the world’s first space tourism business, Virgin Galactic, is to use what he knows best (Capitalism) to entice someone else to save the world.
It’s called the “Virgin Environmental Challenge” and it goes like this: “The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.”
The contest closes in 5 years, at which time the winner receives the first $5m in prize money. Ten years following that, if their invention has succeeded in removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and should continue to do so, they will then receive the remaining $20m.
Someone please tell me if this is anything more than global bulimia. When the scientific evidence is overwhelming that our planet will heal if we simply cut back our emissions, we don’t seem to have even tried! Instead, a man who makes the bulk of his staggering wealth from an airline and his own personal satisfaction from a space tourism business, is offering a tiny piece of the fortune to anyone who can suck the emissions he puts in back out. Air travel is one of the biggest offenders against the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, and yet the only viable solutions seem to be the ones that don’t require any sacrifices on our part. Well why not? I can’t believe its possible that human beings on an individual basis would not make personal lifestyle changes - should they be made available and affordable - to save the planet, if only for their children’s sake. Even CEO’s of major corporations, including the least environmentally friendly ones, are rarely evil people at a personal level. But this contest – I’m sorry, “challenge” – is the kind of solution that presents itself when it is left entirely to the private sector to make all the changes.
Call me a socialist, for I’d proudly follow in the footsteps of C.B. Macpherson and if you insist, Hugo Chavez, but I believe we elect a government for a reason. And right now, the one directly south of us offers a $100,000.00 tax write-off to SUV owners, legally qualifying as “small trucks” when it comes to emissions standards. Apparently your average North American family requires a small truck, and is rewarded for it come tax time. The system is in place to provide incentives - financially, if that’s what’s required - to entice people to do the right thing. Instead of offering $25m to develop a way of taking the greenhouse gases out so we can keep putting them back in, why don’t we just stop? I flew from Chicago to Detroit this past weekend, and though the plane holds 137 passengers, it took off with 18 seats sold. Should I feel good about my contribution to the environment because I took a plane that weighed less due to lack of passengers? Doubtful.
Now Al Gore is with Sir Richard on this one, and Bill Clinton gave him a hug. I’m somewhat of the mind that anything Al Gore thinks is a good idea, I like too. Similar to the notion that if Johnny Depp agreed to be in a movie and I didn’t like it, I must be mistaken, because Johnny couldn’t be wrong. But I can’t help but think that this won’t stop the former future president of the United States of America from continuing to demand a little more. He's a politician - he knows how to play the game. And besides, the contest doesn’t close for another five years. What do we do until then?
References
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
“Kyoto Bill Sparks Constitutional Questions.” CBC. 15 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html?ref=rss.
McQuaig, Linda. It’s The Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Canada, 2005.
“Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR.” Economist.com. 13 Feb. 2007. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8692742&fsrc=RSS.
Virgin Earth Challenge. 2007. Virgin Group. http://www.virginearth.com/.
The environment has been a topic of widespread public concern for six whole months now. Of course, science has pointed for decades to the problems we are currently facing, but within the last year, likely due in large part to Al Gore’s staggering documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the issue of climate change has entered the public discourse as a legitimate cause for distress. This after thirty years of attributing warnings to the rants of freedom-hating environmentalist quacks.
The consensus amongst scientists worldwide is that the lifestyles of heavily industrialized first world nations are destroying our planet. It really is as simple as that. But in a society where the supreme being we all fear and worship is the economy, a complete overhaul of the way we live our lives seems a difficult task, particularly without the assistance of lawmakers, happily sleeping with the corporations who benefit from the harmful emissions responsible for global warming.
Though hardly a flawless solution, the Kyoto Accord could have helped, but not without the cooperation of the US. Sadly, the agreement has now lost Canada’s support as well, thanks to our year-old Conservative minority government. The Opposition is attempting to legislate the promises made in regards to Kyoto, details of which can be found in the CBC article listed below.
But while the entire planet faces a crisis of such epic proportions that the sustainability of our entire race is at stake, our human will to survive seems not to be enough to stop us from driving SUV’s. Particularly as I sit at home, with my own little Toyota Echo buried in three feet of snow, I am confident that global warming will not be on the public agenda at least until spring. After an entire six months of public discourse, it became clear to one man that more incentive than continuing life on this planet needed to be offered.
Enter Sir Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin and all of its ventures. His next undertaking, having accomplished his dream of starting the world’s first space tourism business, Virgin Galactic, is to use what he knows best (Capitalism) to entice someone else to save the world.
It’s called the “Virgin Environmental Challenge” and it goes like this: “The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.”
The contest closes in 5 years, at which time the winner receives the first $5m in prize money. Ten years following that, if their invention has succeeded in removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and should continue to do so, they will then receive the remaining $20m.
Someone please tell me if this is anything more than global bulimia. When the scientific evidence is overwhelming that our planet will heal if we simply cut back our emissions, we don’t seem to have even tried! Instead, a man who makes the bulk of his staggering wealth from an airline and his own personal satisfaction from a space tourism business, is offering a tiny piece of the fortune to anyone who can suck the emissions he puts in back out. Air travel is one of the biggest offenders against the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, and yet the only viable solutions seem to be the ones that don’t require any sacrifices on our part. Well why not? I can’t believe its possible that human beings on an individual basis would not make personal lifestyle changes - should they be made available and affordable - to save the planet, if only for their children’s sake. Even CEO’s of major corporations, including the least environmentally friendly ones, are rarely evil people at a personal level. But this contest – I’m sorry, “challenge” – is the kind of solution that presents itself when it is left entirely to the private sector to make all the changes.
Call me a socialist, for I’d proudly follow in the footsteps of C.B. Macpherson and if you insist, Hugo Chavez, but I believe we elect a government for a reason. And right now, the one directly south of us offers a $100,000.00 tax write-off to SUV owners, legally qualifying as “small trucks” when it comes to emissions standards. Apparently your average North American family requires a small truck, and is rewarded for it come tax time. The system is in place to provide incentives - financially, if that’s what’s required - to entice people to do the right thing. Instead of offering $25m to develop a way of taking the greenhouse gases out so we can keep putting them back in, why don’t we just stop? I flew from Chicago to Detroit this past weekend, and though the plane holds 137 passengers, it took off with 18 seats sold. Should I feel good about my contribution to the environment because I took a plane that weighed less due to lack of passengers? Doubtful.
Now Al Gore is with Sir Richard on this one, and Bill Clinton gave him a hug. I’m somewhat of the mind that anything Al Gore thinks is a good idea, I like too. Similar to the notion that if Johnny Depp agreed to be in a movie and I didn’t like it, I must be mistaken, because Johnny couldn’t be wrong. But I can’t help but think that this won’t stop the former future president of the United States of America from continuing to demand a little more. He's a politician - he knows how to play the game. And besides, the contest doesn’t close for another five years. What do we do until then?
References
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
“Kyoto Bill Sparks Constitutional Questions.” CBC. 15 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html?ref=rss.
McQuaig, Linda. It’s The Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Canada, 2005.
“Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR.” Economist.com. 13 Feb. 2007. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8692742&fsrc=RSS.
Virgin Earth Challenge. 2007. Virgin Group. http://www.virginearth.com/.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Islam not Youtube Appropriate?
While exploring the vastness of the web, I discovered an interesting "Your Rights Online" article on Slashdot (link). Youtube censored a video by the atheist Nick Ginsburne that contained verses from the Qur'an, claiming its content is "inappropriate". On first glance, this looks like a case of Internet censorship, but is it really? I decided to look into the issue and not just take it at face value. What was in this video and why was it taken offline along with the banning of Gisburne's account?
First stop, the video. I followed through the link provided by dear Slashdot and watched the 9m14s video. This is bloody long. Wow, a video that claims these are "Islamic Teachings" from the Qur'an, but really these are all a bunch of snippets with the common theme: "Let's kill all those other 'unbelievers' who believe in other Gods and send them to Hell because ours is a mighty God who can kill with a single thought". Right, like you, Mr. Gisburne, are innocent. Look, I can quote things too, and this is from your video: "If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next" (2:85). Hmm, when all you decide to show is these snippets, the vast majority of the public will NOT take it with a grain of salt and they will believe this is what all Islamic people believe.
Afterwards, I compared this video to the rest of Mr. Gisburne's collection. Huh, logical arguments against Christian belief systems. Cross-analysis of Christian and Jewish beliefs. Seems like typical atheist fare. So why did Gisburne use a different way of dealing with his commentary on Islam? Why is there no real podcast-like video with Islam being the topic? Had an argument that you wanted to get across without offending anyone, Mr. Gisburne? Seems like you failed.
I decided to send an email to Youtube (which'll probably be ignored and placed under the same category as the Gisburne supporters) and Mr. Gisburne (who might ignore it, might not). My Youtube email is as follows:
To whom this may concern,
I am a member of the press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media, and I have a few questions regarding the censorship and account deletion of Nick Gisburne who was recently banned and his videos deleted. Firstly, is the "inappropriate content" flag system automated or is it a human-supervised content review system? Also, if it is automated, how many flags are required to have a video banned? Secondly, what was the reason behind the banning of the account? Thirdly, what was the content of the video that conflicted with the "Terms of Service" or "Community Guidelines"?
Thank you for your assistance.
My email to Nick Gisburne is as follows:
Mr. N. Gisburne,
I am a member of the free press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media and I have a few questions regarding your Islam scripture video you posted on Youtube. Why did you choose a different format from your previous videos for your Qur'an video? Why did you choose those particular quotations from the Qur'an? What was your intention in posting that video and what message did you intend to get across to your audience?
Thank you for your cooperation.
When and if I get replies, I will append them to this article.
So why was Mr. Gisburne's video and account considered "inappropriate"? I read through the Youtube "Community Guidelines" and "Terms of Service" and in both documents are the statements "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality" (Community Guidelines) and "(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libellous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate" (Terms of Service). Where Mr. Gisburne's previous videos are perfectly acceptable within these terms and guides, the Qur'an video is not because it fully supports the current stereotype that all Islamic followers are vengeful and destructive terrorists by nature. Personally, I feel this is a "malicious use of stereotypes", to put it in the words of the Youtube Community Guidelines, and the community responded by flagging this as inappropriate. Community: 1, Nick Gisburne: 0.
So, Mr. Gisburne, there is no conspiracy to censor you; your Qur'an video was inappropriate and supported the neoconservative view that all Islamic followers are terrorists. Mr. Gisburne, I say to you only this: wake up and smell the roses; the world isn't out to get you. Also, you are no longer what is known as a "publically-active atheist"; you are now a perpetrator of hate-crimes. If everyone learned to respect other people's choices, the world would be a better place.
- T
Thursday, February 8, 2007
66% is Still a Pass...
Last month in Vancouver, Canada’s first sextuplets were born. As may be expected, each newborn weighed in at less than 2lbs, and tragically, two of them passed away. When the survival of the remaining babies seemed dependent on their receiving blood transfusions, three of them were seized by the province and the procedure was administered against their parent’s will. Why? Because these babies were born into a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.
Of course, everyone loves a good controversy, and what’s more newsworthy than a couple of religious fanatics gleefully sacrificing their own babies because the Bible told them so? In fact, these parents were even told beforehand that if they chose early on to abort two of the six fetuses, the remaining four would increase their chances of survival significantly. Jehovah’s Witnesses also don’t believe in abortion, leading to the deaths of two babies after birth. But speaking as an ex-Jehovah’s Witness (one who left after 18 years with a thorough knowledge of the belief system and a strong distaste for cults) I can tell you that the parents of these babies have not been fairly portrayed.
The New Testament calls on its followers to “abstain from blood” (Acts 15:28, 29). Taken in context, this is considered by many to refer to the level at which one cooks the meat they ingest. If your prime rib is raw enough to still be seeping blood, you’re not abstaining. Jehovah’s Witnesses take this a step further. I remember it being explained to me when I was quite young in the following way:
If your doctor tells you not to drink alcohol, so instead, you just inject it right into your veins, is that much better? No. So if God says don’t eat blood, why would you respond by injecting it directly into your veins?
At age six, this makes sense. Less so as you get older and realize that blood in your veins and alcohol in your veins are a little different, and no one's doctor is comparable to God.
But if there’s one thing I can say for nearly every Jehovah’s Witness I’ve been lucky enough to know on a personal basis, it is that they are all incredibly kind, well meaning people. Especially the women - after a lifetime of care-giving and the inability to maintain a leadership role in their own household (only men may be in positions of power), they are all remarkably good-natured, nurturing individuals, who love their children as much as anyone else.
Follow me for a moment as we weed through some twisted cultish logic: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that after Armageddon, all of God’s people will be resurrected, returned to a paradise earth where they will live in his care, in peace and harmony forever. Gosh, it sounds great. But here’s the catch: You have to be born first. Remember how the parents turned down the option of aborting two of the fetuses, only to let them die later anyways? Tragically misguided as it may seem to the rest of us, only now do these poor parents have the hope of one day being reunited with their lost children on a paradise earth. Had they aborted them, they would have been lost forever. Now, don’t ask me why abortion is prohibited if an unborn baby isn’t human enough to be resurrected, because that’s something I’ve never been able to get them to answer. Nor can anyone explain the fact that to become pregnant with sextuplets in the first place, the couple was very likely involved in some form of fertility treatment; also Biblically questionable to a religion that prohibits masturbating on account of the sacred nature of God's plan... might be tricky to get a semen sample without a moment alone.
But to return to this idea of life forever on a paradise earth, the resurrection that these parents can now look forward to is something that brings every one of Jehovah’s Witnesses more comfort than I can describe. Honestly, if there’s one thing our culture lacks, its any kind of real consolation when a loved one passes away, and in the most intrinsically human way, this is what many Jehovah’s Witnesses hold onto, and in a lot of cases, the reason they joined up in the first place.
After this whole debacle appeared on the news, my younger brother recommended a couple of chat rooms to investigate, both pro and anti-JW, just to see what the consensus was. I was shocked at how many people, women in particular, felt the same way. Nearly everyone agreed that should they be in the same situation, torn between their devotion to God and the excruciating agony of losing a child, they would declare just once that they refuse to approve the blood transfusion, then step back and pray that the doctor or if necessary the province itself will take over and save their babies. Then their spiritual conscious will be intact and their children saved.
Now, for the sake of time and space, I will refrain from going into the political details surrounding the mainstream coverage of this debate, and save my biting analyses for the coming weeks. Suffice to say, the victims in this case are not only the two children whose lives were lost before they’d begun, but also two parents, left tragically helpless as they’re forced to choose between what a cultish sect has told them is the path to God, and the lives of their newborn babies. If you ask me, when the blood of innocent people continues to be spilled needlessly on battlefields worldwide every minute of every day, what kind of God would prohibit us from using it to save the life of a newborn?
And an interesting precedent may be set here, if the JW couple is successful in suing the province for an apology. I didn’t know you could do that. What happened to suing for money? These crazy religious folk and their intrinsic values.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Assassinating Iranian Uranium?
So I was crawling around through a bunch of newsfeeds when I noticed a story published by that terrible network Fox News. Sure, they're a bunch of pigs who give the most biased news ever. Sure, the story itself is written to sound as if Mossad did the right thing. Bastards.
Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".
"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.
George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"
I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."
George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."
I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."
"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."
"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.
Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.
Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.
So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.
At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.
Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!
I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?
- T
Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".
"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.
George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"
I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."
George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."
I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."
"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."
"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.
Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.
Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.
So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.
At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.
Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!
I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?
- T
Conclusions
I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?
- T
- T
Research
Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.
Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.
So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.
At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.
Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!
[More to come later]
Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.
So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.
At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.
Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!
[More to come later]
Conversations
Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".
"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.
George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"
I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."
George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."
I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."
"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."
"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.
[More to come later]
"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.
George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"
I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."
George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."
I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."
"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."
"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.
[More to come later]
SPECIAL BULLETIN:
So I was dicking around through a bunch of newsfeeds when I noticed a story published by that crapulent network Fox News. Sure, they're a bunch of pigs who give the most biased news ever. Sure, the story itself is written to sound as if Mossad did the right thing. Fucking bastards.
[More to come later]
[More to come later]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
