Fixing Planet Earth
THE ENERGY CRISIS
The human population is currently in the midst of an energy crisis. The supply of fossil fuels that we have been using for the past two and a half centuries is rapidly drying up, combined with the global warming problem that burning them causes. Coal, gas and oil, substances that take millions of years to create are some of the most toxic and environmentally hostile products that man can burn to create the energy he so sorely needs in order to supply power to his miniature barbeques, cars with TVs in the headrests, islands being built from scratch and trainers with lights in them.
This is an economic problem and everyone is feeling the pinch. With the price of oil skyrocketing, food prices have shot up – entire populations in certain regions of the world are struggling to afford even the most basic food rations. Cars are being run off biofuels that are diverting the supply of ethanol and corn away from poorer countries that need these essential supplies and into the cars of the economic powerhouses of the west. This of course creates the current food crisis, another economic problem that will be covered in a future essay.
However, no one can argue that the energy crisis has caught mankind off guard. We have known for decades now that the supply of fossil fuels will eventually dry up, and that we must wean ourselves off these products in order to help reverse some of the tremendous damage that their constant burning has done to the atmosphere and environment. So why has no action been taken? One simple answer: MONEY.
Developing nations such as India and China, while economically rich, have such massive populations and needs that they cannot afford to invest in alternate energy sources. Developed nations (use any of the G8 countries as an example) don’t want to spend the money building wind farms, tidal gates or vast fields of solar panels in order to provide their energy. And the nations still in the grip of poverty – Africa, much of South America and large swathes of Indochina – simply cannot afford to begin investing in such technologies.
In my opinion, it is the job of the developed nations, particularly that of Western Europe, America and Russia (the countries that cause 90% of all the worlds global problems) to invest money and research into these technologies, making them cheaper and easier for other nations to use them. Do you think the first oil rig, or coal mine, or gas works or even atom smashing plant was cheap to create?
However, the human problem rears its ugly head here. Because there is too much money to be lost by the oil, gas and coal companies. And unfortunately, these companies make up a fairly sizeable percentage of the most powerful corporations on the planet. These businesses are the ones that lobby within governments, often buying or installing politicians into administrations in order to make them more sympathetic to the needs of these global dominators. This is not a ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theory; these organisations do not want to take over, rather, they just don’t want to see their share prices plummet when America or France or Britain ditches oil for 50% of its power output and goes solar. They will do anything to stop that from happening, despite the benefits it would bring to vast swathes of the human population – increased manufacturing means more jobs in certain sectors (possibly balanced with a loss of jobs amongst, say, oil drillers, though such jobs have been continually lost to the advances of computer science of the past twenty years), cleaner energy means less pollutants, power derived from renewable resources means a stop to drilling massive holes in the earth and it makes fossil fuel rich countries less hot points of interest, meaning that global conflicts in such areas would decrease, leaving nations to sort themselves out as they should be allowed to.
So what’s the solution? Well, initially it appears there is no easy solution. In order to put a halt to the energy crisis humankind would have to quickly develop cost efficient, high energy converting technologies to tap into these clean sources of renewable energy. This has not been done, and will take many, many years to do. Nations would have to stop their dependency on fossil fuels, which leads to companies taking huge profit losses, individuals (especially those within a certain North American administration) facing a tremendous downturn in profits and many countries having to find other streams of revenue to bolster their economy.
But wait! Hold your horses! I see a white knight on the horizon! Well, its kind of white, but as he gets closer he seems actually to be green. Glowing green. Radioactive green…
Yes folks, nuclear energy is our immediate saviour. Until Governments bite the bullet and really go for renewable energy sources (trust me, there will be a few ups and downs, coups, possible assassinations and power struggles before that happens) nuclear power is the answer to everyone’s woes. Allow me to point out the benefits: clean, infinitely renewable, safe, cheap and in plentiful supply. The New York Times recently said:
‘For the first time in decades, increasing the role of nuclear power in the United States may be starting to make political, environmental and even economic sense.’
Now, the anti Nuclear lobby – Subtitle: left wing hippies – is dead set on urging a global ban on nuclear power. They claim it is expensive, hazardous and dirty. Let’s just have a look at these assertions shall we? Now, thirty years ago, when the technology to tap into nuclear energy was fairly new, it was a dangerous power source. We did not fully understand that with which we were dealing with, and as a result ‘accidents’ (Three Mile island and Chernobyl in particular) happened. Consequently nuclear energy became demonised as critically dangerous to anybody near it or using it. That is the the first myth of the anti nuclear lobby; because nuclear plants do not give off nuclear radiation in large doses. Even the Three Mile Island meltdown event caused (and this is quoted by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission):
‘… no deaths or injuries to planet workers or members of the nearby community.’
Those people that were exposed to the "horrifying" and "dangerous" radiation were exposed to levels that were equivalent to that of a single chest X-ray.
Now, I hear the gears in your brain turning, conjuring up the images of Chernobyl, a catastrophe where the reactor exploded and burned for ten days. A terrible event to be sure, but the fatality rate was and still is minute compared to the amount of people that die every year mining for coal or drilling for oil. Chernobyl happened (1987) when the USSR couldn’t even power tractors, let alone run a safe nuclear power plant. It made Springfield Nuclear Plant and Homer Simpson as safety inspector look like the most well run organisation in the world, so it was not an event that would have happened with new technology and the proper security procedures in place.
Of course, the other whine that the anti nuclear morons throw at us is that nuclear power plants are a possible… (wait for it) TERRORIST TARGET. Now, think about that, people are seriously saying (the same people that are anti-war and think there is a solution to the terrorism that they claim is a threat) that we shouldn’t build nuclear power plants because they might, someday be attacked by terrorists. I suppose that also means we can’t build anymore planes, subways/tubes, skyscrapers or oil plants. I suppose we’d better shut down New York City, Washington D.C and London. Grow some balls. Everything in the world is subject to terrorist attack. Even you and me.
So, I’ve comprehensively knocked down the three major whipping posts of the anti-nuclear lobby. Let me expound the real benefits that are not mentioned by such environmental pressure groups. Since Chernobyl, engineers have (surprisingly) engineered cheaper, safer, more environmentally friendly nuclear power plants. But by stopping new plants being built, we’re left with the older ones that are not as safe or cheap as the new ones will be. so the technology is so far advanced now, so safe, that disasters like Three Mile Island could not happen again. Opposition to building new plants to create more energy with greater efficiency is like opposing the development of self stick stamps because you like the taste of licking stamps. It’s stupid and it goes to stupid lengths.
Oh but wait! Wait! I forgot the one other problem with nuclear use: nuclear waste. Now, transporting nuclear waste – contrary to popular belief - is easy. Trucks carrying 25 tonnes of nuclear waste have been hit by trains travelling at 80 miles and hour and have also been left in a pool of burning jet fuel for ninety minutes, reaching a temperature of 1400 degrees and not one thing has happened. The waste stayed contained and safe. (These experiments (conducted by the US Department of Energy) were also performed in the 1980s when the technology was far less safe than it is today). Even if the waste fell off a train you could simply just put it back on. It is a myth that it is constantly dangerous; I woulddn't advise exposure, but if it sat there for a day or two there would be no problem. It would just sit there. If it stays there for a week or two, only then do you start to have am issue.
Now, as for long term storage, both the United States is intending to store their waste beneath a Yucca Mountain, in a facility specifically designed to store nuclear waste. The waste will be buried about 1000 feet under the (solid granite rock) ground inside the mountain. This waste will never, ever cause a problem. There will be no issue of nuclear waste. It won’t be a problem in 200 days, 200 weeks or 200 years. There is plenty of nuclear material in the earth already, causing no harm to anyone or anything. You also have to take into account the advancements in technology in the future, that will ensure the waste remains safe. Oh, and no one will forget it’s there.
By building only 400 new nuclear reactors, the United States could generate 100% of its electricity. 100%. No need for oil, coal, gas, solar, wind, tidal. 400 cheap new nuclear reactors and the energy crisis is solved. And if the United States only needs 400, think how few Britain or France would need by comparison.
So there’s your answer to the energy crisis. That’s it. The west must keep researching into solar energy, wind energy etc. in order to wean itself off fossil fuels – particularly oil, the liquid of war - and all their problems, but in the meantime, the entire planet can afford to use nuclear power. I have chopped down the big fighting points against nuclear energy, and outlined all its benefits. As long as we let silly, ill thought out hippy symbols scare us, we’re screwed. Those against nuclear are using dated arguments, and are, quite frankly, ignorant and not keeping up to speed with the world. If we live the present, we run out of energy. If we live in the past we die. We have to live in the future. Energy is like air; it will run out. And mankind will always need more. We in the west, and only we, are to blame for the current energy crisis, and we in the west are the ones that must be responsible for fixing it.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Fixing Planet Earth
The following series of articles will make up part on an ongoing series of essays about the problems facing the planet. After a great deal of thought, reading and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the major issues on our planet can be categorised under two subheadings: Economic and Sociological.
I hope that this continuing series will educate, inform, engage and stimulate thought, conversation and debate. If you have something to say in regard to these articles please feel free to comment, and please pass them on or preferably pass on my blog link (http://milesweaver.blogspot.com) to others.
M Weaver
I hope that this continuing series will educate, inform, engage and stimulate thought, conversation and debate. If you have something to say in regard to these articles please feel free to comment, and please pass them on or preferably pass on my blog link (http://milesweaver.blogspot.com) to others.
M Weaver
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Zimbabwe
Isn't it about time the world stop feigning this outrage over the problems in Zimbabwe? Let's be honest here, no one - NO ONE - gives a shit about Mugabe rigging these elections. No one cares about him threatening his own people with violence unless they vote for him. No one cares about him using food supplies as a tool to remain in power. No one cares about him 'disputing' a democratic election and then having a 'run off'. No one cares about him imprisoning political adversaries. Governments, politicians, the UN, NATO or any of the major corporations that control the West behind the scenes care about the plight of the Zimbabwean people.
If you think I'm wrong, consider this; the US Government has overthrown countless communist and socialist democracies in Central and South America in order to install "democratic" governments. The moment Slobodan Milosovic became a little too big for his boots in Yugoslavia, NATO and the UN stepped in. The second Hitler started killing Polish allies instead of Czechoslovakian peasents something needed to be done. And need I remind you of the current Middle Eastern Holiday, that was executed partly under the premise of removing a dictator from power. Governer Bush and co have left the option on the table about whether to go to Iran and do the same thing (depending on whether or not they get the bomb).
But what have we had in response to the crisis in Zimbabwe? Strongly worded letters, tellings off, disgruntled statements and grumblings. Even South Africa, a continent sharing neighbour, has only issued statements. No one in the UN has motioned for military action. They, Amnesty and the Red Cross have requested permission to view the election to ensure they are run fairly. Did anyone ask Hugo Chavez for this privelage? Did anyone send a strongly worded letter to Saddam Hussein?
No one felt the need to bother the House of Saud, the royal family that rules Saudi Arabia with an iron fist, denying its people a free vote, personal or religious freedom or the right to a fair trial. Maybe when they agreed to supply all their oil to Western countries at a fair price we just forgot to put them on the list of people that need to be dealt with. Just a hunch.
Equitorial Guinea - one of the samllest countries on the continent - was on that list though. The country with the smallest population in all of Africa is worthy of an attempted coup partly financed by the son of one of Britain's most powerful Prime Ministers. I wonder why that could be? Maybe it's because a nice, controlled Central African nation would be the perfect place for a jolly good holiday. No, that's not it. There are better, more exhilarating African countires than that to vacation in. Perhaps it's got something to do with the large petroleum reserves that were recently discovered there. Just a hunch.
So let's stop the pretence. No one cares about the plight of Zimbabweans. No one cares about the plight of coloured people, period. If they've got nothing to exploit, they've got nothing worth risking Western lives for. There are still plenty of coloured people with plenty of stuff to steal that still need to be killed. Remember folks, unless countries have something worth exploiting and controlling (or unless the population is white and Christian) the rest of the world really doesn't give a shit.
And what's the point of seatbelts in airplanes? Are we meant to believe that when a 300 ton tube of steel loaded with several thousand gallons of highly combustible liquid slams into earth at 500 miles per hour that a canvas belt strapped over your lap is going to save your life? Might work in a car, not in a plane. Danger, people. It's everywhere. Don't kid yourself about the illusions of safety.
If you think I'm wrong, consider this; the US Government has overthrown countless communist and socialist democracies in Central and South America in order to install "democratic" governments. The moment Slobodan Milosovic became a little too big for his boots in Yugoslavia, NATO and the UN stepped in. The second Hitler started killing Polish allies instead of Czechoslovakian peasents something needed to be done. And need I remind you of the current Middle Eastern Holiday, that was executed partly under the premise of removing a dictator from power. Governer Bush and co have left the option on the table about whether to go to Iran and do the same thing (depending on whether or not they get the bomb).
But what have we had in response to the crisis in Zimbabwe? Strongly worded letters, tellings off, disgruntled statements and grumblings. Even South Africa, a continent sharing neighbour, has only issued statements. No one in the UN has motioned for military action. They, Amnesty and the Red Cross have requested permission to view the election to ensure they are run fairly. Did anyone ask Hugo Chavez for this privelage? Did anyone send a strongly worded letter to Saddam Hussein?
No one felt the need to bother the House of Saud, the royal family that rules Saudi Arabia with an iron fist, denying its people a free vote, personal or religious freedom or the right to a fair trial. Maybe when they agreed to supply all their oil to Western countries at a fair price we just forgot to put them on the list of people that need to be dealt with. Just a hunch.
Equitorial Guinea - one of the samllest countries on the continent - was on that list though. The country with the smallest population in all of Africa is worthy of an attempted coup partly financed by the son of one of Britain's most powerful Prime Ministers. I wonder why that could be? Maybe it's because a nice, controlled Central African nation would be the perfect place for a jolly good holiday. No, that's not it. There are better, more exhilarating African countires than that to vacation in. Perhaps it's got something to do with the large petroleum reserves that were recently discovered there. Just a hunch.
So let's stop the pretence. No one cares about the plight of Zimbabweans. No one cares about the plight of coloured people, period. If they've got nothing to exploit, they've got nothing worth risking Western lives for. There are still plenty of coloured people with plenty of stuff to steal that still need to be killed. Remember folks, unless countries have something worth exploiting and controlling (or unless the population is white and Christian) the rest of the world really doesn't give a shit.
And what's the point of seatbelts in airplanes? Are we meant to believe that when a 300 ton tube of steel loaded with several thousand gallons of highly combustible liquid slams into earth at 500 miles per hour that a canvas belt strapped over your lap is going to save your life? Might work in a car, not in a plane. Danger, people. It's everywhere. Don't kid yourself about the illusions of safety.
Monday, 23 June 2008
RIP George Carlin. May 12 1937 - June 22 2008
No other comedian – living or recently dead – has influenced me, my worldview or my thought process more than George Carlin. No one has entertained me more, made me think, made me laugh and made me question things more than George Carlin. In my honest opinion, George Carlin is the greatest comedian I have ever seen. Topical, surreal, humorous, thought provoking, controversial, confrontational and dangerous.
He has nailed everything from religion:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Abortion:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU
Death:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU
Global warming:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ml_-vmy9npA
Voting:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
Government:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
The human condition:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=veom7XANGr4
Language:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L58HOfIyDKw&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY
Racism:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKHmlK8xFxc
War:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c
The American Dream:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw&feature=related
And of course, profanity:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BTyzTJTNhNk
And has done it in a ball bustingly hilarious fashion. Please, watch the above videos. You will laugh, smile and think. No one has ever done it better. Ever. The world is a far less funny place without him.
“The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What’s that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you getr eady for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating… And you finish off as an orgasm.”
RIP George. You will be sorely missed.
He has nailed everything from religion:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Abortion:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU
Death:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU
Global warming:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ml_-vmy9npA
Voting:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
Government:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
The human condition:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=veom7XANGr4
Language:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L58HOfIyDKw&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY
Racism:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKHmlK8xFxc
War:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c
The American Dream:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw&feature=related
And of course, profanity:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BTyzTJTNhNk
And has done it in a ball bustingly hilarious fashion. Please, watch the above videos. You will laugh, smile and think. No one has ever done it better. Ever. The world is a far less funny place without him.
“The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What’s that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you getr eady for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating… And you finish off as an orgasm.”
RIP George. You will be sorely missed.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
A Summer Of Suck: Glastonbury & The Olympics
Firstly, I must say I find it very interesting that Glastonbury tickets are selling so poorly. They’ve been on sale for what, one week, two weeks? I’ve even seen advertisements in the printed press for the event. I will postulate a theory as to why this is: Glastonbury has finally jumped the shark. From its roots as a hippy performance art festival, in recent years it has become more and more commercial, more and more pro capitalism (not a bad thing, but anathema to what it originally claimed to stand for) and less about love, freedom and all those other good things.
The ticket buying procedure has now become something akin to airport security, discouraging a lot of people from even bothering to try to get tickets. The price has risen astronomically, last year it was £154 (including “administrative” and P&P fees), making it hard to slot in amongst the other plethora of festivals (which are not exactly cheap in their own right), and the weather is routinely shit (which many people paint as “part of the experience” but is just a cheap cop out of having the balls to criticise the Glastonbury behemoth. No one likes spending five days knee deep in mud. Admit it). Add to all the above, the fact that Jay Z is headlining this year. The official party line (angrily delivered) from the Eavis camp is that they “took a risk”:
"The critics do not understand the Glastonbury's audience", she [Emily Eavis] continued.
"It is a bunch of really open-minded people, who come to the festival to learn and experience new things, new music, new food, new people, new politics and a whole range of new experiences.
"This is what, I hope, makes our festival special - Glastonbury is about more than just the music."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=559608&in_page_id=1773&ito=1490
I fear it is in fact, the Eavis’ who do not understand Glastonbury’s audience. It’s all very well and good that they want to try new things, and “take risks” but when you paying £150+ for tickets (in a time when money and credit are not flowing like they once were), knowing that the weather will likely be either too hot or too wet you don’t necessarily want the organisers to be “taking risks”. You want something you know you’re going to enjoy.
Maybe the problem is with Jay-Z headlining, but the Eavis camp seem to be making the chronic mistake of telling their audience what they like and what they want. Glastonbury is not a hip hop festival. Have hip hop artists played? Yes. Have a lot of new bands and new sounds been exposed there? Yes. Have any of them ever been put in the headlining slot? No. And this may be the problem. Glastonbury’s inherently rock oriented crowd may not be happy with parting with £150+ to have the Saturday headliner be someone they don’t like. Don’t tell your audience, as Emily Eavis did; “There are plenty of other stages to pick from if you don’t like him” when he’s your headliner. Everyone should want to see the headliner, and have the feel good experience only certain acts can bring. Couple that with the weather and ticketing headaches, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to get the faithful snapping up the large amount of tickets “just because it’s Glastonbury” and the casual buyer who usually goes based on who’s appearing thinking “Maybe I’ll wait for the full line up before I plonk down all that money, in such economically strained times.”
No business is bigger than its customer. The music industry has learnt it. The film industry has learnt it. The television industry has learnt it. Now maybe it’s Glastonbury’s turn. You give the audience what they want. Not what you tell them they want.
Secondly, is it not about time we stopped this ridiculous Olympic torch passing ceremony? News flash to the IOC: If you don’t want people protesting against China you shouldn’t have given the Olympics to such a repressive country in the first place.
The Olympic torch was started by everyone’s favourite Austrian terminator (no, not Arnold) Adolf Hitler. It was bought into being so it could glorify the Third Reich. Since then it’s been used at every Olympics – not that I can understand why – as a way of celebrating “the history” of the Games.
But if the IOC want to continue whining about people protesting along the route of its current trip then they need to scrap it all together. This wet, spineless, namby pamby organisation (you know, the one that couldn’t even manage to bring in an effective drugs policy) is still trying to impose draconian measures of censorship on both the public and the Olympic athletes, by saying that “politics has no place in sport” or “it’s sport that matters”. They have threatened to kick out any athlete that speaks out against China before or during the Games. The British Olympic Committee was forced to rescind a gagging order on British athletes to prevent them from even addressing the criticism. Why?
Let’s have a brief look at the history of the event:
1936: Berlin, Germany. Used as a propaganda tool for the Nazi party and the Aryan race (thank God for Jesse Owens).
1956: Melbourne, Australia. Boycotted by Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon in protest of the Israeli invasion of Egypt. The Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland boycotted in protest of the Soviert Union’s invasion of Hungary.
1968: Mexico City, Mexico. Tommie Smith and John Carlos give the black power salute during the Star Spanlged Banner. Expelled from the Games. Students in Mexico City tried to make use of the media attention for their country to protest against the authoritarian character of the Mexican government. The Mexican government reacted with violence, culminating in the Tlatelolco Massacre of October 2 in which more than two hundred protesters were gunned down by government forces.
1972: Munich, Germany. Eleven Israeli atheletes are kidnapped and eventually murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Mossad hunts down and kills the terrorists over the next several years.
1976: Montral, Canada. Drug allegations against East Germany. 26 African countries boycott in protest of the New Zealand rugby team’s touring of South Africa. Taiwan is not allowed to compete because Canada will not recognise them as the Republic of China (who they are made to compete under the banner of).
1980: Moscow, Russia. The USA and 61 other countries boycott the games in protest of the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan (the same invasion that led to the United States sponsored arming and radicalisation of the Middle East. Thirty years later, Cheney and Rumsfeld still haven’t cleaned up the mess they helped make.)
1982: IOC accused of homophobia when it successfully sues the organisers of the Gay Olympics (now known as the Gay Games) to ban it from using the term “Olympics” in its name.
1984: Los Angeles, USA. In retaliation to the 1980 boycott, the USSR, East Germany, Cuba and 14 other countries boycott. First year since 1952 that China compete.
1988: Seoul, South Korea. In 1998, it becomes known that several IOC members had taken bribes from the organising committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, in exchange for a vote on the city at the election of the host city.
1996: Atlanta, USA. Bomb explodes at Centennial Olympic Park, killing two and injuring 111 others. The bomb was sent by Eric Rudolph Randolf, American domestic terrorist. (Though he was white and Christian, so the Government saw no need for a war on terror.)
2000: Sydney, Australia. Several medalists in weightlifting are disqualified due to doping offences.
2004: Athens, Greece. An Iranian judoka refused to compete in his heat against as Israeli judoka, due to Government policy that forbids their atheletes competing against Israeli atheletes in Olympic heats, semi-finals or finals.
IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch has been strongly criticised. Under his presidency, the Olympic Movement made great progress, but has been seen as autocratic and corrupt. Samaranch's ties with the Franco's regime in Spain and his long term as a president (21 years, until he was 81 years old) have also been points of critique.
So, I think it’s pretty clear to see that the Games has always been accompanied by poltical controversy. Only once has the IOC actually made comment or taken action against any kind of event – the black power salture in ’68. So why are they so vociferous in telling athletes and the public to shut up about China. Why have so few countries refused to comment on what is going on? Our own spineless dolt of a Prime Minister has remained mute. At least President Sarkozy has come out and said he will not attend the opening ceremonies, though that’s hardly as important as the French Olympic Team boycotting the event. So what’s going on?
Simple answer: BUSINESS. Who is the largest producer of goods in the world? China. Who imports vast amounts of produce from around the world? China. Who is buying oil, wood, coal, gas etc. at a geometric rate? China. Who is making the West very, very rich? China. It’s all politics that have caused the IOC have lost their nerve. They don’t want to rock the boat with the world’s newest superpower, especially when the contract they negotiated probably included a clause that would protect the Government from criticism. (You can bet your bottom dollar that any protests against Britain in four years (perhaps by Middle Eastern nations or anti-war protesters if this macho war mongering is still going on) will be met with Olympic silence though).
I hope athletes protest in China. I hope that the public does as well. I hope that people that claim to uphold the values of freedom of speech and the right to dissent, will use them. I hope people keep protesting along the torch route. I hope both athletes and spectators continue to float the wishes of the antiquated pushover that is the IOC, and show the world that they won’t be shut up by a bunch of archaic, poltical dinosaurs.
Human rights come first. Human dignity and decency come before sport. If the IOC can’t understand that, then maybe the whole concept of the Olympics should be put to bed.
The ticket buying procedure has now become something akin to airport security, discouraging a lot of people from even bothering to try to get tickets. The price has risen astronomically, last year it was £154 (including “administrative” and P&P fees), making it hard to slot in amongst the other plethora of festivals (which are not exactly cheap in their own right), and the weather is routinely shit (which many people paint as “part of the experience” but is just a cheap cop out of having the balls to criticise the Glastonbury behemoth. No one likes spending five days knee deep in mud. Admit it). Add to all the above, the fact that Jay Z is headlining this year. The official party line (angrily delivered) from the Eavis camp is that they “took a risk”:
"The critics do not understand the Glastonbury's audience", she [Emily Eavis] continued.
"It is a bunch of really open-minded people, who come to the festival to learn and experience new things, new music, new food, new people, new politics and a whole range of new experiences.
"This is what, I hope, makes our festival special - Glastonbury is about more than just the music."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=559608&in_page_id=1773&ito=1490
I fear it is in fact, the Eavis’ who do not understand Glastonbury’s audience. It’s all very well and good that they want to try new things, and “take risks” but when you paying £150+ for tickets (in a time when money and credit are not flowing like they once were), knowing that the weather will likely be either too hot or too wet you don’t necessarily want the organisers to be “taking risks”. You want something you know you’re going to enjoy.
Maybe the problem is with Jay-Z headlining, but the Eavis camp seem to be making the chronic mistake of telling their audience what they like and what they want. Glastonbury is not a hip hop festival. Have hip hop artists played? Yes. Have a lot of new bands and new sounds been exposed there? Yes. Have any of them ever been put in the headlining slot? No. And this may be the problem. Glastonbury’s inherently rock oriented crowd may not be happy with parting with £150+ to have the Saturday headliner be someone they don’t like. Don’t tell your audience, as Emily Eavis did; “There are plenty of other stages to pick from if you don’t like him” when he’s your headliner. Everyone should want to see the headliner, and have the feel good experience only certain acts can bring. Couple that with the weather and ticketing headaches, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to get the faithful snapping up the large amount of tickets “just because it’s Glastonbury” and the casual buyer who usually goes based on who’s appearing thinking “Maybe I’ll wait for the full line up before I plonk down all that money, in such economically strained times.”
No business is bigger than its customer. The music industry has learnt it. The film industry has learnt it. The television industry has learnt it. Now maybe it’s Glastonbury’s turn. You give the audience what they want. Not what you tell them they want.
Secondly, is it not about time we stopped this ridiculous Olympic torch passing ceremony? News flash to the IOC: If you don’t want people protesting against China you shouldn’t have given the Olympics to such a repressive country in the first place.
The Olympic torch was started by everyone’s favourite Austrian terminator (no, not Arnold) Adolf Hitler. It was bought into being so it could glorify the Third Reich. Since then it’s been used at every Olympics – not that I can understand why – as a way of celebrating “the history” of the Games.
But if the IOC want to continue whining about people protesting along the route of its current trip then they need to scrap it all together. This wet, spineless, namby pamby organisation (you know, the one that couldn’t even manage to bring in an effective drugs policy) is still trying to impose draconian measures of censorship on both the public and the Olympic athletes, by saying that “politics has no place in sport” or “it’s sport that matters”. They have threatened to kick out any athlete that speaks out against China before or during the Games. The British Olympic Committee was forced to rescind a gagging order on British athletes to prevent them from even addressing the criticism. Why?
Let’s have a brief look at the history of the event:
1936: Berlin, Germany. Used as a propaganda tool for the Nazi party and the Aryan race (thank God for Jesse Owens).
1956: Melbourne, Australia. Boycotted by Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon in protest of the Israeli invasion of Egypt. The Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland boycotted in protest of the Soviert Union’s invasion of Hungary.
1968: Mexico City, Mexico. Tommie Smith and John Carlos give the black power salute during the Star Spanlged Banner. Expelled from the Games. Students in Mexico City tried to make use of the media attention for their country to protest against the authoritarian character of the Mexican government. The Mexican government reacted with violence, culminating in the Tlatelolco Massacre of October 2 in which more than two hundred protesters were gunned down by government forces.
1972: Munich, Germany. Eleven Israeli atheletes are kidnapped and eventually murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Mossad hunts down and kills the terrorists over the next several years.
1976: Montral, Canada. Drug allegations against East Germany. 26 African countries boycott in protest of the New Zealand rugby team’s touring of South Africa. Taiwan is not allowed to compete because Canada will not recognise them as the Republic of China (who they are made to compete under the banner of).
1980: Moscow, Russia. The USA and 61 other countries boycott the games in protest of the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan (the same invasion that led to the United States sponsored arming and radicalisation of the Middle East. Thirty years later, Cheney and Rumsfeld still haven’t cleaned up the mess they helped make.)
1982: IOC accused of homophobia when it successfully sues the organisers of the Gay Olympics (now known as the Gay Games) to ban it from using the term “Olympics” in its name.
1984: Los Angeles, USA. In retaliation to the 1980 boycott, the USSR, East Germany, Cuba and 14 other countries boycott. First year since 1952 that China compete.
1988: Seoul, South Korea. In 1998, it becomes known that several IOC members had taken bribes from the organising committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, in exchange for a vote on the city at the election of the host city.
1996: Atlanta, USA. Bomb explodes at Centennial Olympic Park, killing two and injuring 111 others. The bomb was sent by Eric Rudolph Randolf, American domestic terrorist. (Though he was white and Christian, so the Government saw no need for a war on terror.)
2000: Sydney, Australia. Several medalists in weightlifting are disqualified due to doping offences.
2004: Athens, Greece. An Iranian judoka refused to compete in his heat against as Israeli judoka, due to Government policy that forbids their atheletes competing against Israeli atheletes in Olympic heats, semi-finals or finals.
IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch has been strongly criticised. Under his presidency, the Olympic Movement made great progress, but has been seen as autocratic and corrupt. Samaranch's ties with the Franco's regime in Spain and his long term as a president (21 years, until he was 81 years old) have also been points of critique.
So, I think it’s pretty clear to see that the Games has always been accompanied by poltical controversy. Only once has the IOC actually made comment or taken action against any kind of event – the black power salture in ’68. So why are they so vociferous in telling athletes and the public to shut up about China. Why have so few countries refused to comment on what is going on? Our own spineless dolt of a Prime Minister has remained mute. At least President Sarkozy has come out and said he will not attend the opening ceremonies, though that’s hardly as important as the French Olympic Team boycotting the event. So what’s going on?
Simple answer: BUSINESS. Who is the largest producer of goods in the world? China. Who imports vast amounts of produce from around the world? China. Who is buying oil, wood, coal, gas etc. at a geometric rate? China. Who is making the West very, very rich? China. It’s all politics that have caused the IOC have lost their nerve. They don’t want to rock the boat with the world’s newest superpower, especially when the contract they negotiated probably included a clause that would protect the Government from criticism. (You can bet your bottom dollar that any protests against Britain in four years (perhaps by Middle Eastern nations or anti-war protesters if this macho war mongering is still going on) will be met with Olympic silence though).
I hope athletes protest in China. I hope that the public does as well. I hope that people that claim to uphold the values of freedom of speech and the right to dissent, will use them. I hope people keep protesting along the torch route. I hope both athletes and spectators continue to float the wishes of the antiquated pushover that is the IOC, and show the world that they won’t be shut up by a bunch of archaic, poltical dinosaurs.
Human rights come first. Human dignity and decency come before sport. If the IOC can’t understand that, then maybe the whole concept of the Olympics should be put to bed.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
God Is Dead. Let Me Tell You Why.
After World War 2 there should have been a funeral. A massive funeral involving every human being on this planet. The funeral should not have been for any earth bound creature, no. The funeral should have been for God. At the time, we could never have known it had happened. But God was another casualty of the second Great War.
I believe that humanity saw such suffering, such unspeakable cruelty, death and horror during the Second World War that, coupled with the vast advances in science that continued to contradict the teachings of the church, many, many members of the species realised that there could not be a loving God out there watching over mankind. How could there be when we had just visited such absolute misery on one another?
My feelings on the matter are clear; human beings have been turning away from organised religion at an alarming rate since World War 2. The number of non believers and agnostics has risen dramatically, and church attendance figures worldwide have plummeted like a stone. The developed nations of the West have thrown God from the sphere of daily life, and so many people today that identify themselves as “Christian” do so purely because they always have done. They follow no Christian teachings, do not really bother to believe in God or Jesus, but like the idea of a comfortable afterlife that waits for them (they always seem to forget that if there is a Christian heaven, they’re damn sure headed straight for the Christian hell).
Science has obviously also played a massive part in this downfall. As we have continued to explore and grow our understanding of the universe, life and the human condition, we have continued to prove false so many tenants of the Bibles, Qur’ans, Torah’s and Mahabharata’s of history. Our understanding of our fellow man has grown, we have realised that disabilities are not punishments from up on high and that homosexuals are evil sinners. As we understand each other, we realise more and more that the God of organised faith is long dead and buried beneath the horror, misery and suffering that was committed in his name.
So where are we now? Alone, standing on the precipice of the universe, looking down into the lonely abyss? No! Far from it. We are stood as one amidst a vast sea of emptiness, united by our humanity, inching closer and closer by the day to accepting each facet of our species as one. Priests and Imams that drive division and fear into the hearts of our fellow man are marginalised and mostly ignored. A dog collar no longer equals automatic respect or a right to tell people what to do.
As for the religious, they are free to continue to believe, no one is stopping them of that, but they are no longer free to act as if their beliefs give them an automatic right to privilege in this mixed, evolving society that we live in. Many of them call this persecution. I call it fairness. No longer is a Christian held on a higher level than a homosexual because of their faith. No longer does a church have the right to discriminate. They will call out that their religion and their beliefs are being trampled on. Would we tolerate the same attitude if a member of the BNP, arrested for racially slurs against a Sikh, cried that his beliefs are being trampled on? No. We would tell him that his beliefs do not give him a right to discriminate, no matter how right he thinks he is. The same must go for the homophobes, racists and cowards that hide behind the corpse of God.
Belief has not dwindled. Our desire to hope and search for a truth greater than ourselves still stands. Our desire is healthy, uplifting and inspiring. But it is the God that ruled over this world for so long with his iron fist that is dead; the God that saw homosexuals and women murdered for having an identity. That God is dead. The God that claimed love, the God that always allegedly intervened for good in days gone by, while allowing humanity to revel in its darkest hour in the middle of the twentieth century; that God is dead.
And good riddance say I.
HUMAN : TOGETHER
I believe that humanity saw such suffering, such unspeakable cruelty, death and horror during the Second World War that, coupled with the vast advances in science that continued to contradict the teachings of the church, many, many members of the species realised that there could not be a loving God out there watching over mankind. How could there be when we had just visited such absolute misery on one another?
My feelings on the matter are clear; human beings have been turning away from organised religion at an alarming rate since World War 2. The number of non believers and agnostics has risen dramatically, and church attendance figures worldwide have plummeted like a stone. The developed nations of the West have thrown God from the sphere of daily life, and so many people today that identify themselves as “Christian” do so purely because they always have done. They follow no Christian teachings, do not really bother to believe in God or Jesus, but like the idea of a comfortable afterlife that waits for them (they always seem to forget that if there is a Christian heaven, they’re damn sure headed straight for the Christian hell).
Science has obviously also played a massive part in this downfall. As we have continued to explore and grow our understanding of the universe, life and the human condition, we have continued to prove false so many tenants of the Bibles, Qur’ans, Torah’s and Mahabharata’s of history. Our understanding of our fellow man has grown, we have realised that disabilities are not punishments from up on high and that homosexuals are evil sinners. As we understand each other, we realise more and more that the God of organised faith is long dead and buried beneath the horror, misery and suffering that was committed in his name.
So where are we now? Alone, standing on the precipice of the universe, looking down into the lonely abyss? No! Far from it. We are stood as one amidst a vast sea of emptiness, united by our humanity, inching closer and closer by the day to accepting each facet of our species as one. Priests and Imams that drive division and fear into the hearts of our fellow man are marginalised and mostly ignored. A dog collar no longer equals automatic respect or a right to tell people what to do.
As for the religious, they are free to continue to believe, no one is stopping them of that, but they are no longer free to act as if their beliefs give them an automatic right to privilege in this mixed, evolving society that we live in. Many of them call this persecution. I call it fairness. No longer is a Christian held on a higher level than a homosexual because of their faith. No longer does a church have the right to discriminate. They will call out that their religion and their beliefs are being trampled on. Would we tolerate the same attitude if a member of the BNP, arrested for racially slurs against a Sikh, cried that his beliefs are being trampled on? No. We would tell him that his beliefs do not give him a right to discriminate, no matter how right he thinks he is. The same must go for the homophobes, racists and cowards that hide behind the corpse of God.
Belief has not dwindled. Our desire to hope and search for a truth greater than ourselves still stands. Our desire is healthy, uplifting and inspiring. But it is the God that ruled over this world for so long with his iron fist that is dead; the God that saw homosexuals and women murdered for having an identity. That God is dead. The God that claimed love, the God that always allegedly intervened for good in days gone by, while allowing humanity to revel in its darkest hour in the middle of the twentieth century; that God is dead.
And good riddance say I.
HUMAN : TOGETHER
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Two Things That Annoy Me Today
One:
A Government investigative committee that looked into the issue of immigration said that everything that the Labour Government has told us about immigration is wrong, their statements are in error, sometime wilfully show, and that their contributions to the economy were miniscule, and their “protection” of pensions was non existent. This is an independent committee performing and independent investigation using facts, figures, records and solid evidence. The response of our unelected Prime Minister? “That immigrants have a “made a huge contribution” to the economy, and that the study was incorrect. The ineffectual Home Secretary agreed with him, as did the nonsensical Party Leader Harriet Harmen.
What was the point of this study being commissioned in the first place if you were going to ignore all its findings? In my view it’s little more than an example of the Government expecting something to back them up, and then, when it doesn’t, they just bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it’s wrong.
This is the problem with the current Government, it started becoming more prevalent at the beginning of the Iraq war, and continues to this day; they refuse to take criticism or admit error. They pretend that things that disagree with their status quo do not exist, or are freak occurrences, and that the way everything is being done now is the right way to do it. They will not change things significantly, because to do so would be to admit they have done things wrong in the past. Whether you are pro immigration or not (I happen to be), one has to admit that just brushing off the results of this study and then going back to acting as if nothing has happened is not the right way to do things.
Two:
It’s that time of the decade again. Video games are under attack. Twice a decade this seems to happen; early 90s (Mortal Kombat, Doom), and late ‘90s (Half Life). Early ‘00s (GTA III, Manhunt) and late ‘00s (GTA IV, Manhunt 2 (God bless sequels.)) Another bloody report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, and written by Tanya Byron (clinical psychologist and “television parenting guru” (a term to rightfully be scoffed at)) concludes that video games should be accompanied by health warnings.
Overreaction. Computer games should be accompanied by ratings (that are strictly enforced). They should be monitored by parents. They should be put into context by parents. A blanket system is not the way to go. Have those crappy “Smoking Seriously Harms Your Health” labels convinced anyone to think twice about it? No. Neither will health warnings on video games do anything. The whole study is set to build a foundation of helping to “protect children” in a digital age. Urgh. Here we go again with the child worship.
Telling people about pornography on the internet, or that chat room use is not totally safe for kids, is not “educating” them. It’s making the statement and then washing your hands of it. It’s another example – once again – of Government interfering into peoples lives because too many morons are breeding. Parents have to start parenting. Stop pointing the finger at everything else, and stick it in the nose of the lazy, uninterested parent. Ignore people whining about how bad it makes them feel and make them take responsibility for the life they squeezed out of their vagina. I don’t care if it was an accident and you were 14. If you didn’t want the responsibility you should have a) got an abortion, b) put the kid up for adoption c) used a condom or d) decided that screwing around in the back seat of a car at age 14 is not the thing for you.
All my friends play and have played very violent videogames. Have any of them spazzed out and murdered people? No. They haven’t. Why? Because a) they’re sane, and b) (more importantly) their parents took some Goddamn responsibility and actually behaved like parents. And none of them are psychopaths! What a shock. (Well, except for one).
The perfect example of how deluded this study is comes when the “guru” Tanya Byron (interestingly, not a doctor), calls for all games consoles to contain blocking mechanisms that would enable parents to prevent children playing unsuitable games on them. News flash brainiac; they already do. Yes folks, the woman giving out all these recommendations to the industry doesn’t even know that the technology we now deal with is way ahead of her.
I agree that video gaming needs a proper classification system rather than the ESRB rubbish, which is confusing to any game not rated 18. Of course, this now presents the media with a whole new bogeyman to harp on about for the next month until they find another tragedy to milk (a pane crash and five people dying in Kent isn’t nearly sensational enough; better bring up Diana again), and stupid people will run screaming throughout the streets at the imminent downfall of civilisation as the monster that is GTA IV comes looming towards them. “You can buy hookers in a video game?! Just like in real life?!” Yes. It happens in real life, just like it happens in movies. It happens in video games as well. Rather than trying to get the game banned because it will influence your children, I have a better idea. Don’t buy it for your kids in the first place. I’m 25 and responsible enough to play it, show a little responsibility yourself, and don’t let your children do the same.
HUMAN : TOGETHER
A Government investigative committee that looked into the issue of immigration said that everything that the Labour Government has told us about immigration is wrong, their statements are in error, sometime wilfully show, and that their contributions to the economy were miniscule, and their “protection” of pensions was non existent. This is an independent committee performing and independent investigation using facts, figures, records and solid evidence. The response of our unelected Prime Minister? “That immigrants have a “made a huge contribution” to the economy, and that the study was incorrect. The ineffectual Home Secretary agreed with him, as did the nonsensical Party Leader Harriet Harmen.
What was the point of this study being commissioned in the first place if you were going to ignore all its findings? In my view it’s little more than an example of the Government expecting something to back them up, and then, when it doesn’t, they just bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it’s wrong.
This is the problem with the current Government, it started becoming more prevalent at the beginning of the Iraq war, and continues to this day; they refuse to take criticism or admit error. They pretend that things that disagree with their status quo do not exist, or are freak occurrences, and that the way everything is being done now is the right way to do it. They will not change things significantly, because to do so would be to admit they have done things wrong in the past. Whether you are pro immigration or not (I happen to be), one has to admit that just brushing off the results of this study and then going back to acting as if nothing has happened is not the right way to do things.
Two:
It’s that time of the decade again. Video games are under attack. Twice a decade this seems to happen; early 90s (Mortal Kombat, Doom), and late ‘90s (Half Life). Early ‘00s (GTA III, Manhunt) and late ‘00s (GTA IV, Manhunt 2 (God bless sequels.)) Another bloody report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, and written by Tanya Byron (clinical psychologist and “television parenting guru” (a term to rightfully be scoffed at)) concludes that video games should be accompanied by health warnings.
Overreaction. Computer games should be accompanied by ratings (that are strictly enforced). They should be monitored by parents. They should be put into context by parents. A blanket system is not the way to go. Have those crappy “Smoking Seriously Harms Your Health” labels convinced anyone to think twice about it? No. Neither will health warnings on video games do anything. The whole study is set to build a foundation of helping to “protect children” in a digital age. Urgh. Here we go again with the child worship.
Telling people about pornography on the internet, or that chat room use is not totally safe for kids, is not “educating” them. It’s making the statement and then washing your hands of it. It’s another example – once again – of Government interfering into peoples lives because too many morons are breeding. Parents have to start parenting. Stop pointing the finger at everything else, and stick it in the nose of the lazy, uninterested parent. Ignore people whining about how bad it makes them feel and make them take responsibility for the life they squeezed out of their vagina. I don’t care if it was an accident and you were 14. If you didn’t want the responsibility you should have a) got an abortion, b) put the kid up for adoption c) used a condom or d) decided that screwing around in the back seat of a car at age 14 is not the thing for you.
All my friends play and have played very violent videogames. Have any of them spazzed out and murdered people? No. They haven’t. Why? Because a) they’re sane, and b) (more importantly) their parents took some Goddamn responsibility and actually behaved like parents. And none of them are psychopaths! What a shock. (Well, except for one).
The perfect example of how deluded this study is comes when the “guru” Tanya Byron (interestingly, not a doctor), calls for all games consoles to contain blocking mechanisms that would enable parents to prevent children playing unsuitable games on them. News flash brainiac; they already do. Yes folks, the woman giving out all these recommendations to the industry doesn’t even know that the technology we now deal with is way ahead of her.
I agree that video gaming needs a proper classification system rather than the ESRB rubbish, which is confusing to any game not rated 18. Of course, this now presents the media with a whole new bogeyman to harp on about for the next month until they find another tragedy to milk (a pane crash and five people dying in Kent isn’t nearly sensational enough; better bring up Diana again), and stupid people will run screaming throughout the streets at the imminent downfall of civilisation as the monster that is GTA IV comes looming towards them. “You can buy hookers in a video game?! Just like in real life?!” Yes. It happens in real life, just like it happens in movies. It happens in video games as well. Rather than trying to get the game banned because it will influence your children, I have a better idea. Don’t buy it for your kids in the first place. I’m 25 and responsible enough to play it, show a little responsibility yourself, and don’t let your children do the same.
HUMAN : TOGETHER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
