We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," he shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
---Gustave M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary, New York: Farrar, Straus and Co, 1947, pp. 278-9. (Interview with Goering)
Monday, November 20, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Weapons, peace and the world...musings
Question: Why are the largest producers and exporters of Arms and munitions in the world also the five permanent members of the UN with veto rights?
Is there not a certain hiprocracy, and perhaps disingenuity, about such an enterprise...on one hand promoting peace and internationalism and human rights (some of principles on which the UN was founded and as veto countries these countries have arguably a greater responsibility to uphold these principles), on the other hand being the beneficiary of war and continued human rights violations? How can we expect any significant arms trading treaty to be honoured and upheld, when the most powerful countries in the world stand to lose the most as a result. Its simply not in their interests.
But perhaps this is the reason why they have veto rights and others dont. They have the most to gain and lose in any turn of world events/populace. Peace would be a financial loss...a significant one. War ensures economic growth....ensures votes.
Why is there such a media concentration on 'weapons of mass destruction' when small arms kill more people every day than nuclear weapons ever have. The only country to have actually used such a weapon is also the largest arms trader in the world by a huge amount. The French arent much better. Chirac and his Subjects, so lauded by many for refusing to let his country support the Iraq war, are responsible for a large quantity of the arms floating around in African civil wars now. I guess if it wasnt the French, the English, the Chinese, the Americans etc. would have been there.
This world, we are currently in, is the rainbow that arms dealers have been looking for since the fall of the USSR. They had to diversify back then....find new battlegrounds...like Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. They found some pots of gold along the way already....the vast unguarded (or guarded by corrupt/poor military men) stockpiles of weapons in former USSR states.
If thought of in this context , it may be in these countries interests NOT to catch Bin Laden and co. The longer he is out there, the longer such illegal wars like Iraq can go on in his name....the anti-terror wars that make gun-runner very happy...as their merchandise is very curious for all.
Is there not a certain hiprocracy, and perhaps disingenuity, about such an enterprise...on one hand promoting peace and internationalism and human rights (some of principles on which the UN was founded and as veto countries these countries have arguably a greater responsibility to uphold these principles), on the other hand being the beneficiary of war and continued human rights violations? How can we expect any significant arms trading treaty to be honoured and upheld, when the most powerful countries in the world stand to lose the most as a result. Its simply not in their interests.
But perhaps this is the reason why they have veto rights and others dont. They have the most to gain and lose in any turn of world events/populace. Peace would be a financial loss...a significant one. War ensures economic growth....ensures votes.
Why is there such a media concentration on 'weapons of mass destruction' when small arms kill more people every day than nuclear weapons ever have. The only country to have actually used such a weapon is also the largest arms trader in the world by a huge amount. The French arent much better. Chirac and his Subjects, so lauded by many for refusing to let his country support the Iraq war, are responsible for a large quantity of the arms floating around in African civil wars now. I guess if it wasnt the French, the English, the Chinese, the Americans etc. would have been there.
This world, we are currently in, is the rainbow that arms dealers have been looking for since the fall of the USSR. They had to diversify back then....find new battlegrounds...like Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. They found some pots of gold along the way already....the vast unguarded (or guarded by corrupt/poor military men) stockpiles of weapons in former USSR states.
If thought of in this context , it may be in these countries interests NOT to catch Bin Laden and co. The longer he is out there, the longer such illegal wars like Iraq can go on in his name....the anti-terror wars that make gun-runner very happy...as their merchandise is very curious for all.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Modernity, Science, Positivism, Objectivism.
A fellow blogger posted this the other day on his site.....
http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com/2006/07/science-is-not-objective.html
Its a good read, points are well made. The attempt by social scientists to objectify their 'mind gaze' to match the objectifying capacities of the natural science colleagues, in order to strive for greater legitimacy and stature in their results. To make their science more 'harder' and 'sure', eliminating the 'human' out of it and propelling the goodness of mathematics.
http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com/2006/07/science-is-not-objective.html
Its a good read, points are well made. The attempt by social scientists to objectify their 'mind gaze' to match the objectifying capacities of the natural science colleagues, in order to strive for greater legitimacy and stature in their results. To make their science more 'harder' and 'sure', eliminating the 'human' out of it and propelling the goodness of mathematics.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The world we live in...update 2006
After centuries of subjugation of races, other cultures and other beliefs, in the name of civilisation, science, religion and power, Earth 2006 is best described as -
1)Christian (the missionaries infused the americas, africa, and asia with their God and now those continents are strongly in its grasp. Furthermore, the whole modernist project is profoundly Christian in nature. These days, the influence is also stealthy, in the form of many western NGOs, and of naive people 'doing good' around the world for the sake of emancipating themselves of moral duty)
2)Western (Eurocentric). Families are thought of as 'mother and father plus kids' units, and the rest are considered 'extended' family, furthermore 'family' only includes blood relatives and those married to them. Western thought is considered 'modern' and other forms of thought are labelled 'cultural' or, a greater patronising insult- 'traditional'. Western lifestyle is considered as superior - they are developed countries with 'developed' societies...the others are 'developing'...learning to live with things the priveleged and enlightened west have known and had for years. Aid and charity flow from the west to the 'others'. English is the 'world' language. USA, France, UK sit on the UN security council with veto rights and a Eurocentric Russia and a non-democratic China are the representatives of the 'other' countries.
3)Capitalist. Its all about 'efficient' (only in an economic sense) allocation of scarce resources. Even Life itself is couched in these terms - 'Maximise my life', 'live to the fullest' , 'Life is short, make the most of it while you can' etc. All about maximising a resource limited environment. Then there more - you must sell yourself...be productive, you must define who you are...have a CV, get a 'job', earn a wage, so that you can do 'what you really want to do'. Countries are ranked as 'first world' or 'third world' by economic standards. To be a non-capitalist country is considered to somehow be a gross violation of the rights of citizens, and to be a pariah of the 'global order'.
4)Masculine. The radical feminists are right. Even the economic system is masculine - competition??? what? whats wrong with cooperation? God is male (the judeo-christian-islamic god that is), and he had a son not a daughter. And all the prophets were male. Oh and 99% of the religious texts were written by males too. I wonder if these things really are coincidences. International relations continues to be stained by the distructive thinking of 'Realism' another 'my penis is larger than yours, so dont try picking up in my backyard' theory of inter-country relationships. In not even going to even start about neo-conservatism.
I'm sure I can write an essay on each of those categories, so the brief examples I gave are by no means exhaustive.
All other constructions of the world are suppressed, ignored, ridiculed, assimilated......eliminated. Witness the poor state of affairs of most indigineous peoples around the globe....the former slaves of the white man (and they were nearly always men), still struggling...perhaps they really were inferior after all? The native work ethic is not as 'good' as the protestant work ethic. I could try to pour out decades of post-colonialist thought into this small paragraph, but i wont. I will just encourage you to read into it. The project of trying to imagine another reality than the one we see at present (that is, not one where both 'normal' and 'different' options are still 'framed' within the same structure (Christian, Eurocentric, Capitalist, Masculine), so really even the 'alternatives' are not genuinely different). Oxfam argues for a 'different world' but their world is still profoundly eurocentric, christian (doing good, from us to them) and capitalist (albeit left of centre) and masculine. Gramsci had a point. Certain concepts of the world around us have assumed such a hegemonic position in our minds, that to argue against them would be akin to argue against homemade apple pie. This is the key of all propoganda and social construction.
Ofcourse there are people that seek to be different, to live a different reality. However they are labelled as outcasts, to live at the peripheries of the society...they are the tree huggers, the troublemakers, the protestors, the luddites, the wishy washy liberal utopians, out of touch with 'reality'. And for those that make it to any level of notoriety, the labels of activist, dissident, radical or terrorist await from the 'machinery of mainstream'.
So what then to do? Far be it for me to suggest that I hold the 'philosophers stones' here. But being aware of our own shortcomings, and refusing to close your eyes and always wanting to learn and listen, and to consider the possibility and legitimacy of another reality than the one we see at present is perhaps a step in the right direction.
1)Christian (the missionaries infused the americas, africa, and asia with their God and now those continents are strongly in its grasp. Furthermore, the whole modernist project is profoundly Christian in nature. These days, the influence is also stealthy, in the form of many western NGOs, and of naive people 'doing good' around the world for the sake of emancipating themselves of moral duty)
2)Western (Eurocentric). Families are thought of as 'mother and father plus kids' units, and the rest are considered 'extended' family, furthermore 'family' only includes blood relatives and those married to them. Western thought is considered 'modern' and other forms of thought are labelled 'cultural' or, a greater patronising insult- 'traditional'. Western lifestyle is considered as superior - they are developed countries with 'developed' societies...the others are 'developing'...learning to live with things the priveleged and enlightened west have known and had for years. Aid and charity flow from the west to the 'others'. English is the 'world' language. USA, France, UK sit on the UN security council with veto rights and a Eurocentric Russia and a non-democratic China are the representatives of the 'other' countries.
3)Capitalist. Its all about 'efficient' (only in an economic sense) allocation of scarce resources. Even Life itself is couched in these terms - 'Maximise my life', 'live to the fullest' , 'Life is short, make the most of it while you can' etc. All about maximising a resource limited environment. Then there more - you must sell yourself...be productive, you must define who you are...have a CV, get a 'job', earn a wage, so that you can do 'what you really want to do'. Countries are ranked as 'first world' or 'third world' by economic standards. To be a non-capitalist country is considered to somehow be a gross violation of the rights of citizens, and to be a pariah of the 'global order'.
4)Masculine. The radical feminists are right. Even the economic system is masculine - competition??? what? whats wrong with cooperation? God is male (the judeo-christian-islamic god that is), and he had a son not a daughter. And all the prophets were male. Oh and 99% of the religious texts were written by males too. I wonder if these things really are coincidences. International relations continues to be stained by the distructive thinking of 'Realism' another 'my penis is larger than yours, so dont try picking up in my backyard' theory of inter-country relationships. In not even going to even start about neo-conservatism.
I'm sure I can write an essay on each of those categories, so the brief examples I gave are by no means exhaustive.
All other constructions of the world are suppressed, ignored, ridiculed, assimilated......eliminated. Witness the poor state of affairs of most indigineous peoples around the globe....the former slaves of the white man (and they were nearly always men), still struggling...perhaps they really were inferior after all? The native work ethic is not as 'good' as the protestant work ethic. I could try to pour out decades of post-colonialist thought into this small paragraph, but i wont. I will just encourage you to read into it. The project of trying to imagine another reality than the one we see at present (that is, not one where both 'normal' and 'different' options are still 'framed' within the same structure (Christian, Eurocentric, Capitalist, Masculine), so really even the 'alternatives' are not genuinely different). Oxfam argues for a 'different world' but their world is still profoundly eurocentric, christian (doing good, from us to them) and capitalist (albeit left of centre) and masculine. Gramsci had a point. Certain concepts of the world around us have assumed such a hegemonic position in our minds, that to argue against them would be akin to argue against homemade apple pie. This is the key of all propoganda and social construction.
Ofcourse there are people that seek to be different, to live a different reality. However they are labelled as outcasts, to live at the peripheries of the society...they are the tree huggers, the troublemakers, the protestors, the luddites, the wishy washy liberal utopians, out of touch with 'reality'. And for those that make it to any level of notoriety, the labels of activist, dissident, radical or terrorist await from the 'machinery of mainstream'.
So what then to do? Far be it for me to suggest that I hold the 'philosophers stones' here. But being aware of our own shortcomings, and refusing to close your eyes and always wanting to learn and listen, and to consider the possibility and legitimacy of another reality than the one we see at present is perhaps a step in the right direction.
Friday, June 16, 2006
On Language
Ive just read another pathetic article about 'world affairs' by someone claiming the title 'expert'.
If language only served to 'say' something, words would be rarer, silence more frequent. Words are not used only to transmit a message, to inform about a fact, to create a feeling, to express a thought. They are also used to prevent communication, to put people off track, to put up a noisy, chattering screen between human beings and truth. In our society, where lies are considered as one of the fine arts of power, and falsification one of the natural instruments of profit, talking in order to say nothing has developed in just about every field.
One might believe that, in a company, the person called the 'director of communications' would be responsible for transmitting everyday news from the CEO to the storekeeper and from the representative to the client - an engineer if you will, for ensuring transparency, a magician of contacts, responsible for circulating the right words. WRONG. The Dir. of Communications is the new name of 'chief of publicity'. As can be seen everyday, publicity has nothing to do with 'truth' or 'transparency'.
Another title seemingly important, which expresses something that which it is not, is the 'director of Human Resources'. It is difficult to imagine a designation so amazingly rich in graces, virtues , gifts of spirit and heart. This 'director' is supposed to draw generously on the treasure of the human species, on the inexhaustible source of 'all that is human'. She who is responsible for human resources should be at the pinacle of spiritual power. However, the description of this rising princess of humanity turns out to be the tired old officer, once modestly known as the 'head of personnel', a sort of general inspector, superior foreman, a good bloke or careful watchdog, according to her character or the moment, caught in the squichy rotten area where slugs live -between the trunk of management and the bark of the waged workers.
This corruption of language has taken new highs these days. Not to mention the corruption of meaning - nota bene Bush's anal rupturing of the meaning of the word 'Freedom'. hmmm perhaps next post I will talk about the popular topic of terrorism, or something about 'agency' as i mentioned in the last post.
If language only served to 'say' something, words would be rarer, silence more frequent. Words are not used only to transmit a message, to inform about a fact, to create a feeling, to express a thought. They are also used to prevent communication, to put people off track, to put up a noisy, chattering screen between human beings and truth. In our society, where lies are considered as one of the fine arts of power, and falsification one of the natural instruments of profit, talking in order to say nothing has developed in just about every field.
One might believe that, in a company, the person called the 'director of communications' would be responsible for transmitting everyday news from the CEO to the storekeeper and from the representative to the client - an engineer if you will, for ensuring transparency, a magician of contacts, responsible for circulating the right words. WRONG. The Dir. of Communications is the new name of 'chief of publicity'. As can be seen everyday, publicity has nothing to do with 'truth' or 'transparency'.
Another title seemingly important, which expresses something that which it is not, is the 'director of Human Resources'. It is difficult to imagine a designation so amazingly rich in graces, virtues , gifts of spirit and heart. This 'director' is supposed to draw generously on the treasure of the human species, on the inexhaustible source of 'all that is human'. She who is responsible for human resources should be at the pinacle of spiritual power. However, the description of this rising princess of humanity turns out to be the tired old officer, once modestly known as the 'head of personnel', a sort of general inspector, superior foreman, a good bloke or careful watchdog, according to her character or the moment, caught in the squichy rotten area where slugs live -between the trunk of management and the bark of the waged workers.
This corruption of language has taken new highs these days. Not to mention the corruption of meaning - nota bene Bush's anal rupturing of the meaning of the word 'Freedom'. hmmm perhaps next post I will talk about the popular topic of terrorism, or something about 'agency' as i mentioned in the last post.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The 'anti' globalist image.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/544786.stm
Frequently, when we see reportage of 'world' meetings (WTO meetings, G8 meetings, etc), we hear and see on TV also of reports of 'antiglobalist' protesters, surrounded by heavily armed riot police and images of shouting, agressive behaviour, people dressed in 'messy' fashion typically with balaclavas or scarves, caricatured effigies of world leaders, burning 'things' (flags, effigies, etc), breaking windows, and other largely unpleasant looking images of the goings on. It all seems a bit outrageous and certainly not as dignified nor 'presentable' as the well dressed formal leaders meeting in these meetings. These 'violent' protestors aka troublemakers, need to be controlled and kept away from the goings on and we the 'public' need to be protested from their violent actions. How can they be against globalisation? idiots. ....well if only this image of them were true.
While I've not doubt that amongst the gathered groups of citizens from around the globe that there exist some elements of anarchic bent who feel so alienated from the world around them that causing distruction to all they see carries with it little of the accompanying guilt or shame that the 'ordinary' person may feel, and that some of these people may well be 'anti' many of the modern global trends to such an extent that they resort to violent response when given a chance, the vast majority of gathered people are actually there in peace. I would also call into question the labelling of such groups as being 'anti-globalisation' ....rather they are best described as 'alternative' globalisation supporters. But what is 'globalisation' anyway? The definition is rather important ,as without one, to label someone 'anti' it is unworkable. So what do the mainstream media define as 'globalisation'? In academic circles its accepted that its a very difficult thing to define as a 'noun', and that its best described rather as an adjective....a word that describes a series of unconnected events that have led to the current world we live in, and further develop our world. Something to do with time, and space. Im ardently resisting the academics urge to cite sources here. But if the globalisation is defined by merging markets, free trade, floated currencies, spreading of private enterprises, retreat of the state, etc etc, then perhaps they are 'anti'.
But actually there are no 'pro-globalisers' and 'anti-globalisers'. Its not possible to be either really. Many different groups of people with numerous agendas populate the arena and to lump them into two groups is misleading. I hope for an alternative world, and I dont like the WTO and neo-liberal agenda, but Im far from supporting violent protest either. Whenever did arguing for change by proposing different ideas become such an unacceptable practice? And why are 'we',the passive(?) viewers and consumers of mainstream media reportage, so willing to accept the view presented without questioning? Is it that those clamouring for an alternative world just have an image problem to be rectified? Someone once said, in order to see change in the world you live in, you must be the change yourself. Which brings me onto another topic, personal agency, which is a topic for the next post i suspect.
Frequently, when we see reportage of 'world' meetings (WTO meetings, G8 meetings, etc), we hear and see on TV also of reports of 'antiglobalist' protesters, surrounded by heavily armed riot police and images of shouting, agressive behaviour, people dressed in 'messy' fashion typically with balaclavas or scarves, caricatured effigies of world leaders, burning 'things' (flags, effigies, etc), breaking windows, and other largely unpleasant looking images of the goings on. It all seems a bit outrageous and certainly not as dignified nor 'presentable' as the well dressed formal leaders meeting in these meetings. These 'violent' protestors aka troublemakers, need to be controlled and kept away from the goings on and we the 'public' need to be protested from their violent actions. How can they be against globalisation? idiots. ....well if only this image of them were true.
While I've not doubt that amongst the gathered groups of citizens from around the globe that there exist some elements of anarchic bent who feel so alienated from the world around them that causing distruction to all they see carries with it little of the accompanying guilt or shame that the 'ordinary' person may feel, and that some of these people may well be 'anti' many of the modern global trends to such an extent that they resort to violent response when given a chance, the vast majority of gathered people are actually there in peace. I would also call into question the labelling of such groups as being 'anti-globalisation' ....rather they are best described as 'alternative' globalisation supporters. But what is 'globalisation' anyway? The definition is rather important ,as without one, to label someone 'anti' it is unworkable. So what do the mainstream media define as 'globalisation'? In academic circles its accepted that its a very difficult thing to define as a 'noun', and that its best described rather as an adjective....a word that describes a series of unconnected events that have led to the current world we live in, and further develop our world. Something to do with time, and space. Im ardently resisting the academics urge to cite sources here. But if the globalisation is defined by merging markets, free trade, floated currencies, spreading of private enterprises, retreat of the state, etc etc, then perhaps they are 'anti'.
But actually there are no 'pro-globalisers' and 'anti-globalisers'. Its not possible to be either really. Many different groups of people with numerous agendas populate the arena and to lump them into two groups is misleading. I hope for an alternative world, and I dont like the WTO and neo-liberal agenda, but Im far from supporting violent protest either. Whenever did arguing for change by proposing different ideas become such an unacceptable practice? And why are 'we',the passive(?) viewers and consumers of mainstream media reportage, so willing to accept the view presented without questioning? Is it that those clamouring for an alternative world just have an image problem to be rectified? Someone once said, in order to see change in the world you live in, you must be the change yourself. Which brings me onto another topic, personal agency, which is a topic for the next post i suspect.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The 'Third' parties
In every multi-party democractic country, there are always 'third' parties that offer all sorts of policy and government alternatives to the main two political parties (typically a centre left and center right party). They run the gamut from left wing, to centrist, to right wing. But many of them actually have the best policies...policies that actually WOULD make a difference and perhaps would reinvigorate interest and dynamism in the politics of a country, and help to reduce voter apathy and indifference. I wonder if all those people who could not be bothered voting 'because nothing changes anyway' might be better off voting for a third party instead?
But human beings like 'certainty' and despite our natural curiousity, in the end, when put under pressure and when high stakes are involved, most people go with 'what they know'...vote for one of 'big' parties. Budding politicians hungry for power have always known this, and therefore in major parties you will see people who can fit just about anywhere on the political map but 'leaning more' to the left or right to legitimise their membership. There are only a few who are principled enough to go with a 'third' party that fits with their political philosophy, and fight it out in the competition of ideas, accepting the difficulty of the endeavour ahead of them.
Voters are easily fooled and media image these days plays a larger role in 'Northern' countries than it did before. Put a passionate, good debater and orator, with hints of humour and a huffpuff smorgasbord of morality (has children, is married, goes to church, dresses conservatively, etc) and you have a shoe-in for your next president or prime minister - as long as he (and its typically a 'he') is with a major party that is. Notice that I make no mention of the person's experience, intelligence, agenda, interests, friends he keeps, previous jobs, philosophies, education,
and general competency for the job.
So here in this post, Ive tried to list a few of those 'third' parties that I think are worth a look at the next time you vote...wherever you happen to be. If you are reading this and know of third parties to add to this list, LET ME KNOW, as I'd like this list to grow. Right now it seems Ive got a lot of 'Green parties' listed. By the way, though these are 'lefty' parties, doesnt mean I necessarily support them. For example, I'd rather vote for the Greens in the UK than the Lib Dems, but they are far too small a party to be considered here. Only parties that have made it into the national legislature allowed here....
http://www.greens.org.nz
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
http://www.gp.org/
http://www.groenlinks.nl/
http://www.greens.org.au/
http://www.democrats.org.au/
http://www.sv.no/
http://www.rv.no/
http://www.ndp.ca/
http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/aktuell/index.htm
But human beings like 'certainty' and despite our natural curiousity, in the end, when put under pressure and when high stakes are involved, most people go with 'what they know'...vote for one of 'big' parties. Budding politicians hungry for power have always known this, and therefore in major parties you will see people who can fit just about anywhere on the political map but 'leaning more' to the left or right to legitimise their membership. There are only a few who are principled enough to go with a 'third' party that fits with their political philosophy, and fight it out in the competition of ideas, accepting the difficulty of the endeavour ahead of them.
Voters are easily fooled and media image these days plays a larger role in 'Northern' countries than it did before. Put a passionate, good debater and orator, with hints of humour and a huffpuff smorgasbord of morality (has children, is married, goes to church, dresses conservatively, etc) and you have a shoe-in for your next president or prime minister - as long as he (and its typically a 'he') is with a major party that is. Notice that I make no mention of the person's experience, intelligence, agenda, interests, friends he keeps, previous jobs, philosophies, education,
and general competency for the job.
So here in this post, Ive tried to list a few of those 'third' parties that I think are worth a look at the next time you vote...wherever you happen to be. If you are reading this and know of third parties to add to this list, LET ME KNOW, as I'd like this list to grow. Right now it seems Ive got a lot of 'Green parties' listed. By the way, though these are 'lefty' parties, doesnt mean I necessarily support them. For example, I'd rather vote for the Greens in the UK than the Lib Dems, but they are far too small a party to be considered here. Only parties that have made it into the national legislature allowed here....
http://www.greens.org.nz
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
http://www.gp.org/
http://www.groenlinks.nl/
http://www.greens.org.au/
http://www.democrats.org.au/
http://www.sv.no/
http://www.rv.no/
http://www.ndp.ca/
http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/aktuell/index.htm
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Eco Footprint
Being a student of development studies, this site was of interest....
http://www.ecofoot.org/
Im not sure as to how accurate it really is and whether it actually has anything useful to offer, but nonetheless it does have some value and does touch on some important everyday things people 'could' change in their lives to make a difference in the world.
So my marks are....
CATEGORY (GLOBAL HECTARES)
FOOD (1.5)
MOBILITY (0.1)
SHELTER (0.6)
GOODS/SERVICES (0.6)
TOTAL FOOTPRINT (2.8)
Apparently if everyone lived like me, we'd need 1.6 planets hahaha. opps. Still, Im better than the average..(4.8 total footprint). Seems my meat eating habits cost me dearly!
http://www.ecofoot.org/
Im not sure as to how accurate it really is and whether it actually has anything useful to offer, but nonetheless it does have some value and does touch on some important everyday things people 'could' change in their lives to make a difference in the world.
So my marks are....
CATEGORY (GLOBAL HECTARES)
FOOD (1.5)
MOBILITY (0.1)
SHELTER (0.6)
GOODS/SERVICES (0.6)
TOTAL FOOTPRINT (2.8)
Apparently if everyone lived like me, we'd need 1.6 planets hahaha. opps. Still, Im better than the average..(4.8 total footprint). Seems my meat eating habits cost me dearly!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Sites to bookmark
The internet being what it is, has a wealth of interesting and useful sites to whet the appetite of any procrastinating student with a liberal bent. So I've put a few up here for those curious and openminded. Some stuff is whacky, other stuff is intellectual. Both are thought provoking.
http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/
http://www.freeinfosociety.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.lonelantern.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
...more coming!!
http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/
http://www.freeinfosociety.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.lonelantern.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
...more coming!!
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
And a new blog is born
This started off as a class project, way back when, then thanks to my general laziness, indifference, apathy, and tendency to procrastinate, it got mothballed and died a cyber death a long time ago. Ofcourse back then, it wasnt called this new hip name 'blogging'. It was referred to 'merely' as maintaing your own personal website to put up general thoughts and information about yourself with the hope of sharing it with the world and to perhaps networking with others around you. Does everything have to have a name+description? Anyway, this is a second attempt at it, though I still suffer from the aforementioned despositions from time to time, so it will be funny to see how this goes.
Midnight Alchemy. 1. (n.), A blog of little fame, and even less ambition. 2. (v.) The act of putting raw thoughts together in one place at night, with the hope of some golden ideas emerging from within it.
Midnight Alchemy. 1. (n.), A blog of little fame, and even less ambition. 2. (v.) The act of putting raw thoughts together in one place at night, with the hope of some golden ideas emerging from within it.
midnight.alchemist@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
