Okay, some thoughts about the leaking of various and sundry celebrity women's nekkid pics. Can we get a little perspective here? Yes, this was gross violation of their privacy, but this talk about how this is just a continuation of the overall objectification of women, and how this continues to shame them, is, in my humble opinion, massively overblown.
These women all agreed to have these pictures taken, no-one forced them, and men, since the beginning of time, have done all they can to look at women naked. We're hard-wired that way. Oh, and really, 'objectifying'? Seeing Kate Upton or Rhianna starkers is different from how they present themselves in their day jobs how exactly?
Yes, again, these were private photographs, never meant to be seen by the public at large, but in the bigger picture, when we look at muslim radicals committing atrocities on a daily, if not hourly basis, in Iraq, and Russia and Ukraine are on the verge of a war that could trigger yet another global conflict, and the polar ice caps continue to melt; we're really supposed to get all bent out of shape because Jennifer Lawrence posed nude for her boyfriend once, and some sneaky git stole the pics from the cloud and posted them on the web?
I think not.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Sorry folks, but we are screwed.
Recently Chris Hayes wrote an article for The Nation magazine that set my head spinning. In it he basically laid out the difficulty that we face in getting the Fossil Fuel industry to do the right thing, and help save the planet.
In short it has been calculated that the maximum amount of carbon that can be added to the atmosphere and not increase the global temperature by more than 2 degrees (we've already raised it by 0.8 degrees) without major, catastrophic, global changes to the planet is 565 gigatons. That's it. No more. The problem? The total amount of proven reserves of carbon that is readily extractable using today's technology is 2795 gigatons, fives times as much as the maximum "safe" amount. The value of that carbon? Roughly $20 trillion. So, in order to save the planet, we have to find a way to persuade the Fossil Fuel Industry that the assets that they thought they could use, the assets that some are keeping on their books today even though it is still in the ground, well sorry, but you can't have them. Kiss that $20 trillion goodbye, it has to stay in the earth.
Good luck with that.
Above and beyond the fact that the Fossil Fuel Industry would simply tell us to go fuck ourselves as they caught their breath between bouts of raucous laughter, is that there is a knock-on effect to the damage that their carbon pollution in the atmosphere has caused. Namely, that global warming is opening up more areas to drill. Ten or twenty years ago the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic, or off the coast of Greenland was inconceivable because it was hellaciously expensive. Now, thanks to the disappearing ice, not only is it economically feasible, they're already doing it.
In the most recent episode of 'Years of Living Dangerously', a series of documentaries on the Showtime network highlighting the impacts and effects of Global Climate Change, a correspondent (Lesley Stahl) went to Greenland to see the effects of glacial melting firsthand. I'm pretty sure we've all seen similar videos as massive chunks of ice, some the size of Manhattan, fall into the sea, and the massive lakes that now form on top of the ice drain into the depths of the glaciers further accelerating the calving process. What this has meant is that vast areas that were previously off-limits are now viable for oil exploration, and indeed Greenland has granted hundreds of permits for exploration to begin. But what made this segment truly eye-opening was the conversation with the Prime Minister of Greenland, Aleqa Hammond. In the interview Ms. Stahl put forth the suggestion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to explore for oil in Greenland as it could be disastrous for the rest of the planet. The Prime Minister looked at Ms. Stahl as though she had just silently farted and the initial waves of that awful scent had only just begun to invade her olfactory system. And to be honest, why wouldn't she?
As concerned members of the rich capitalist world stand around and point and shake their heads at the devastation their addiction to oil has caused as the Greenland glaciers crash into the sea at an ever-increasing rate, the folks that actually live there are rubbing their hands with glee. Billions of barrels of oil have suddenly become more viable to capture and the prospect of finally sharing in the global wealth the Fossil Fuel Industry creates finally appears to becoming a reality. Who wants to be the one to tell them that they can't participate? Who wants to be the one that says, 'No, for the benefit of the planet we can't allow you to become as rich as we are'? Or, more to the point, if we are to persuade them not to allow drilling, whom exactly will compensate them for 'doing the right thing'? The USA? China? The UN?
So, here we are. In order to stop the temperature of the planet from reaching the point that the lifestyle we have all become accustomed to simply ceasing to exist, all we have to do is persuade the people that are primarily responsible for the increase in the first place, not to drill anymore. Not only that, but they have to leave their reserves in the ground. And give up a metric shit-tonne of money. This would be akin to putting an alcoholic in the middle of a distillery and telling them that not only can't they take a sip from the bottle right in front of them, but they can't have any of the booze in the millions of cases stacked all around them in the distillery's warehouse. Oh, and some of the poorest folks on the planet must be told that they cannot join the party the rest of the modern world has been having for nigh on a hundred years, because the partiers have just suddenly figured out that it is going to kill us all.
The only thing the Fossil Fuel Industry values more than the size of their oil reserves is the politicians in their hip-pockets, and with the prospect of cheap oil money about to flood into Greenland, whom exactly is there to tell either group that the carbon party is over? I can't think of anyone that would stand a snowballs chance in hell.
And that is why I think we are all well and truly screwed.
In short it has been calculated that the maximum amount of carbon that can be added to the atmosphere and not increase the global temperature by more than 2 degrees (we've already raised it by 0.8 degrees) without major, catastrophic, global changes to the planet is 565 gigatons. That's it. No more. The problem? The total amount of proven reserves of carbon that is readily extractable using today's technology is 2795 gigatons, fives times as much as the maximum "safe" amount. The value of that carbon? Roughly $20 trillion. So, in order to save the planet, we have to find a way to persuade the Fossil Fuel Industry that the assets that they thought they could use, the assets that some are keeping on their books today even though it is still in the ground, well sorry, but you can't have them. Kiss that $20 trillion goodbye, it has to stay in the earth.
Good luck with that.
Above and beyond the fact that the Fossil Fuel Industry would simply tell us to go fuck ourselves as they caught their breath between bouts of raucous laughter, is that there is a knock-on effect to the damage that their carbon pollution in the atmosphere has caused. Namely, that global warming is opening up more areas to drill. Ten or twenty years ago the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic, or off the coast of Greenland was inconceivable because it was hellaciously expensive. Now, thanks to the disappearing ice, not only is it economically feasible, they're already doing it.
In the most recent episode of 'Years of Living Dangerously', a series of documentaries on the Showtime network highlighting the impacts and effects of Global Climate Change, a correspondent (Lesley Stahl) went to Greenland to see the effects of glacial melting firsthand. I'm pretty sure we've all seen similar videos as massive chunks of ice, some the size of Manhattan, fall into the sea, and the massive lakes that now form on top of the ice drain into the depths of the glaciers further accelerating the calving process. What this has meant is that vast areas that were previously off-limits are now viable for oil exploration, and indeed Greenland has granted hundreds of permits for exploration to begin. But what made this segment truly eye-opening was the conversation with the Prime Minister of Greenland, Aleqa Hammond. In the interview Ms. Stahl put forth the suggestion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to explore for oil in Greenland as it could be disastrous for the rest of the planet. The Prime Minister looked at Ms. Stahl as though she had just silently farted and the initial waves of that awful scent had only just begun to invade her olfactory system. And to be honest, why wouldn't she?
As concerned members of the rich capitalist world stand around and point and shake their heads at the devastation their addiction to oil has caused as the Greenland glaciers crash into the sea at an ever-increasing rate, the folks that actually live there are rubbing their hands with glee. Billions of barrels of oil have suddenly become more viable to capture and the prospect of finally sharing in the global wealth the Fossil Fuel Industry creates finally appears to becoming a reality. Who wants to be the one to tell them that they can't participate? Who wants to be the one that says, 'No, for the benefit of the planet we can't allow you to become as rich as we are'? Or, more to the point, if we are to persuade them not to allow drilling, whom exactly will compensate them for 'doing the right thing'? The USA? China? The UN?
So, here we are. In order to stop the temperature of the planet from reaching the point that the lifestyle we have all become accustomed to simply ceasing to exist, all we have to do is persuade the people that are primarily responsible for the increase in the first place, not to drill anymore. Not only that, but they have to leave their reserves in the ground. And give up a metric shit-tonne of money. This would be akin to putting an alcoholic in the middle of a distillery and telling them that not only can't they take a sip from the bottle right in front of them, but they can't have any of the booze in the millions of cases stacked all around them in the distillery's warehouse. Oh, and some of the poorest folks on the planet must be told that they cannot join the party the rest of the modern world has been having for nigh on a hundred years, because the partiers have just suddenly figured out that it is going to kill us all.
The only thing the Fossil Fuel Industry values more than the size of their oil reserves is the politicians in their hip-pockets, and with the prospect of cheap oil money about to flood into Greenland, whom exactly is there to tell either group that the carbon party is over? I can't think of anyone that would stand a snowballs chance in hell.
And that is why I think we are all well and truly screwed.
Friday, May 2, 2014
In defense of Jeremy Clarkson....sort of...
One of the presenters of the highly-rated BBC show 'Top Gear' has reportedly been found to have mumbled the word 'nigger' in some out takes of an episode several years ago when reciting the children's rhyme 'Eenie, meenie, miney, moe..'...
He has recorded what appears to be a genuine and sincere apology, which has quite predictably, not placated his critics...
....the fact that he supposedly mumbled it twice, before completely changing it on the third take seems to suggest he is NOT a racist, that he WAS aware that that particular word is now verbotten, and that he had tried to make sure that neither of those takes made it to air...
Of course if he had wanted to avoid the controversy entirely he could have simply just not mumbled that word at all, and used something else...
On this occasion, and because like it or not the word 'nigger' is in the original rhyme - for fucks sake I grew up saying it along with millions of other small British children - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...
But his earlier 'slope' remark that also generated more than a little justifiable outrage, was completely out of order. Top Gear producers have subsequently admitted that they KNEW that 'slope' was a racist term, but that they were using it in a "light-hearted" manner...Ah, so that makes it alright you see?
Not so much.
To sum up, Clarkson is a deliberately confrontational, self-important, obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, 20th century throwback conservative...but i don't believe he is a racist. I think he is simply a Grade-A moron.
And I don't think he should be punished for that.
He has recorded what appears to be a genuine and sincere apology, which has quite predictably, not placated his critics...
....the fact that he supposedly mumbled it twice, before completely changing it on the third take seems to suggest he is NOT a racist, that he WAS aware that that particular word is now verbotten, and that he had tried to make sure that neither of those takes made it to air...
Of course if he had wanted to avoid the controversy entirely he could have simply just not mumbled that word at all, and used something else...
On this occasion, and because like it or not the word 'nigger' is in the original rhyme - for fucks sake I grew up saying it along with millions of other small British children - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...
But his earlier 'slope' remark that also generated more than a little justifiable outrage, was completely out of order. Top Gear producers have subsequently admitted that they KNEW that 'slope' was a racist term, but that they were using it in a "light-hearted" manner...Ah, so that makes it alright you see?
Not so much.
To sum up, Clarkson is a deliberately confrontational, self-important, obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, 20th century throwback conservative...but i don't believe he is a racist. I think he is simply a Grade-A moron.
And I don't think he should be punished for that.
Friday, August 16, 2013
The International Olympic Committee has a chance to do the right thing....
...but it's going to take some gigantic, some might say Olympic-Sized, balls to do it...
Bottom line, per the Olympic Charter, the Winter Games currently scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia next February need to be moved or cancelled entirely due to the recently enacted "anti-gay" law in Russia. This hateful new law is no different in intention or practice from any of the Anti-Semitic laws passed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi government in the run up to WWII. The goal is the same, the legally codified demonization of a select, specific, easily identified group of people, with the tacit acknowledgement that 'extra-judicial justice', i.e. gay-bashing, will not be prosecuted.
This is unacceptable. For any country. But it is especially malodorous considering the fact that the country we're talking about is unashamedly using the upcoming games as a PR campaign to prove how much more developed and modernized they are since the last Olympic games in Moscow in 1980.
It is inconceivable that the sort of twisted logic emanating from the IOC President Jacque Rogge as he tries to find some way out of this mess, would even be attempted if the Russian legislation was anti-women's rights, or anti-Muslim, or anti-'insert-ethic group here'. But for some reason, because it's just 'The gays', the IOC is trying to find some miniscule escape hatch that will allow them to justify their acceptance of Russian bigotry under the Olympic flag.
In Principle Number One of the Olympic Charter it states that Olympism is all about 'social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.' But wait, it gets better, in Principle Number six it says "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement." Even the IOC's own Mission Statement says that their role is "to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement." Not a hell of a lot of wiggle room there it seems...
And yet, rather than insisting that Russia repeal this law or face the consequences of losing the games, the IOC is desperately trying to find a way to keep the games there. It is looking for "assurances" that gay athletes won't be "impacted" by this law, neatly side-stepping the fact that "regular gays" in Russia are "impacted" by this law at the hands, and fists and boots, of skinhead thugs on a near daily basis.
It is staggering to me that this is even an issue. The IOC should inform the Russians that due to the passage of that piece of legislation the Sochi games have been withdrawn. Period.
But they won't.
There's far too much money at stake for the Russians, and the IOC, for this to happen, and so, some sort of vague assurances will be given by the Russians that they promise not to beat up any foreign gays for a two-week period in early 2014, and the IOC will turn a blind eye to their own hypocrisy, cash the sponsor's checks, and move on.
So much for the Olympic Spirit.
Bottom line, per the Olympic Charter, the Winter Games currently scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia next February need to be moved or cancelled entirely due to the recently enacted "anti-gay" law in Russia. This hateful new law is no different in intention or practice from any of the Anti-Semitic laws passed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi government in the run up to WWII. The goal is the same, the legally codified demonization of a select, specific, easily identified group of people, with the tacit acknowledgement that 'extra-judicial justice', i.e. gay-bashing, will not be prosecuted.
This is unacceptable. For any country. But it is especially malodorous considering the fact that the country we're talking about is unashamedly using the upcoming games as a PR campaign to prove how much more developed and modernized they are since the last Olympic games in Moscow in 1980.
It is inconceivable that the sort of twisted logic emanating from the IOC President Jacque Rogge as he tries to find some way out of this mess, would even be attempted if the Russian legislation was anti-women's rights, or anti-Muslim, or anti-'insert-ethic group here'. But for some reason, because it's just 'The gays', the IOC is trying to find some miniscule escape hatch that will allow them to justify their acceptance of Russian bigotry under the Olympic flag.
In Principle Number One of the Olympic Charter it states that Olympism is all about 'social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.' But wait, it gets better, in Principle Number six it says "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement." Even the IOC's own Mission Statement says that their role is "to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement." Not a hell of a lot of wiggle room there it seems...
And yet, rather than insisting that Russia repeal this law or face the consequences of losing the games, the IOC is desperately trying to find a way to keep the games there. It is looking for "assurances" that gay athletes won't be "impacted" by this law, neatly side-stepping the fact that "regular gays" in Russia are "impacted" by this law at the hands, and fists and boots, of skinhead thugs on a near daily basis.
It is staggering to me that this is even an issue. The IOC should inform the Russians that due to the passage of that piece of legislation the Sochi games have been withdrawn. Period.
But they won't.
There's far too much money at stake for the Russians, and the IOC, for this to happen, and so, some sort of vague assurances will be given by the Russians that they promise not to beat up any foreign gays for a two-week period in early 2014, and the IOC will turn a blind eye to their own hypocrisy, cash the sponsor's checks, and move on.
So much for the Olympic Spirit.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Disney didn't kill Bambi...the state of Wisconsin did...
Posted without comment is this story from Scott Walkerstan...
http://www.wisn.com/news/armed-agents-raid-animal-shelter-for-baby-deer/-/9373668/21272108/-/item/0/-/13d8x2mz/-/index.html
Thank God they're keeping us all safe from rogue baby deer....
(My head hurts)
More later....
http://www.wisn.com/news/armed-agents-raid-animal-shelter-for-baby-deer/-/9373668/21272108/-/item/0/-/13d8x2mz/-/index.html
Thank God they're keeping us all safe from rogue baby deer....
(My head hurts)
More later....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)