I'm finally getting around to watching Chris Martenson's "Crash Course". It's fascinating and horrifying all at the same time. A must see for everyone.
31 January 2009
Building a Container Ship
Amazing video of the building of the world's largest container ship (Emma Maersk) in the Maersk shipyards in Denmark.
30 January 2009
Haggard and his Demons
...and you know what flavor of therapists he's been going to. "Heterosexual with complications"? Pul-leaze.
It's sort of sad. He's really dug himself into a deep deep hole and will probably be haunted by his denials and self-identified demons for the rest of his life. Too bad his religion says his natural urges are evil!
Interesting that he says he's read that religions are superstitions (presumably he's read Richard Dawkins) and this strengthened his faith. I hope he finds his true path and direction, and I really hope he can eventually be comfortable with who he really is.
28 January 2009
I Love My Nieces!
I had such a great time visiting with them this weekend. It's sad to think that if I move to Vancouver this fall I would miss out on them growing up when seeing them evolve and discover is such a positive awesome thing.
22 January 2009
The Culture of Canadian Frugality...
Low debt load will help us weather recession
It can't save us from recession, but it will certainly reduce the pain. Canada's low debt burden - among governments, businesses and households alike - gives the country a crucial advantage as it heads into what threatens to be a long haul. Backed up by stability in the banking system that has become the envy of many countries, the Canadian advantage is solid enough that even the global recession and financial crisis can't destroy it. “The advantage is fundamental. It's not cyclical,” said Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns. “Nobody can take away the fact that Canadians are far less burdened,” both compared with other countries, especially the US, and compared with their own past. At the heart of the global recession is the fact that the US government, financial institutions, households and companies lived way beyond their means for a long time. The effects of too much debt are being felt everywhere. But since Canada's governments, financial institutions, households and companies aren't facing the same high debt problems, the country doesn't have to fix those problems to muddle through. “So much of what is happening in the United States is because of the credit freeze. There's no comparison here. Canada is in a far better condition,” Cooper said. The Canadian economy can't go so far as to claim it's not being “bothered” by the global recession. After all, it is contracting, too. The pain is mounting in many industries, and the ranks of the unemployed are growing. Recovery is a long way off. But Canada's reduced exposure to the unseemly debt loads at the heart of the crisis will stand us in good stead, economists say.
The most obvious Canadian advantage is government debt load. After fighting down the deficit in the 1990s, the federal government has been able to pay off more than $100B in debt in the past decade, and most provinces have vastly improved their books as well. Not so in the rest of the world. The US deficit has ballooned and Japan's is enormous. While most European countries have kept their debts under control, Canada's total debt burden is still lower. As Ottawa and the provinces ready themselves to spend billions in an attempt to mitigate the recession, Canada can well afford to do so. “The debt [burden] gives us lots of room to manoeuvre. This is the time to raise it,” said Andrew Sharpe, executive director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards. “We've built up this big advantage, so let's use it. But wisely.” The Canadian banking sector has also gained international recognition for its ingrained conservatism. While major banks around the world have toppled and have required government bailouts, Canadian banks remain somewhat profitable and well capitalized. Unlike their global competitors, they are still lending, and are able to raise money in financial markets, albeit at steep prices. The corporate sector, as a whole, has been equally thrifty and conservative. Debt levels are low, and companies generally have high cash balances at the ready - useful for plugging holes due to sudden collapses in revenue that could well hit in the next few quarters. As corporate income surged over the past few years, economists were worried that Canadian companies weren't putting their newfound bounty to good use, by leveraging it for further expansion. Now, the companies' tight fists seem to be paying off. Canadian consumers have shown a similar conservative attitude toward debt. While US homeowners were using their houses as ABMs, and buying homes with spurious loans, Canada also experienced a housing boom and embraced the US practice of borrowing against our houses to finance consumption. But mortgages here were not nearly as high risk. Housing prices are now falling, but not to the extent as in the US or Britain.
(Globe and Mail 090122)
Canada has always been the voice of moderation and reason, internally and internationally. What in our culture makes this such a fundamental virtue of being Canadian? First of all, we're not as rich as some others and know that saving for a rainy day is something still somewhat admirable. We also plan ahead...the fact that if you're caught unprepared in our climate, you could potentially die does not go unheeded; in fact, I think it is deeply embedded in our collective psyche. I think that's where the frugality comes from. We may not be the life of the party acting like there's no tomorrow when times are good, but we also avoid the worst of the hangover when reality comes crashing down on us the following day, and have enough of our faculties to properly clean up the mess because we planned ahead a little bit!
It can't save us from recession, but it will certainly reduce the pain. Canada's low debt burden - among governments, businesses and households alike - gives the country a crucial advantage as it heads into what threatens to be a long haul. Backed up by stability in the banking system that has become the envy of many countries, the Canadian advantage is solid enough that even the global recession and financial crisis can't destroy it. “The advantage is fundamental. It's not cyclical,” said Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns. “Nobody can take away the fact that Canadians are far less burdened,” both compared with other countries, especially the US, and compared with their own past. At the heart of the global recession is the fact that the US government, financial institutions, households and companies lived way beyond their means for a long time. The effects of too much debt are being felt everywhere. But since Canada's governments, financial institutions, households and companies aren't facing the same high debt problems, the country doesn't have to fix those problems to muddle through. “So much of what is happening in the United States is because of the credit freeze. There's no comparison here. Canada is in a far better condition,” Cooper said. The Canadian economy can't go so far as to claim it's not being “bothered” by the global recession. After all, it is contracting, too. The pain is mounting in many industries, and the ranks of the unemployed are growing. Recovery is a long way off. But Canada's reduced exposure to the unseemly debt loads at the heart of the crisis will stand us in good stead, economists say.
The most obvious Canadian advantage is government debt load. After fighting down the deficit in the 1990s, the federal government has been able to pay off more than $100B in debt in the past decade, and most provinces have vastly improved their books as well. Not so in the rest of the world. The US deficit has ballooned and Japan's is enormous. While most European countries have kept their debts under control, Canada's total debt burden is still lower. As Ottawa and the provinces ready themselves to spend billions in an attempt to mitigate the recession, Canada can well afford to do so. “The debt [burden] gives us lots of room to manoeuvre. This is the time to raise it,” said Andrew Sharpe, executive director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards. “We've built up this big advantage, so let's use it. But wisely.” The Canadian banking sector has also gained international recognition for its ingrained conservatism. While major banks around the world have toppled and have required government bailouts, Canadian banks remain somewhat profitable and well capitalized. Unlike their global competitors, they are still lending, and are able to raise money in financial markets, albeit at steep prices. The corporate sector, as a whole, has been equally thrifty and conservative. Debt levels are low, and companies generally have high cash balances at the ready - useful for plugging holes due to sudden collapses in revenue that could well hit in the next few quarters. As corporate income surged over the past few years, economists were worried that Canadian companies weren't putting their newfound bounty to good use, by leveraging it for further expansion. Now, the companies' tight fists seem to be paying off. Canadian consumers have shown a similar conservative attitude toward debt. While US homeowners were using their houses as ABMs, and buying homes with spurious loans, Canada also experienced a housing boom and embraced the US practice of borrowing against our houses to finance consumption. But mortgages here were not nearly as high risk. Housing prices are now falling, but not to the extent as in the US or Britain.
(Globe and Mail 090122)
Canada has always been the voice of moderation and reason, internally and internationally. What in our culture makes this such a fundamental virtue of being Canadian? First of all, we're not as rich as some others and know that saving for a rainy day is something still somewhat admirable. We also plan ahead...the fact that if you're caught unprepared in our climate, you could potentially die does not go unheeded; in fact, I think it is deeply embedded in our collective psyche. I think that's where the frugality comes from. We may not be the life of the party acting like there's no tomorrow when times are good, but we also avoid the worst of the hangover when reality comes crashing down on us the following day, and have enough of our faculties to properly clean up the mess because we planned ahead a little bit!
21 January 2009
Heart of the Poisoned West
Tar sands smog seen worsening
Pollution will continue to plague Alberta's oil sands despite plans to pipe harmful greenhouse gases deep underground, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star. Part of the task of cleaning up the oil sands involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions and storing them in geological reservoirs in western Canada. But chemicals linked to acid rain, respiratory problems and ozone depletion could escape into the atmosphere at an even faster rate, thanks to an estimated tripling of production from one million barrels a day in 2007 to 3.4 million barrels a day in 2017. That could occur despite proposed national caps on air contaminants. By capturing about 200 megatonnes a year of carbon dioxide, sequestration (as carbon dioxide storage is known) is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 80% in 2017, says an Environment Canada study obtained under the Access to Information Act. But, the study notes, "there are emissions of CO2 and air contaminants resulting from the generation of the energy required by (carbon capture and storage) facilities. The CO2 emissions offset the volumes captured by the facilities, while the air contaminant emissions add to the load on the environment." The June 2008 study predicts emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain, will rise by up to 34% by 2017. Nitrous oxides - responsible for ozone layer depletion - will rise by up to 24%. Ozone depletion is linked to higher rates of skin cancer, among other health problems. Tiny particulate matter is set to jump by more than 60% in the oil sands and could lead to hazy skies and aggravate existing lung and heart problems. "It is dirty oil for any number of reasons, and it's not just carbon dioxide, " said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, which has researched the links between oil sands production and health problems. "It's very clear that we need to turn our attention to those other types of pollutants or else it's going to be a disaster in the future."
(Toronto Star 090121)
Pollution will continue to plague Alberta's oil sands despite plans to pipe harmful greenhouse gases deep underground, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star. Part of the task of cleaning up the oil sands involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions and storing them in geological reservoirs in western Canada. But chemicals linked to acid rain, respiratory problems and ozone depletion could escape into the atmosphere at an even faster rate, thanks to an estimated tripling of production from one million barrels a day in 2007 to 3.4 million barrels a day in 2017. That could occur despite proposed national caps on air contaminants. By capturing about 200 megatonnes a year of carbon dioxide, sequestration (as carbon dioxide storage is known) is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 80% in 2017, says an Environment Canada study obtained under the Access to Information Act. But, the study notes, "there are emissions of CO2 and air contaminants resulting from the generation of the energy required by (carbon capture and storage) facilities. The CO2 emissions offset the volumes captured by the facilities, while the air contaminant emissions add to the load on the environment." The June 2008 study predicts emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain, will rise by up to 34% by 2017. Nitrous oxides - responsible for ozone layer depletion - will rise by up to 24%. Ozone depletion is linked to higher rates of skin cancer, among other health problems. Tiny particulate matter is set to jump by more than 60% in the oil sands and could lead to hazy skies and aggravate existing lung and heart problems. "It is dirty oil for any number of reasons, and it's not just carbon dioxide, " said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, which has researched the links between oil sands production and health problems. "It's very clear that we need to turn our attention to those other types of pollutants or else it's going to be a disaster in the future."
(Toronto Star 090121)
Peak Demand?
Slump raises spectre of peak oil demand
Oil demand may never return to growth in the US, Europe and parts of Asia, easing the strain on long-term supplies and prices as emerging countries burn ever more fuel. The surge in oil to a record near US$150 a barrel last year heightened concern the world will run out of crude and supply will start to dwindle--a theory known as "peak oil." Now a deepening recession and oil price collapse have raised the issue of whether demand, not supply, is nearing its peak. US February crude, which expired Tuesday, settled up $2.23 at $38.74 a barrel, while March crude fell $1.73 to $40.84 a barrel. London Brent fell 88 cents to settle at $43.62. "There is a reasonable likelihood that OECD oil demand has peaked," said Peter Davies, former chief economist at BP who was in charge of preparing BP's annual Statistical Review of World Energy, a standard reference work. Among OECD economies, the US had sustained robust oil demand growth due to an expanding economy and less focus on conservation, while western Europe and Japan were posting declines. US patterns could be about to change as the recession erodes consumption. By the time rich countries return to economic growth, their efforts to use less oil and slow the impact of global warming could be taking hold. However, the peaking of OECD demand will not choke off growth in oil consumption worldwide for the foreseeable future as emerging economies expand and billions of people seek to improve their living standards. "The West no longer rules the world," said a senior oil executive who requested anonymity. "Whatever the OECD is doing, it will not prevent worldwide energy consumption from growing, due to emerging country growth."
Meanwhile, Gary Dirks, president of BP for Asia-Pacific, said it is impossible to tell how much deeper oil prices will fall this year as demand for energy shrinks for at least the next 12 months. He also warned that decisions to delay investment in "diverse" energy sources because of the current global economic downturn will create a "black hole" in international energy supplies in years to come. "Big energy projects take 10 years. If we see a pause in investment today, we will not see the impact for 10 years," said Dirks at the Asian Financial Forum in Hong Kong. His comments echo fears expressed by the International Energy Agency, which said last year long-term energy supplies are insufficient. The IEA estimated $26-trillion will have to be invested between now and 2030 to avoid a crisis. Even that level of investment might not be high enough, Dirks said.
In related news, Deutsche Bank said in a report that the crude-oil market needs more speculators to help stabilize prices six months after the traders were blamed for pushing the commodity up to its record highs last year. A lack of liquidity is distorting prices, particularly for near-term delivery, amid an oversupply of oil at Cushing, OK, said analysts led by Paul Sankey in New York in the Deutsche Bank report dated yesterday. This is sending the "wrong" price signals to refiners and producers. "We clearly have a fundamentally imbalanced market, with far too much crude, that needs to be resolved," the analysts said. "We need more market activity to correct these issues, but for technical, political and financial reasons, the liquidity of the market has dried up and the long-term price of oil is partly distorted." Analysts added, "We are now in an over-supplied bust cycle, and we need lower prices either to encourage demand or decrease supply. Production cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries haven't helped enough because lower oil prices haven't spurred an increase in demand."
(National Post, Calgary Herald 090121)
Oil demand may never return to growth in the US, Europe and parts of Asia, easing the strain on long-term supplies and prices as emerging countries burn ever more fuel. The surge in oil to a record near US$150 a barrel last year heightened concern the world will run out of crude and supply will start to dwindle--a theory known as "peak oil." Now a deepening recession and oil price collapse have raised the issue of whether demand, not supply, is nearing its peak. US February crude, which expired Tuesday, settled up $2.23 at $38.74 a barrel, while March crude fell $1.73 to $40.84 a barrel. London Brent fell 88 cents to settle at $43.62. "There is a reasonable likelihood that OECD oil demand has peaked," said Peter Davies, former chief economist at BP who was in charge of preparing BP's annual Statistical Review of World Energy, a standard reference work. Among OECD economies, the US had sustained robust oil demand growth due to an expanding economy and less focus on conservation, while western Europe and Japan were posting declines. US patterns could be about to change as the recession erodes consumption. By the time rich countries return to economic growth, their efforts to use less oil and slow the impact of global warming could be taking hold. However, the peaking of OECD demand will not choke off growth in oil consumption worldwide for the foreseeable future as emerging economies expand and billions of people seek to improve their living standards. "The West no longer rules the world," said a senior oil executive who requested anonymity. "Whatever the OECD is doing, it will not prevent worldwide energy consumption from growing, due to emerging country growth."
Meanwhile, Gary Dirks, president of BP for Asia-Pacific, said it is impossible to tell how much deeper oil prices will fall this year as demand for energy shrinks for at least the next 12 months. He also warned that decisions to delay investment in "diverse" energy sources because of the current global economic downturn will create a "black hole" in international energy supplies in years to come. "Big energy projects take 10 years. If we see a pause in investment today, we will not see the impact for 10 years," said Dirks at the Asian Financial Forum in Hong Kong. His comments echo fears expressed by the International Energy Agency, which said last year long-term energy supplies are insufficient. The IEA estimated $26-trillion will have to be invested between now and 2030 to avoid a crisis. Even that level of investment might not be high enough, Dirks said.
In related news, Deutsche Bank said in a report that the crude-oil market needs more speculators to help stabilize prices six months after the traders were blamed for pushing the commodity up to its record highs last year. A lack of liquidity is distorting prices, particularly for near-term delivery, amid an oversupply of oil at Cushing, OK, said analysts led by Paul Sankey in New York in the Deutsche Bank report dated yesterday. This is sending the "wrong" price signals to refiners and producers. "We clearly have a fundamentally imbalanced market, with far too much crude, that needs to be resolved," the analysts said. "We need more market activity to correct these issues, but for technical, political and financial reasons, the liquidity of the market has dried up and the long-term price of oil is partly distorted." Analysts added, "We are now in an over-supplied bust cycle, and we need lower prices either to encourage demand or decrease supply. Production cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries haven't helped enough because lower oil prices haven't spurred an increase in demand."
(National Post, Calgary Herald 090121)
Screwed
Argh! Of course, after a painful decision to finally buy my flights for the spring, Air Canada comes out with a sale three days later. I could've saved $100 on the flight to Vancouver! Grr....I'm going Westjet for the first time in, like, ten years and had to pay higher prices because their 'by demand' pricing was continuously going up after I missed the preliminary sale (at about the same price the AC tickets are going for today).
15 January 2009
06 January 2009
Wind - the next frontier
A Revolution In The Air
Robert Hornung is on a one-man mission to turn Canada into a wind-energy superpower. The head of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Hornung says he doesn't see why Canada can't follow in the footsteps of European countries that generate a substantial slice of their electricity from wind: 20% in Denmark, 13% in Spain, and just under 10% in Germany. Hornung wants Canada to set a national target of having 20% of its electricity from wind power by 2025, or about the same amount now generated from nuclear plants. "It's not a goal that's unrealistic, at least from the perspective of what other jurisdictions are thinking about," he says. It may not be unrealistic, but it's a definite stretch from where Canada is now. Despite having a huge land mass and some of the world's best sites for turning the energy in wind into electricity - particularly along the Atlantic, Pacific and Great Lakes coastlines and on the Prairies - Canada has been a laggard when it comes to installing wind turbines. Last year, it reached a relatively modest milestone, as wind power met 1% of the country's electricity demand for the first time. But despite wind's minute contribution to Canada's energy mix, it may be poised for a breakthrough.
One sign that a dramatic expansion could be in the offing is that whenever provinces put out tenders for new wind farms, they're swamped by offers to build them. One reason wind's moment may have come is environmental, because it's an electricity source that doesn't release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Wind farms, if used to offset fossil fuels, offer huge long-term emission reductions. Wind is also an ideal electricity source for a country such as Canada with many hydroelectric dams. The reason: Wind is highly variable, creating the need for backup power sources flexible enough to be turned on and off as needed to meet demand. It's hard to ramp up and down a nuclear reactor or a coal-fired plant, but far easier to change the rate at which electricity is made at a dam. The two power sources also complement each other because wind output is greatest in winter, when wind speeds are faster in Canada, and the air - because it is cold - is most dense, allowing turbines to wring out extra watts. This wintertime gain is a benefit for a utility with hydro capacity because reservoirs are at their seasonal ebb due to low river flows. Despite wind's obvious greenhouse-emission benefits, the power source isn't completely free of environmental controversy. Many influential national environmental groups, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, are vocal supporters. Yet community groups often object to wind turbines, worried about such issues as risks for birds and bats. Many opponents also object to the aesthetics of the massive turbines, with their blades the length of jet wings and towers the height of office buildings.
(Globe and Mail 090106)
Canada really needs to take a leading role in alternative energy. There's no reason why we can't or won't other than lack of leadership at the top to commit to it. We have so much potential, it seems ridiculous that we continue to use traditional energy sources that are running out and getting more expensive when there is so much potential on the other side!
Robert Hornung is on a one-man mission to turn Canada into a wind-energy superpower. The head of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Hornung says he doesn't see why Canada can't follow in the footsteps of European countries that generate a substantial slice of their electricity from wind: 20% in Denmark, 13% in Spain, and just under 10% in Germany. Hornung wants Canada to set a national target of having 20% of its electricity from wind power by 2025, or about the same amount now generated from nuclear plants. "It's not a goal that's unrealistic, at least from the perspective of what other jurisdictions are thinking about," he says. It may not be unrealistic, but it's a definite stretch from where Canada is now. Despite having a huge land mass and some of the world's best sites for turning the energy in wind into electricity - particularly along the Atlantic, Pacific and Great Lakes coastlines and on the Prairies - Canada has been a laggard when it comes to installing wind turbines. Last year, it reached a relatively modest milestone, as wind power met 1% of the country's electricity demand for the first time. But despite wind's minute contribution to Canada's energy mix, it may be poised for a breakthrough.
One sign that a dramatic expansion could be in the offing is that whenever provinces put out tenders for new wind farms, they're swamped by offers to build them. One reason wind's moment may have come is environmental, because it's an electricity source that doesn't release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Wind farms, if used to offset fossil fuels, offer huge long-term emission reductions. Wind is also an ideal electricity source for a country such as Canada with many hydroelectric dams. The reason: Wind is highly variable, creating the need for backup power sources flexible enough to be turned on and off as needed to meet demand. It's hard to ramp up and down a nuclear reactor or a coal-fired plant, but far easier to change the rate at which electricity is made at a dam. The two power sources also complement each other because wind output is greatest in winter, when wind speeds are faster in Canada, and the air - because it is cold - is most dense, allowing turbines to wring out extra watts. This wintertime gain is a benefit for a utility with hydro capacity because reservoirs are at their seasonal ebb due to low river flows. Despite wind's obvious greenhouse-emission benefits, the power source isn't completely free of environmental controversy. Many influential national environmental groups, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, are vocal supporters. Yet community groups often object to wind turbines, worried about such issues as risks for birds and bats. Many opponents also object to the aesthetics of the massive turbines, with their blades the length of jet wings and towers the height of office buildings.
(Globe and Mail 090106)
Canada really needs to take a leading role in alternative energy. There's no reason why we can't or won't other than lack of leadership at the top to commit to it. We have so much potential, it seems ridiculous that we continue to use traditional energy sources that are running out and getting more expensive when there is so much potential on the other side!
Terabytes
It's almost inconceivable -- that today I obtained my first terabyte of hard disk data storage. I needed to get an external drive to move all my music onto and was planning on getting 500GB but found a good deal on a 750GB unit. In addition to the 250GB hard drive on the computer (which was full and initiated the purchase in the first place), that makes for a whole lotta data potential. My first home Windows PC in 1995 had 1.6GB -- humungous for that time. I couldn't believe I'd ever be able to fill it when I bought it. A terabyte back then was for supercomputers!
It's never ceases to amaze me how everything grows and evolves and becomes powerful and interactive. I'm such an old fart already.
It's never ceases to amaze me how everything grows and evolves and becomes powerful and interactive. I'm such an old fart already.
03 January 2009
As Good As It Gets
My fantasy come true...well, except for the potential criminality part. This guy sure seized opportunity when it was presented to him!
29 December 2008
Change is in the air - Can you sense it? Can you believe it? Can you do it?
Well, another frantic holiday season is coming and going, and the dark clouds of larger issues remain despite all attempts at overconsumption, distraction and amusement. It's been interesting to have conversations with a wide variety of people over the past few weeks hypothesizing on what's in store for us as individuals, regions, nations, and cultures in 2009 and onward. Many people seem to believe that things will start recovering and that we'll be able to merrily carry on as we have for the past x years after the inconvenient bumps in the economic and ecological roads are passed and subsequently forgotten. A tenacious minority continue to believe that we're still being fed only a small portion of the truth as to the scale and spread of the problems we're facing and that things are going to continue getting markedly worse as we go forward into the new year. Any turnarounds that appear to be the recovery will be short-lived and temporary in the irreversible decline of our economy to a more reasonably-scaled and sustainable level, that is if the timing of everything goes right, otherwise it might end up at a level far below that.
I know I am one of many who doesn't really know what to do next. Everyone is maintaining a 'sit-and-wait' position because indicators are giving no clear suggestion of what would be the best course to take to recover income and investments lost, retain gainful employment, effectively steward our environment and set ourselves up for an economic reality in the future that may not look like anything we have been accustomed to and have accepted as normal and real over the past half-century. There is no will by any institutional leadership to tell the truth like it is...there is too much perceived power loss at stake therefore it is just easiest to maintain the status quo as long as possible until it is obvious that there are problems. By that time the leaders hope they are long gone from their prominent positions that someone else has to take the blame.
There is no doubt that our situation is complicated and convoluted. There is also no doubt that what we're facing collectively from an economic, ecologic, social and cultural standpoint is something as a species and civilization we've never had to deal with before -- at least not at the unprecedented scale of integrated global activity and consequence we see today. Things just can't be contained in a nation or region anymore. A ripple in the water in one area affects the whole pond now.
Personally, I've been going through an existential crisis of sorts for the past few months. I've been reading many differing viewpoints on what we might be heading into in the future for quite a few years now (thank you INTERNET - the best thing we've invented since the bicycle) and it seems to me that many of the viewpoints that were formerly considered to be on the pessimistic side of things (and were considered doom-and-gloom nonsense at the time) are now coming to fruition. This is why I think the more critical thinkers who are the ones that are bringing the more dour side of analysis to light are the ones that are probably confronting the truth more honestly than the talking heads who are only spokespeople for those who have the most to lose by leaving the status quo behind and finding a way forward that is more sustainable, humane and socially- and culturally-relevant.
A helpful way to look at the big picture is to realize that none of what has been stated as reality is neither doom-and-gloom or dour; it's simply the way things are. Happy or sad endings have no bearing on reality. It's just that humans don't like bad news and we are resistant to change because it is uncomfortable and risky, and we don't like either of those things. By denying that certain things are actually occurring or that they aren't monumentally challenging is only making matters worse because the conclusion is unrealistic; this can be very dangerous if we're at a point in time where there's no turning back or we lose control of the situation.
Take for instance the ecological problems we face today. It all boils down to too many people consuming too much stuff too quickly. This is taking an unprecedented toll on the global ecosystem because the changes are happening much too quickly for the natural systems and cycles to absorb and adapt to. As we technologically progress, we also find ways to monitor, measure and trend the things that are happening much more accurately, thus the information we have uncovers realities about our effects on our planet and the consequences of our behaviours in the past and present that we most likely had no awareness of even a few years ago or that were downplayed at the time because an accurate understanding of the scope wasn't fully realized at the time.
But if over-population, over-consumption and over-growth are the overriding issues effectively causing all other issues, why are we so afraid to have honest wide-scale dialogue about them? We cling to what we deem familiar reality even if it might kill us and everything else in the process. Talk about psychopathological addiction!
I think it is hard for some people to accept theories of climate change as being realistic because they are basing their understanding of the world on things that were considered fact and proof only a few years or decades ago (or were sorely lacking in understanding) but no longer apply or are no longer accurate because techniques for substantiating proof for one theory over another have become much more accurate and plentiful enough to substantiate one belief over another. This allows for acceptance and indoctrination of new beliefs different than what was understood as reality not very long ago. In human scales when considering technological advance and accumulation of knowledge, 30 years is a huge period of time, but in biological, meteorological and geological scales, this is merely a blip in the passage of time.
If there is almost complete unanimity among climatologists, paleontologists and biologists (um? hello? the experts talking here?) that anthropomorphic climate change is well on the way to radically changing the surface of the planet, why are there still those that deny it is happening? We should be far past this conversation already!
Cultural acceptance of something is also heavily based on the belief system of the people who have the power. Since the 1970s the media, political and economic leaders have been the ones who have maintained that unregulated free markets and an unrestricted economic growth model will decide what's best for the common good of humanity and the planet. It is only recently that we have collectively realized that maybe this model isn't perfect; that due to our growth and numbers we are reaching limits in many areas and that restrictions to growth are soon going to be inevitable. It is only recently that we have begun to realize that the economic systems we've had in place for well over a century were designed when limits to what the planet could provide free-of-charge were inconceivable. The entire system is built on the foundation that there are no limits (other than labour, right Adam Smith?) and somehow we're able to grow infinitely in a system that is effectively a closed one. Flawed from the start, but designed at a time when the consequences were minimal. And these tenets were taken as the undeniable truth. Not so much anymore, eh? It's hard for some people to grasp reality when the foundations have been shaken out from right underneath them. There are some new variables that desperately need to be written into the equation now.
I think there is a grassroots understanding of these fundamental flaws and that the only way to go forward is to re-vamp the rules we use to play the game, however the ones holding all the cards are the ones who are most heavily invested in ensuring that things remain the way they are.
Corporatism is sociopathological, psychopathological, and anti-human and the sooner we collectively realize this, the better. We have sacrificed so much of who we are and what we have as common heritage and birthright in order to achieve a perceived sense of security, bounty, power, control, and benevolence. The foundations for this path were laid many, many years ago. But is it too late to clean up the mess and alter course before the planet takes care of everything in its own way in its unyielding movement towards equilibrium? History carries on; it doesn't care whether anything in the path towards balance flourishes or flounders.
Systems theory states that as a system gets more specialized and complex, it loses flexibility and resiliency in addition to becoming more entropic. This is very poignant to what you see happening with the financial system problems and credit crunch. The system has become more and more dependent on geopolitical stability and consistent energy supplies at low costs in order to properly function. The oil price spike of last summer was probably the needle that poked the hole in the latest balloon, thus causing spectacular systemic deflation although the bubble occurring in the first place is the underlying issue. For the past fifteen years our economy has gone from one bubble to the next in order to prop up and sustain a faltering system that has a definite end point just a little bit longer. As we start over the side of undependable and fluctuating energy supplies, too many mouths to feed, and an entitled expectation of being able to get whatever we want whenever we want from a vast global production line, the system itself becomes undependable, erratic, and potentially terminal.
This can be akin to a couple of examples -- first, a natural one -- the polar bear. As much as I hate to see what is happening to this majestic species, they are extremely specialized and dependent on a stable ecosystem in one particular cycle of states. With the lack of ability for much adaptation, the demise of their stable environment will be closely followed by the demise of the species itself.
A technological example would be our insatiable desire for miniaturization of electronics. The parts that make up these components become more and more energy and production intensive to design, create, run, and distribute, and they have shorter and shorter lifespans because as one part fails, there is no resilience or redundancy in the system whatsoever and they suddenly become very expensive but effective paperweights or doorstops as soon as the weakest component in the unit fails.
"But what's wrong with that?" say the proponents. "Just buy another one!"
WTF?
That is one of the big argument points of the intelligentsia today. Considering the natural world or the financial system or many of our social constructs, some believe we are far past tipping points in many areas with our only recourse to try to clean up some of the mess before everything falls apart; others believe we still have time to act to minimize the effects of our destructive ways. The argument is ridiculous. I don't think it really matters - either way, isn't affecting creative, thoughtful change (as opposed to panicked, reactive solutioning) modeling natural systems that have endured for eons going to be better move in the long run? Should we not collectively accept that prudent action is better than no action at all, no matter how dire the situation has become, whether it is obvious to us or not?
I write this all from a privileged narcissistic Western viewpoint. The people and societies of the Third World have been facing the realities of environmental and economic degradation for decades. Very few people will associate the resource-driven and culturally-divided upheavals in Africa and the Middle East for the past few decades to the fact that the foundations of our existence as a civilization have been deteriorating for some time now. The West has largely dictated the direction of this ship for the entire planet since the eras of colonialism and merchantilism. The past few decades have seen the trajectory of this activity and growth start to go exponential with worldwide impacts. It's only because the Third World (yet another Western construct) is more vulnerable and less elastic to these losses that it is happening to them first. In the 1960s and 1970s, the nations of Africa were players in the game of international energy and economic distribution and consumption but since then they have been priced out and have been forced to fold their cards. The Western nations forget about them because they aren't at the table anymore so they are forced to deal with the horrific after-effects on their own. What we see happening there should be a harbinger of things to come for us soon if we don't take action to change the things that are fundamentally flawed and/or unaccounted for in our civilization. It's only a matter of time before we will see similar problems in the 'civilized, affluent' Western societies. We need to find a better, more equitable, more sustainable, more humanitarian, more representational way to do things going forward.
What truly brings value and joy to human existence? Is it unyielding consumerism? Unending growth and transformation of our natural ecosystems? Is it one-upmanship on everyone else? Or is it our social connections? The way we negotiate our relationships with the people closest to us? The people that we love, the people that love us, the communities we are involved in that we have a desire to foster and nurture because healthy communities mean healthy people? The natural world and all the beauty, harshness, and awe it provides us while keeping us alive?
When considering our communities and our natural environments that sustain us, we are part of them and they part of us whether we want it to be that way or not. To make them better only makes us better. The hollow pursuit of material gain, hoarding and collection, and concentration of wealth is a misallocated zero-sum game and certainly not one of the central things that bring us identity, meaning, joy and fulfillment.
That was a lot of writing to get to a few points. I think many of us that are curious and critically analytical probably understand everything that I've just written. We also have a uneasy feeling and an sense of realization that things just aren't right anymore. What does that mean exactly? What is 'right'? Our belief that the way we've done things previously was the correct and justified way to achieve our end goals? I think we can all agree we have a sense that the tried-and-true that has worked rather well in the past isn't going to cut it going forward. We are constantly running faster and faster just to maintain our current position.
The hard part is trying to make sense of it all on a personal level. I've said many times that we are individually intelligent but collectively we're incredibly dense. In that light, I've also realized that there is no comfort (to me anyways) to depend on anyone else or any other institution to attempt to get myself to a point where I feel things are on the right path again. As I had stated earlier, I've found 2008 to be a very difficult year from an existential standpoint because I have been going through a renaissance of sorts, starting to realize that everything I understood as being acceptable and desirable in the past (and what I thought would make me happy) may be a complete ruse/deception or at least not the best way to approach life. The system indoctrinated me into believing that achieving this or that is what defined me as successful or as a contributing citizen therefore not meeting these narrow criteria meant I was not as valuable as another person playing the same game in the same system. It is only over the past few years that I've realized that those criteria are effectively what are the source of the problem and that what is deemed as success in our society is the opposite of (or at least conflicts with) those things that we accept bring us the most happiness and fulfillment as human beings.
I'm realizing that what brings me the most happiness are the intangibles -- maintaining my relationships with my family and my friends. Achieving personal excellence and satisfaction in my hobbies. Hearing the song of sparrows and bluebirds while on a bike ride in Springbank or the Bow Valley with no vehicles or subdivision building sites around. The smell of fall while running along the Elbow River. The deafening silence of a windless winter night and the unbelievable expanse of stars in complete darkness when visiting the family farm in Manitoba. Crossing the finish line at a race after putting my best effort into it. A picture-perfect summer day at a lake or park. A song that puts shivers down my spine and makes me want to dance. Doing work or completing commitments that are self-satisfying and I know are making a positive difference for myself, others or the world in general. These are the things that make me happy and fulfill me.
It seems simple to achieve these things, but I think I speak for many of us when considering that the system is on an incessant path to tear them all down, we obviously have got something wrong that needs to be corrected. To realize that everything you accepted as normal is precisely what is taking joy and fulfillment out of your life is a hard pill to swallow.
That is why I want 2009 to be a year of reckoning for me. I've anguished over the things that are wrong in my life for so long now that my friends don't want to listen to me talk about them anymore. It is time to put my words into action. We're all going through the same shit and only positive changes are going to be heralded as success. I intend to put the things that don't fulfill me or bring me happiness behind me. This is certainly going to be a challenge.
First off, set goals and make plans to achieve those goals. This approach has worked marvellously in the past specifically in my racing history and could very well be applied to all other facets of my life. I've noticed that over the past six months I've really lost my way, not been able to define any goals and thusly become more and more lost to the point where I am now - not sure what to do next in almost all facets of my life.
From a selfish perspective, things like my career which is based on a corporate model that does not care for my feelings or lack of enthusiasm due to its sociopathic nature need to go, but when considering that the last decade of my life has been an investment into what I'm doing now, it's a truth that certainly takes some actualization and reflection. Can I simply leave everything I've believed in and worked towards behind me to start something new that I believe will be more fulfilling and inspiring, yet is still fraught with risks and possible failure? Time to start gambling, taking some chances. I know I've never felt as little commitment or pleasure in what I've been doing in my career as I do at this particular point in time.
To absorb all of this takes time. I'm still a hairless ape deep down that is slow to change and the older I get the slower it gets. The problem is that I might not have much time to change before I'm forced to change. I'd rather have some control over the outcomes on a personal level than to have them dictated to me, and I think that's the mantra we all need to accept to affect the changes that are desperately required personally and collectively.
In my experience, change is a challenge but almost always results in a better outcome than theorized and certainly forces me to reflect on what I've done and what I'm about to do rather than become complacent with what I'm doing in the present and not think about the consequences of my decisions and how they might be affecting me in the present and the future. Especially if during the whole ordeal I'm not satisfied, happy, or fulfilled. What the hell am I doing?
The career thing scares me. I know I need a change if only for my mental state, yet I don't know what I want to do next. I could stay in I.T. but it would need to be in a capacity that is much more locally focused and team-oriented. I am trying to figure things out with that perspective in mind and have yet to figure out what to do. Eventually I will get the impetus to soul-search in earnest; I guess I just haven't gotten to that point of desperation yet. Part of me thinks that holding on to what I'm doing now in this time of confusion and insecurity is the most prudent thing to do until something clearly signals that a shift is mandatory (I also have a sense that if things get worse, a nice layoff package would be in the equation, but there's that ridiculous sense of entitlement rearing its ugly head again!). I also now that my distaste towards what I'm doing now is affecting a lot of other aspects of my life. It's not just the career either, there are a lot of interconnected things in my life that require some change, modification, or complete rebuild.
I'm trying to get my head around the risks associated with this type of hesitant thinking too....look at how our reluctance to see early signs of environmental degradation for what they are have gotten us to our current situation. I'd rather be (and up to now always have been) on the front-side of change when change was required because I took the signs seriously.
On a personal level and all levels above, I don't think the writing on the wall has been more clear. It's time to get involved with a community garden and re-learn how to grow fresh produce, time to 'consume', participate in, and support all things local and regional rather than national or global. Time to eat less meat. Time to consider waste as a part of the consumption cycle rather than an afterthought of it.
In this season of reflection, there is no better time to make plans, set goals and work towards a higher level of consciousness, a better, more effective way of doing things and approaching life. I plan to make 2009 a very important year for myself by moving myself onto a better path towards self-actualization and fulfillment shaped by the things I deem important in my life. Instead of wallowing in self-pity and despair causing inaction, I plan to effect change rather than wait for it to happen to me against my will. I know myself and everything around me will be better off for it!
Good luck to you all as you pursue figuring out your own path in this time of madness. Make 2009 the year you empowered yourself and realized there are much better ways to do things and achieve your goals.
I know I am one of many who doesn't really know what to do next. Everyone is maintaining a 'sit-and-wait' position because indicators are giving no clear suggestion of what would be the best course to take to recover income and investments lost, retain gainful employment, effectively steward our environment and set ourselves up for an economic reality in the future that may not look like anything we have been accustomed to and have accepted as normal and real over the past half-century. There is no will by any institutional leadership to tell the truth like it is...there is too much perceived power loss at stake therefore it is just easiest to maintain the status quo as long as possible until it is obvious that there are problems. By that time the leaders hope they are long gone from their prominent positions that someone else has to take the blame.
There is no doubt that our situation is complicated and convoluted. There is also no doubt that what we're facing collectively from an economic, ecologic, social and cultural standpoint is something as a species and civilization we've never had to deal with before -- at least not at the unprecedented scale of integrated global activity and consequence we see today. Things just can't be contained in a nation or region anymore. A ripple in the water in one area affects the whole pond now.
Personally, I've been going through an existential crisis of sorts for the past few months. I've been reading many differing viewpoints on what we might be heading into in the future for quite a few years now (thank you INTERNET - the best thing we've invented since the bicycle) and it seems to me that many of the viewpoints that were formerly considered to be on the pessimistic side of things (and were considered doom-and-gloom nonsense at the time) are now coming to fruition. This is why I think the more critical thinkers who are the ones that are bringing the more dour side of analysis to light are the ones that are probably confronting the truth more honestly than the talking heads who are only spokespeople for those who have the most to lose by leaving the status quo behind and finding a way forward that is more sustainable, humane and socially- and culturally-relevant.
A helpful way to look at the big picture is to realize that none of what has been stated as reality is neither doom-and-gloom or dour; it's simply the way things are. Happy or sad endings have no bearing on reality. It's just that humans don't like bad news and we are resistant to change because it is uncomfortable and risky, and we don't like either of those things. By denying that certain things are actually occurring or that they aren't monumentally challenging is only making matters worse because the conclusion is unrealistic; this can be very dangerous if we're at a point in time where there's no turning back or we lose control of the situation.
Take for instance the ecological problems we face today. It all boils down to too many people consuming too much stuff too quickly. This is taking an unprecedented toll on the global ecosystem because the changes are happening much too quickly for the natural systems and cycles to absorb and adapt to. As we technologically progress, we also find ways to monitor, measure and trend the things that are happening much more accurately, thus the information we have uncovers realities about our effects on our planet and the consequences of our behaviours in the past and present that we most likely had no awareness of even a few years ago or that were downplayed at the time because an accurate understanding of the scope wasn't fully realized at the time.
But if over-population, over-consumption and over-growth are the overriding issues effectively causing all other issues, why are we so afraid to have honest wide-scale dialogue about them? We cling to what we deem familiar reality even if it might kill us and everything else in the process. Talk about psychopathological addiction!
I think it is hard for some people to accept theories of climate change as being realistic because they are basing their understanding of the world on things that were considered fact and proof only a few years or decades ago (or were sorely lacking in understanding) but no longer apply or are no longer accurate because techniques for substantiating proof for one theory over another have become much more accurate and plentiful enough to substantiate one belief over another. This allows for acceptance and indoctrination of new beliefs different than what was understood as reality not very long ago. In human scales when considering technological advance and accumulation of knowledge, 30 years is a huge period of time, but in biological, meteorological and geological scales, this is merely a blip in the passage of time.
If there is almost complete unanimity among climatologists, paleontologists and biologists (um? hello? the experts talking here?) that anthropomorphic climate change is well on the way to radically changing the surface of the planet, why are there still those that deny it is happening? We should be far past this conversation already!
Cultural acceptance of something is also heavily based on the belief system of the people who have the power. Since the 1970s the media, political and economic leaders have been the ones who have maintained that unregulated free markets and an unrestricted economic growth model will decide what's best for the common good of humanity and the planet. It is only recently that we have collectively realized that maybe this model isn't perfect; that due to our growth and numbers we are reaching limits in many areas and that restrictions to growth are soon going to be inevitable. It is only recently that we have begun to realize that the economic systems we've had in place for well over a century were designed when limits to what the planet could provide free-of-charge were inconceivable. The entire system is built on the foundation that there are no limits (other than labour, right Adam Smith?) and somehow we're able to grow infinitely in a system that is effectively a closed one. Flawed from the start, but designed at a time when the consequences were minimal. And these tenets were taken as the undeniable truth. Not so much anymore, eh? It's hard for some people to grasp reality when the foundations have been shaken out from right underneath them. There are some new variables that desperately need to be written into the equation now.
I think there is a grassroots understanding of these fundamental flaws and that the only way to go forward is to re-vamp the rules we use to play the game, however the ones holding all the cards are the ones who are most heavily invested in ensuring that things remain the way they are.
Corporatism is sociopathological, psychopathological, and anti-human and the sooner we collectively realize this, the better. We have sacrificed so much of who we are and what we have as common heritage and birthright in order to achieve a perceived sense of security, bounty, power, control, and benevolence. The foundations for this path were laid many, many years ago. But is it too late to clean up the mess and alter course before the planet takes care of everything in its own way in its unyielding movement towards equilibrium? History carries on; it doesn't care whether anything in the path towards balance flourishes or flounders.
Systems theory states that as a system gets more specialized and complex, it loses flexibility and resiliency in addition to becoming more entropic. This is very poignant to what you see happening with the financial system problems and credit crunch. The system has become more and more dependent on geopolitical stability and consistent energy supplies at low costs in order to properly function. The oil price spike of last summer was probably the needle that poked the hole in the latest balloon, thus causing spectacular systemic deflation although the bubble occurring in the first place is the underlying issue. For the past fifteen years our economy has gone from one bubble to the next in order to prop up and sustain a faltering system that has a definite end point just a little bit longer. As we start over the side of undependable and fluctuating energy supplies, too many mouths to feed, and an entitled expectation of being able to get whatever we want whenever we want from a vast global production line, the system itself becomes undependable, erratic, and potentially terminal.
This can be akin to a couple of examples -- first, a natural one -- the polar bear. As much as I hate to see what is happening to this majestic species, they are extremely specialized and dependent on a stable ecosystem in one particular cycle of states. With the lack of ability for much adaptation, the demise of their stable environment will be closely followed by the demise of the species itself.
A technological example would be our insatiable desire for miniaturization of electronics. The parts that make up these components become more and more energy and production intensive to design, create, run, and distribute, and they have shorter and shorter lifespans because as one part fails, there is no resilience or redundancy in the system whatsoever and they suddenly become very expensive but effective paperweights or doorstops as soon as the weakest component in the unit fails.
"But what's wrong with that?" say the proponents. "Just buy another one!"
WTF?
That is one of the big argument points of the intelligentsia today. Considering the natural world or the financial system or many of our social constructs, some believe we are far past tipping points in many areas with our only recourse to try to clean up some of the mess before everything falls apart; others believe we still have time to act to minimize the effects of our destructive ways. The argument is ridiculous. I don't think it really matters - either way, isn't affecting creative, thoughtful change (as opposed to panicked, reactive solutioning) modeling natural systems that have endured for eons going to be better move in the long run? Should we not collectively accept that prudent action is better than no action at all, no matter how dire the situation has become, whether it is obvious to us or not?
I write this all from a privileged narcissistic Western viewpoint. The people and societies of the Third World have been facing the realities of environmental and economic degradation for decades. Very few people will associate the resource-driven and culturally-divided upheavals in Africa and the Middle East for the past few decades to the fact that the foundations of our existence as a civilization have been deteriorating for some time now. The West has largely dictated the direction of this ship for the entire planet since the eras of colonialism and merchantilism. The past few decades have seen the trajectory of this activity and growth start to go exponential with worldwide impacts. It's only because the Third World (yet another Western construct) is more vulnerable and less elastic to these losses that it is happening to them first. In the 1960s and 1970s, the nations of Africa were players in the game of international energy and economic distribution and consumption but since then they have been priced out and have been forced to fold their cards. The Western nations forget about them because they aren't at the table anymore so they are forced to deal with the horrific after-effects on their own. What we see happening there should be a harbinger of things to come for us soon if we don't take action to change the things that are fundamentally flawed and/or unaccounted for in our civilization. It's only a matter of time before we will see similar problems in the 'civilized, affluent' Western societies. We need to find a better, more equitable, more sustainable, more humanitarian, more representational way to do things going forward.
What truly brings value and joy to human existence? Is it unyielding consumerism? Unending growth and transformation of our natural ecosystems? Is it one-upmanship on everyone else? Or is it our social connections? The way we negotiate our relationships with the people closest to us? The people that we love, the people that love us, the communities we are involved in that we have a desire to foster and nurture because healthy communities mean healthy people? The natural world and all the beauty, harshness, and awe it provides us while keeping us alive?
When considering our communities and our natural environments that sustain us, we are part of them and they part of us whether we want it to be that way or not. To make them better only makes us better. The hollow pursuit of material gain, hoarding and collection, and concentration of wealth is a misallocated zero-sum game and certainly not one of the central things that bring us identity, meaning, joy and fulfillment.
That was a lot of writing to get to a few points. I think many of us that are curious and critically analytical probably understand everything that I've just written. We also have a uneasy feeling and an sense of realization that things just aren't right anymore. What does that mean exactly? What is 'right'? Our belief that the way we've done things previously was the correct and justified way to achieve our end goals? I think we can all agree we have a sense that the tried-and-true that has worked rather well in the past isn't going to cut it going forward. We are constantly running faster and faster just to maintain our current position.
The hard part is trying to make sense of it all on a personal level. I've said many times that we are individually intelligent but collectively we're incredibly dense. In that light, I've also realized that there is no comfort (to me anyways) to depend on anyone else or any other institution to attempt to get myself to a point where I feel things are on the right path again. As I had stated earlier, I've found 2008 to be a very difficult year from an existential standpoint because I have been going through a renaissance of sorts, starting to realize that everything I understood as being acceptable and desirable in the past (and what I thought would make me happy) may be a complete ruse/deception or at least not the best way to approach life. The system indoctrinated me into believing that achieving this or that is what defined me as successful or as a contributing citizen therefore not meeting these narrow criteria meant I was not as valuable as another person playing the same game in the same system. It is only over the past few years that I've realized that those criteria are effectively what are the source of the problem and that what is deemed as success in our society is the opposite of (or at least conflicts with) those things that we accept bring us the most happiness and fulfillment as human beings.
I'm realizing that what brings me the most happiness are the intangibles -- maintaining my relationships with my family and my friends. Achieving personal excellence and satisfaction in my hobbies. Hearing the song of sparrows and bluebirds while on a bike ride in Springbank or the Bow Valley with no vehicles or subdivision building sites around. The smell of fall while running along the Elbow River. The deafening silence of a windless winter night and the unbelievable expanse of stars in complete darkness when visiting the family farm in Manitoba. Crossing the finish line at a race after putting my best effort into it. A picture-perfect summer day at a lake or park. A song that puts shivers down my spine and makes me want to dance. Doing work or completing commitments that are self-satisfying and I know are making a positive difference for myself, others or the world in general. These are the things that make me happy and fulfill me.
It seems simple to achieve these things, but I think I speak for many of us when considering that the system is on an incessant path to tear them all down, we obviously have got something wrong that needs to be corrected. To realize that everything you accepted as normal is precisely what is taking joy and fulfillment out of your life is a hard pill to swallow.
That is why I want 2009 to be a year of reckoning for me. I've anguished over the things that are wrong in my life for so long now that my friends don't want to listen to me talk about them anymore. It is time to put my words into action. We're all going through the same shit and only positive changes are going to be heralded as success. I intend to put the things that don't fulfill me or bring me happiness behind me. This is certainly going to be a challenge.
First off, set goals and make plans to achieve those goals. This approach has worked marvellously in the past specifically in my racing history and could very well be applied to all other facets of my life. I've noticed that over the past six months I've really lost my way, not been able to define any goals and thusly become more and more lost to the point where I am now - not sure what to do next in almost all facets of my life.
From a selfish perspective, things like my career which is based on a corporate model that does not care for my feelings or lack of enthusiasm due to its sociopathic nature need to go, but when considering that the last decade of my life has been an investment into what I'm doing now, it's a truth that certainly takes some actualization and reflection. Can I simply leave everything I've believed in and worked towards behind me to start something new that I believe will be more fulfilling and inspiring, yet is still fraught with risks and possible failure? Time to start gambling, taking some chances. I know I've never felt as little commitment or pleasure in what I've been doing in my career as I do at this particular point in time.
To absorb all of this takes time. I'm still a hairless ape deep down that is slow to change and the older I get the slower it gets. The problem is that I might not have much time to change before I'm forced to change. I'd rather have some control over the outcomes on a personal level than to have them dictated to me, and I think that's the mantra we all need to accept to affect the changes that are desperately required personally and collectively.
In my experience, change is a challenge but almost always results in a better outcome than theorized and certainly forces me to reflect on what I've done and what I'm about to do rather than become complacent with what I'm doing in the present and not think about the consequences of my decisions and how they might be affecting me in the present and the future. Especially if during the whole ordeal I'm not satisfied, happy, or fulfilled. What the hell am I doing?
The career thing scares me. I know I need a change if only for my mental state, yet I don't know what I want to do next. I could stay in I.T. but it would need to be in a capacity that is much more locally focused and team-oriented. I am trying to figure things out with that perspective in mind and have yet to figure out what to do. Eventually I will get the impetus to soul-search in earnest; I guess I just haven't gotten to that point of desperation yet. Part of me thinks that holding on to what I'm doing now in this time of confusion and insecurity is the most prudent thing to do until something clearly signals that a shift is mandatory (I also have a sense that if things get worse, a nice layoff package would be in the equation, but there's that ridiculous sense of entitlement rearing its ugly head again!). I also now that my distaste towards what I'm doing now is affecting a lot of other aspects of my life. It's not just the career either, there are a lot of interconnected things in my life that require some change, modification, or complete rebuild.
I'm trying to get my head around the risks associated with this type of hesitant thinking too....look at how our reluctance to see early signs of environmental degradation for what they are have gotten us to our current situation. I'd rather be (and up to now always have been) on the front-side of change when change was required because I took the signs seriously.
On a personal level and all levels above, I don't think the writing on the wall has been more clear. It's time to get involved with a community garden and re-learn how to grow fresh produce, time to 'consume', participate in, and support all things local and regional rather than national or global. Time to eat less meat. Time to consider waste as a part of the consumption cycle rather than an afterthought of it.
In this season of reflection, there is no better time to make plans, set goals and work towards a higher level of consciousness, a better, more effective way of doing things and approaching life. I plan to make 2009 a very important year for myself by moving myself onto a better path towards self-actualization and fulfillment shaped by the things I deem important in my life. Instead of wallowing in self-pity and despair causing inaction, I plan to effect change rather than wait for it to happen to me against my will. I know myself and everything around me will be better off for it!
Good luck to you all as you pursue figuring out your own path in this time of madness. Make 2009 the year you empowered yourself and realized there are much better ways to do things and achieve your goals.
19 December 2008
Clocky Must Die
What an annoying piece of shit this is. That's what makes it the best. alarm. clock. ever.
12 December 2008
Poignant
Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead
Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)