I just read a brilliant article on CCN by Fred Wertheimer, which details why the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission US Supreme Court ruling is the worst thing to happen do democracy since Adolf decided he'd like to have a go at running Germany.
In brief, it details why in the past certain laws were put in place to prevent exactly what is happening now, and why What is happening now is a bad thing.
And what is happening now, is that through loopholes in the law, a few hundred superrich Americans and corporations can buy the elections. They can influence voters in ways never seen before and they can ensure candidates are so heavily reliant on them to be reelected, that they can dictate policy.
Do yourself a favour, read this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/15/opinion/wertheimer-super-pacs/
And if you agree, you might want to have a look at Mr Wertheimer's not for profit organisation, Democracy 21, which is working to bring democracy back to people, instead of money.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Ryanad
Break out the morale police!
Ryanair has again made headlines (ie free advertisement time) with an add.
It concerns this one this time:
A calender being sold for charity in which some 13 crew members pose in their (rather 60s) undies is under fire.
Its being called sexist, there are complaints of "objectifying woman" and all that kind of stuff.
Eehhmmmm.... Turned on the TV lately? Try MTV or wel, wait for the first advertisement block.
Drive a car past the nearest billboard, or wait at a bus stop/train station etc.
Our society has objectified woman about 2000 years ago, and its showing no sign of undoing this soon.
In fact, the last 15 - 50 years (depending on the standard you use) has been characterised by a huge increase in the objectification (is that even a word?) of the fairer gender.
So lets all start complaining about a calender, which over the last 5 years has generated 500K pounds for charity, while we're bombarded with commercialised sexuality all day, in a society where much worse things happen.
What a narrow minded, sour and out of touch nonsense!
I bet the instigator of this protest (a Ryanair employee called Ghada) just is peeved that she didnt get selected to be on the calender. What a storm in a glass of water.
The girls themselves seem to be highly embarrassed by this calender, and, as the next picture shows, they dont support it at all...
Ok, I lied, they love it and support it:
Just to make that point, here are some more raunchy Ryanair ads ;-)
Please leave a comment if you like them!
Ryanair has again made headlines (ie free advertisement time) with an add.
It concerns this one this time:
A calender being sold for charity in which some 13 crew members pose in their (rather 60s) undies is under fire.
Its being called sexist, there are complaints of "objectifying woman" and all that kind of stuff.
Eehhmmmm.... Turned on the TV lately? Try MTV or wel, wait for the first advertisement block.
Drive a car past the nearest billboard, or wait at a bus stop/train station etc.
Our society has objectified woman about 2000 years ago, and its showing no sign of undoing this soon.
In fact, the last 15 - 50 years (depending on the standard you use) has been characterised by a huge increase in the objectification (is that even a word?) of the fairer gender.
So lets all start complaining about a calender, which over the last 5 years has generated 500K pounds for charity, while we're bombarded with commercialised sexuality all day, in a society where much worse things happen.
What a narrow minded, sour and out of touch nonsense!
I bet the instigator of this protest (a Ryanair employee called Ghada) just is peeved that she didnt get selected to be on the calender. What a storm in a glass of water.
The girls themselves seem to be highly embarrassed by this calender, and, as the next picture shows, they dont support it at all...
Ok, I lied, they love it and support it:
Just to make that point, here are some more raunchy Ryanair ads ;-)
Please leave a comment if you like them!
And my favourite (sorry, I know its immature, but this one just really cracked me up ;-) )
Ps. If you want to petition against something, try looking into UN (ie China and Russia) sanctioned mass murder in Syria, Modern slavery in the UK, Hunger in great parts of the world, Torture of woman in Egypt, etc etc. I can type a list here as long as my arm without even breaking a sweat. And we're petitioning about a Charity Calender of Girls in their Undies...
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Killer Bananazz
Haha, I found a CD of the band I used to play in.
During my student days I used to play in a Surf Rock band.
you know, Pulp Fiction, Fast guitars, lots of reverb and even more fun.
Here you can listen to the best CD we made. It might make good background music for reading the rest of this blog ;-)
Its called "Frutti Di Mare", as an obvious reference to our Surf roots. (although shamefully none of the bandmembers actually surf, but we did make great SurfRock!)
Enjoy ;-)
01 Riptide
During my student days I used to play in a Surf Rock band.
you know, Pulp Fiction, Fast guitars, lots of reverb and even more fun.
Here you can listen to the best CD we made. It might make good background music for reading the rest of this blog ;-)
Its called "Frutti Di Mare", as an obvious reference to our Surf roots. (although shamefully none of the bandmembers actually surf, but we did make great SurfRock!)
Enjoy ;-)
01 Riptide
(note, this one is not a Killer Bananazz Original. Its a song originally by the Ventures. Also really cool stuff!)
Or, if you prefer to listen to the whole CD in one go:
Drop me a comment if you like it or have anything else to comment about it.
Monday, 13 February 2012
Megaupload
Hmmm.. a new twist to the megaupload story...
A rumour is going around that the reason Megaupload was shut down, has little or nothing to do with illegal filesharing.
The real reason MU has been hit so hard, is that they were developing a legal alternative to buying music from the record lables.
Artists would alow MU to play their works without charging the listers. The artists would be payed from advertising revenues. Kind of spotify but a little different. Quite a few artists were onboard already
This was percieved as a huge threat to the music industry fatcats. And, just days away from bringing this new idea online.... the whole MU gang gets busted.
Feels a little like corruption, doesnt it?
Thats cause it is....
A rumour is going around that the reason Megaupload was shut down, has little or nothing to do with illegal filesharing.
The real reason MU has been hit so hard, is that they were developing a legal alternative to buying music from the record lables.
Artists would alow MU to play their works without charging the listers. The artists would be payed from advertising revenues. Kind of spotify but a little different. Quite a few artists were onboard already
This was percieved as a huge threat to the music industry fatcats. And, just days away from bringing this new idea online.... the whole MU gang gets busted.
Feels a little like corruption, doesnt it?
Thats cause it is....
climate fantasy
Unbelievable! A group of 16 people have published an article, questioning the foundations of man induced climate change.
These people include professors, CEOs, journalists etc. and they clam that since the last 10 years havent shown any real warming, the whole CO2 thing must be a crock.
The usual garbage is pulled out: No evidence of a direct link between CO2 and global warming (Ive never seen any concrete evidence that gravity will work tomorrow, but it doesnt mean Im seriously doubting it), claims that we are currently pursuing an "aggressive policy of reducing greenhouse gasses" (we're not, we're asleep at the wheel and are increasing CO2 emissions every year), that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas (crude oil is also a naturally occurring substance but its pretty harmful if significant quantities are present in the wrong place) and that climate policies are costing us a lot of money each year.
All bull.
We're simply ignoring the issue, hoping it will go away. And these dangerous impostors are lulling us into a false sense of security. And one day we (or our kids most likely) will look back at our time and wonder why we behaved in such an illogical way.
Compare it to what we now think about the debt most European countries are in. When the debt was accrued, it seemed like the most normal thing in the world. In fact, any government that DIDNT join in, was virtually stealing from its own population, and surely clueless about world economics. Now however, we wonder how we could have let it get this far, how we could have been so fast asleep at the wheel, and how we're going to repay that disastrous mountain of debt...
We can now relatively easily change the way we behave, reducing the effects we have on the environment drastically. It will take some initial investment, but in the long run, Im sure we'll all feel better if the likes of Iran, Saudy Arabia, Irak and other unstable countries are less essential to our success.
In the long run (the usual prediction is 5 - 10 years) it will actually be beneficial to economic growth...
But we need to get people to accept 5 - 10 years of slight reduction in growth first. Thats difficult, as its longer that an election period. That means that in political terms its an impossibility.
Imagine this:
Party A is elected. The brave leadership does what it takes, and starts us on the road to free us of carbon dependency. They will rule over 4-8 years of less growth, ensuring that party B is eventually elected.
Party B reaps the rewards, claiming the success is their own.
Party A would have to be stupid to do this right? Unless the population, the voters, would really believe that Party A did the right thing. This however is very difficult, especially to maintain for a long period of time. People having to postpone buying their new toy or having to accept a year or two of slightly less luxury is no light matter!
So what if a group of experts were to cast doubt on the necessity of the 5 - 10 year sacrifice... People would be even harder to convince, because some time in that 5 - 10 year period, the feeling that it might all be for nothing is going to get too strong to ignore.
It would ensure that no party would be able to convince the public to back such a plan, thus ensuring that real progress in this matter is halted.
So now we have a group of experts doing just this.
But hang on, maybe they are right!! Maybe the whole climate stuff is garbage!
Ok, go to Beijing for a few days and tell me that emissions are not a problem. Ignore CO2 for a moment, ignore all the computer models. Just tell me how you feel if you spend a day in nature, or if you spend a day in a crowded industrialized city. It doesnt take rocket science to predict what the collective effect of our emissions is. In a way its a bit like those people who've smoked 2 packs a day all their lives, and then sue the tobacco companies saying "I didnt know it was bad for me". Come on, who are you kidding?
But what pisses me off most of all is that this time the so called experts are playing an extra dirty trick.
By invoking their professor titles, their CEO pasts and other credentials, they are claiming to be independent subject matter experts.
They are neither.
Two of them (Edward David and Roger Cohenhave) have past careers at Exxon, two others (Burt Rutan and Jack Schmitt) are in the space ship industry. None of the professors signing this have published any relevant scientific literature in peer reviewed journals, and Claude Allegre (the first signer) is a known and heavily critisised climate change denier.
Out of 16 people signing this with an impressive signature, 12 are not climate experts, 9 have clear ties to the petrochemical industry and none are recognised subject matter experts.
So why is this so dangerous?
Well, I dont know if you've ever heard of the Milgram experiment? Its a study done in the 60s to explore how people react to perceived experts. In short, test subjects were supposed to give electric shocks to another person (an actor who made deliberate mistakes at a memory exersise, triggering the test subject to shock him for each mistake). The actor (in a different room, so out of sight of the test subject) would scream and, as shocks increased in intensity, clearly signal great bodily discomfort. When the test subjects wanted to stop as a result of this, someone in a lab coat (ie, someone recognisable as an expert) would tell them to continue. The vast majority of people kept on delivering shocks to the actor until the actor faked death by heart attack.
We are all susceptible to such effects. We cant be experts on everything, so we rely on the expertise of others. And we’ve been trained to recognize certain tell tale signs that someone is an expert. Being a professor for instance.
That’s why its soooo dangerous what these people are doing. By giving people reasonable doubt about the need for rapid change in our climate policies, they block any chance at success. And the chances are that in 10, 20 or perhaps 50 years time, we or our children will look back and wonder how we could have been so stupid.
Just for the sake of argument btw, lets say there is no climate problem. Than in 50 tears time we’ll laugh and still enjoy fresh air, less diesel fumes, more efficient (=cheaper) cars etc etc. Its not as if there is a downside! The other way around though...
These people include professors, CEOs, journalists etc. and they clam that since the last 10 years havent shown any real warming, the whole CO2 thing must be a crock.
The usual garbage is pulled out: No evidence of a direct link between CO2 and global warming (Ive never seen any concrete evidence that gravity will work tomorrow, but it doesnt mean Im seriously doubting it), claims that we are currently pursuing an "aggressive policy of reducing greenhouse gasses" (we're not, we're asleep at the wheel and are increasing CO2 emissions every year), that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas (crude oil is also a naturally occurring substance but its pretty harmful if significant quantities are present in the wrong place) and that climate policies are costing us a lot of money each year.
All bull.
We're simply ignoring the issue, hoping it will go away. And these dangerous impostors are lulling us into a false sense of security. And one day we (or our kids most likely) will look back at our time and wonder why we behaved in such an illogical way.
Compare it to what we now think about the debt most European countries are in. When the debt was accrued, it seemed like the most normal thing in the world. In fact, any government that DIDNT join in, was virtually stealing from its own population, and surely clueless about world economics. Now however, we wonder how we could have let it get this far, how we could have been so fast asleep at the wheel, and how we're going to repay that disastrous mountain of debt...
We can now relatively easily change the way we behave, reducing the effects we have on the environment drastically. It will take some initial investment, but in the long run, Im sure we'll all feel better if the likes of Iran, Saudy Arabia, Irak and other unstable countries are less essential to our success.
In the long run (the usual prediction is 5 - 10 years) it will actually be beneficial to economic growth...
But we need to get people to accept 5 - 10 years of slight reduction in growth first. Thats difficult, as its longer that an election period. That means that in political terms its an impossibility.
Imagine this:
Party A is elected. The brave leadership does what it takes, and starts us on the road to free us of carbon dependency. They will rule over 4-8 years of less growth, ensuring that party B is eventually elected.
Party B reaps the rewards, claiming the success is their own.
Party A would have to be stupid to do this right? Unless the population, the voters, would really believe that Party A did the right thing. This however is very difficult, especially to maintain for a long period of time. People having to postpone buying their new toy or having to accept a year or two of slightly less luxury is no light matter!
So what if a group of experts were to cast doubt on the necessity of the 5 - 10 year sacrifice... People would be even harder to convince, because some time in that 5 - 10 year period, the feeling that it might all be for nothing is going to get too strong to ignore.
It would ensure that no party would be able to convince the public to back such a plan, thus ensuring that real progress in this matter is halted.
So now we have a group of experts doing just this.
But hang on, maybe they are right!! Maybe the whole climate stuff is garbage!
Ok, go to Beijing for a few days and tell me that emissions are not a problem. Ignore CO2 for a moment, ignore all the computer models. Just tell me how you feel if you spend a day in nature, or if you spend a day in a crowded industrialized city. It doesnt take rocket science to predict what the collective effect of our emissions is. In a way its a bit like those people who've smoked 2 packs a day all their lives, and then sue the tobacco companies saying "I didnt know it was bad for me". Come on, who are you kidding?
But what pisses me off most of all is that this time the so called experts are playing an extra dirty trick.
By invoking their professor titles, their CEO pasts and other credentials, they are claiming to be independent subject matter experts.
They are neither.
Two of them (Edward David and Roger Cohenhave) have past careers at Exxon, two others (Burt Rutan and Jack Schmitt) are in the space ship industry. None of the professors signing this have published any relevant scientific literature in peer reviewed journals, and Claude Allegre (the first signer) is a known and heavily critisised climate change denier.
Out of 16 people signing this with an impressive signature, 12 are not climate experts, 9 have clear ties to the petrochemical industry and none are recognised subject matter experts.
So why is this so dangerous?
Well, I dont know if you've ever heard of the Milgram experiment? Its a study done in the 60s to explore how people react to perceived experts. In short, test subjects were supposed to give electric shocks to another person (an actor who made deliberate mistakes at a memory exersise, triggering the test subject to shock him for each mistake). The actor (in a different room, so out of sight of the test subject) would scream and, as shocks increased in intensity, clearly signal great bodily discomfort. When the test subjects wanted to stop as a result of this, someone in a lab coat (ie, someone recognisable as an expert) would tell them to continue. The vast majority of people kept on delivering shocks to the actor until the actor faked death by heart attack.
We are all susceptible to such effects. We cant be experts on everything, so we rely on the expertise of others. And we’ve been trained to recognize certain tell tale signs that someone is an expert. Being a professor for instance.
That’s why its soooo dangerous what these people are doing. By giving people reasonable doubt about the need for rapid change in our climate policies, they block any chance at success. And the chances are that in 10, 20 or perhaps 50 years time, we or our children will look back and wonder how we could have been so stupid.
Just for the sake of argument btw, lets say there is no climate problem. Than in 50 tears time we’ll laugh and still enjoy fresh air, less diesel fumes, more efficient (=cheaper) cars etc etc. Its not as if there is a downside! The other way around though...
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
the upper 0.1%... of what?
I just read this article in time magazine (usually not too bad btw), and it left me wondering.
Who the hell wrote this drivle?
Basically, it discusses why we, the non-millionaires, dislike the really filthy rich.
The core of the message is that we dont dislike Hank, who earned 100 million dollars from his successful business, but comes from a working class background and has married his high school sweetheart.
We DO dislike Mr. Rich Guy Who Is Also In Politics, And Looks Down On Hank (poor Hank).
Why? Well, its obvious, isnt it. Hank is the American Dream. Upwards mobility made flesh, although even poor Hank has hit his glass ceiling when he met the "new upper class" as Mr Murray calls them.
The article starts quite well.
It says:
The Pew Foundation discovered in a recent poll that tensions over inequality in wealth now outrank tensions over race and immigration.
Ok, some data, research, facts, and a new view on the divide between rich and poor.
Next it goes wrong...
But income inequality isn’t really the problem.
What?? Excuse me??? What IS the problem than?
A new upper class is the problem. And their wealth isn’t what sets them apart or creates so much animosity toward them.
Of course!!
Ehhhmm.. wait a moment.... Nope, I still dont get it...
Ok, reading on Mr Murray explains that the difference between Hank and the New Upper Class is that the New Upper Class (im gonna call them NUC from here on) has power, holds on to that, forms an elite society, divorced from the rest of society and wont let Hank in.
So, upward mobility has a limit, so why should people even try.
Its unfair, boo hoo!
What the F*CK?
Quite frankly, Id settle for Mr Hanks 100 Million Dollars! And I think most people would.
And I think the problem has a completely different cause.
You see, I have the highest form of education one can get. In this IM in the 0.1%! Masters degree, PhD in immunology, etc. Im well educated, not stupid and I work 10-12 hours a day.
I dont waste money, I live in a flat and go to work by bike.
Yet.... The chance of me ever earning enough money to move to Hanks neighbourhood is so close to zero, that I dont even want to think about it. It depresses me. Id like to have a big house, a cleaning lady to do all those unpleasant things in the house, enough money not to worry about it when Im on holiday, or perhaps to modestly retire when Im still young enough to pick up golf. Enough money to live that lifestyle which TV bombards us with so regularly with fancy cars, expensive booze and luxury living. But thinking about that leads to disappointment, frustration and unhappiness.
Dont get me wrong, Im a happy camper. I like what I have, I love my life etc. A few million for a Bugatti veyron, a BMW R1200GS and a sailing yacht, along with free time to enjoy them would just make me love it a bit more.
But realistically the chance that this dream will even come true is just about ziltch.
No matter how hard I work, no matter how hard I try, no matter how many risks I take.
And Im more likely to make it there than most, due to my education level... Which means that Im lucky, and for most people the realistic chance is less than Ziltch...
And That is the real problem Mr Murray.
Not Hanks glass ceiling.
No.
The fact that Hank apparently deserves to get rewards in excess of a thousand times that of any one of his employees, no matter how hard they work, or no matter how instrumental they are in making his millions.
The lottery that decides that out of all the equally hardworking and deserving people a very few get to keep most of the cake, leaving the rest squabling over crumbs, feeling left behind.
There is no rationally behind this. Success in business is not for the deserving, its for those both extremely lucky and fairly ruthless.
So is this way the earnings of the many are hoarded by the few. If those Hank Millions would be distributed a bit more fairly amongst those people he needed to earn those millions, they might hate Hank less. Now they see that their hard work is used for Mrs. Hanks new Range Rover evoque, while they cant pay to have their wifes 10 year old ford fixed.
I dont think Mr. Factory Worker for Hank cares if the NUC welcome Hank into their ranks or not. I think they want a fair days pay for a fair days work. And I think they have just as much right to some of the money they helped Hank earn as Hank himself. He couldnt have made it without them after all.
As long as we accept that some Hardworking people are rewarded thousands of times more than other also Hardworking people, this financial frustration will only grow. They is no justification for anyone earning more than a million a year (call me a socialist if you will, but I believe that enough money to live handsomely and buy a new ferrari every year should suffice for anyone).
Anyone earning more than this should ask themselves what gives them the right. Are the so much better than other people?
Who the hell wrote this drivle?
Basically, it discusses why we, the non-millionaires, dislike the really filthy rich.
The core of the message is that we dont dislike Hank, who earned 100 million dollars from his successful business, but comes from a working class background and has married his high school sweetheart.
We DO dislike Mr. Rich Guy Who Is Also In Politics, And Looks Down On Hank (poor Hank).
Why? Well, its obvious, isnt it. Hank is the American Dream. Upwards mobility made flesh, although even poor Hank has hit his glass ceiling when he met the "new upper class" as Mr Murray calls them.
The article starts quite well.
It says:
The Pew Foundation discovered in a recent poll that tensions over inequality in wealth now outrank tensions over race and immigration.
Ok, some data, research, facts, and a new view on the divide between rich and poor.
Next it goes wrong...
But income inequality isn’t really the problem.
What?? Excuse me??? What IS the problem than?
A new upper class is the problem. And their wealth isn’t what sets them apart or creates so much animosity toward them.
Of course!!
Ehhhmm.. wait a moment.... Nope, I still dont get it...
Ok, reading on Mr Murray explains that the difference between Hank and the New Upper Class is that the New Upper Class (im gonna call them NUC from here on) has power, holds on to that, forms an elite society, divorced from the rest of society and wont let Hank in.
So, upward mobility has a limit, so why should people even try.
Its unfair, boo hoo!
What the F*CK?
Quite frankly, Id settle for Mr Hanks 100 Million Dollars! And I think most people would.
And I think the problem has a completely different cause.
You see, I have the highest form of education one can get. In this IM in the 0.1%! Masters degree, PhD in immunology, etc. Im well educated, not stupid and I work 10-12 hours a day.
I dont waste money, I live in a flat and go to work by bike.
Yet.... The chance of me ever earning enough money to move to Hanks neighbourhood is so close to zero, that I dont even want to think about it. It depresses me. Id like to have a big house, a cleaning lady to do all those unpleasant things in the house, enough money not to worry about it when Im on holiday, or perhaps to modestly retire when Im still young enough to pick up golf. Enough money to live that lifestyle which TV bombards us with so regularly with fancy cars, expensive booze and luxury living. But thinking about that leads to disappointment, frustration and unhappiness.
Dont get me wrong, Im a happy camper. I like what I have, I love my life etc. A few million for a Bugatti veyron, a BMW R1200GS and a sailing yacht, along with free time to enjoy them would just make me love it a bit more.
But realistically the chance that this dream will even come true is just about ziltch.
No matter how hard I work, no matter how hard I try, no matter how many risks I take.
And Im more likely to make it there than most, due to my education level... Which means that Im lucky, and for most people the realistic chance is less than Ziltch...
And That is the real problem Mr Murray.
Not Hanks glass ceiling.
No.
The fact that Hank apparently deserves to get rewards in excess of a thousand times that of any one of his employees, no matter how hard they work, or no matter how instrumental they are in making his millions.
The lottery that decides that out of all the equally hardworking and deserving people a very few get to keep most of the cake, leaving the rest squabling over crumbs, feeling left behind.
There is no rationally behind this. Success in business is not for the deserving, its for those both extremely lucky and fairly ruthless.
So is this way the earnings of the many are hoarded by the few. If those Hank Millions would be distributed a bit more fairly amongst those people he needed to earn those millions, they might hate Hank less. Now they see that their hard work is used for Mrs. Hanks new Range Rover evoque, while they cant pay to have their wifes 10 year old ford fixed.
I dont think Mr. Factory Worker for Hank cares if the NUC welcome Hank into their ranks or not. I think they want a fair days pay for a fair days work. And I think they have just as much right to some of the money they helped Hank earn as Hank himself. He couldnt have made it without them after all.
As long as we accept that some Hardworking people are rewarded thousands of times more than other also Hardworking people, this financial frustration will only grow. They is no justification for anyone earning more than a million a year (call me a socialist if you will, but I believe that enough money to live handsomely and buy a new ferrari every year should suffice for anyone).
Anyone earning more than this should ask themselves what gives them the right. Are the so much better than other people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
