Sunday, July 10, 2005

A thorn in the foot

Radicalism is a thorn in the foot of conventional economic and social structure. 20 years ago, France bombed a Greenpeace ship that was bound to sea to protest nuclear testing. It turns out that France's president authorized the bombing.

It's important to note that people who work for organizations such as Greenpeace don't consider themselves radicals - they just think they are doing what is right. The term "Radical" gets applied when the moderate and mainstream masses grow uncomfortable with said conventional societal structure.


Blogger Andrew J. said...

If you look into any of a governments "incidents" you will see that demonization is the first step in the destruction of the victims. An incident is when the government perpatrates some form of injustice upon a person or group for any number of reasons that leads to dire or even deadly results. The key is that the act is unjust. Some good examples are the Move orginization in Philidelphia and Waco. Do some good hard reserch into these and you will spot the halmarks. The groups were both progressively demonized. What I mean by that is that you can follow the events and the government line progressively gets worse and worse, as time passes, until we are left with the spawn of the devil who wants to eat our babies. These demonizations, in retrospect and after listening to the evidence, are largely made up. I encourage people to look into both of these cases and find out for themselves.

That being said it makes it hard for me to believe anything that comes out of the governments' mouth. I can find so many incidents where the government has lied to me. I have come to question everything they say.

The real suprise is not that they do it. It's that as a group we as citizens of our respective countrys do not hold them thouroghly accountable. They get away with it every time. Personally I believe this is because most are to lazy to shed the collective consiousness and think for themselves.

8:53 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Terrorists don't consider themselves radicals either, they are just do ing what they think is right. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make Greenpeace right either (I am not saying outloud that they are wrong).

9:42 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

So what is right, and what is wrong?

Maybe, in 50 years, we'll look back at the London bombers as violent extremests and Greenpeace activists as brilliant revolutionaries.

Only time will tell as to whose vision will be adopted and whose will be marginalized and forced to disappear.

4:22 PM  
Blogger Andrew J. said...

Who is right or wrong? I think that there is no absolute right or wrong. When someone performs some horrible act then of course it is wrong. We have to understand that there are circumstances that lead this individual to this end. If someone is doing something that drives people to do this horrible stuff then they are wrong also. We seem to have no desire to look at what is the root cause. I believe that these causes are linked to economic oppression and anyone facilitating this oppression is equally as responsible for the carnage as the one who sets off the bomb. When we as a planet make it clear that anyone that uses economic and industrial terrorism will be covered with honey and tied to an ant hill.

6:50 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Andrew J,

what if the real economic and industrial terrorists are those who pollute the earth and deplete its natural resources?

6:59 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

I guess that makes me an industrial terrorist. No rock is safe as long as I am alive.


I don't want to cause shit on someone elses blog again. But, can you give us your definition of a natural resource, keeping in mind that almost everything we use in everyday life comes from a natural resource. You may be confusing some people.

9:01 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Jason, I can't wait to someday cause shit on your blog again, so I don't mind if you cause it on mine.

Tell you what: Why don't you define "natural resource?"

9:42 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

Nice work. You answered my question with a question. The same question at that.

I catagorize natural resources into two types. Essential (ones we need for everyday life) and non-essential(ones that are easily substituted with something man made). Essentials being most non-ferous and ferous metals. Also included would be salts and gypsum resources.
Non-essentials would include hydro carbons and some non-ferous metals like gold and silver. Although gold has some important industrial use.

Keep in mind, all natural resources replenish themselves, though not in our lifetime. However, mankind will be long gone before we deplete our essential natural resources.

I assume by your comment you were targeting Hydrocarbon consumption. If so, I agree with you 100%. The world is lazy when it comes to applying alternative fuel and energy resources. Plus, it is horrible for the environment.

Mining reclaimation has made huge strides in returning the mined environment back to an original(and sometimes better than original) state. Most mining is done in remote areas away from civilization.

Bottom line is if we stop using the natural resources the earth provides we may as well go back to the stone age.

10:51 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Thanks Jason. Once again, your mis-applied ramblings steered us away from the original discussion.

Maybe you can yell at a cloud or something. Better yet, write something on your blog. Then, there is no way you can miss the point, since you will be the one making the point.

10:59 AM  
Blogger Andrew J. said...

I don't think that polluting and depleting are the goal. I just think that those results don't matter as long as money is being made. It's always cheaper to be irresponsible. Also by creating an unhealthy evironment one can cause unrest, violence, and destruction. These are just natural biproducts of a unhealthy lifestyle. I am sure that we can all look at an unhealthy point in our life and see how we were more irritable, prone to violence, and didn't care about others. I know I can. Especially during my fast food, TV, sit on the couch days. Once you have this then it is very easy for someone to step in and convince the population that they need a host of laws that destroy our civil rights and control us. The population then points to problems (not the causes) and hands the power over freely. I always say that civil rights have never been usurped, they've been given away.

11:16 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Well said, AndrewJ.

Apathy is both our nation's greatest hurdle. Getting people to care about what is being done to them shouldn't be this hard.

11:38 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

sigh.....I hate my friends.

12:15 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

I'm tired of this political and environmental cry fest.

I'm outta here!

12:16 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Your leaving will save me the trouble of rebuking you.

Also, gotta say that this "cry fest" is a little more interesting than your boxin top ten lists.

1:10 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Mark / Andrew J:

Apathy, laziness, and (dare I sound like a socialist) greed are all lumped into one big problem.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

And although this just occured to me now, Mark wrote:

"Apathy is both our nation's greatest hurdle. Getting people to care about what is being done to them shouldn't be this hard."

Then Jason wrote:

"I'm tired of this political and environmental cry fest."

Boy that was some sweeeeeet irony.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

I'm back.

Mark, Andrew made a comment regarding natural resources. I then in turn responded to that comment. How is that changing the subject. Why don't you go back to plagiarizing on your blog or something.

If you read my previous post then you would see that I do care. I just don't take it to the level you do mostly because I don't agree with you entirely.
And you still didn't answer my original question on what a natural resource is.
I appreciate you trying to educate me on environmental issues. But it seems you take offense when I try to contribute something that I have a litte more experience with than you. I don't know, maybe you guys don't give my opinions any merit since I finish last in all our trivia persuit games, or because I am a horrible speller, or because I don't read books.

So i'll just step away so that I don't bring the conversation down with my top ten boxing lists(sorry if I tried to have a little fun with Mark). You guys seem like you have new "intellegent" readers to argue with now.

6:24 AM  
Blogger Mark said...


I just wrote a long-ass comment in response to you accussing me of plagiarizing. For the sake of our friendship, I deleted it.

But, for everytime you take offense to something that I say or write, think hard, and look back, try to remember if there were any incidents where you did the same. Then, be shockingly surprised by your hypocricy.

6:50 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

Calling you a plagiarizer is like you calling me fat Mark. I know I'm not fat. You know you are not a plagiarizer. It's that thing we do. Lighten up. But if you really do take it that personally then "for the sake of our friendship" I apologize sincerely.

I'm talking about lack of respect. And really, I don't want to get into it.

I think the blogoshpere will be better off without me in it. It's not fun anymore. Obviously I can't hang with you guys. I will now only be conversing with you by phone or email.

Andrew, if I don't talk to you before you leave I wish you the best of luck in Antigua. Be safe down there. If there is anything I can do for you let me know.

kisses and hugs

7:35 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Whoa whoa whoa, what's going on here?

In point form:

-Jason, the blogosphere is not better off without you in it, which is why I wrote that I look forward to commenting on your next post. I thoroughly enjoy your blog, when it's not about boxing, which I have little interest in. Although I did see the Gatti/Mayweather fight, and I feel sorry for Gatti's face.

-I don't take offense when you voice your opinion, but as well as you know me, you know that I'm going to have an opinion to spew back. I'm anxious to learn about all this stuff, from you or anyone else. A large part of my free time is spent researching these issues because I have to teach them next year - I'm not an expert, but I do know a fair bit. This blog was initially intended (and still is) to be a record of the research that I've done, so that I can easily get to it when I'm teaching my classes. I allow posts because I like contradicting viewpoints.

-The original post was more of a philosophical point - who gets to be right or wrong? It's sort of how we create a cultural and historical definition of what's right or wrong, and what our definition might be 100 years from now. That said...

-I gots no beef with you if you want to argue natural resources. Your defition sounds pretty textbooky to me, but maybe that's how it is defined. I don't see any natural resource as essential, except for perhaps food and the necessary soils and water required for that food. Certainly iron isn't essential - it's only essential to the way we currently live our lives. And I could make a Deep Ecology case that nothing is essential because humans aren't essential to this planet (on the contrary, it'd be better off without us). I kind of enjoy life, though, so my focus is to make our lives as sustainable as possible.

-If I had to define natural resource, I'd say it was anything that naturally occurs on this earth that humans use for their own interests. Pretty broad. When I wrote "depleteing the natural resources" earlier, I did mean hydrocarbons. But...

-That doesn't mean I think mining is great. When you say that in some cases, reclaimed mine sites are better than before they were mined, I say "how can this be?" The earth gave us a natural piece of land, and we tried to make it better? As you've seen me write on this site before, I am very skeptical about active conservation or preservation techniques - we meddle enough as it is.

-Further, big strip mines (and small ones) like the one proposed for Cape Breton are enormously invasive. They affect ecosystems, water systems, and they just generally pollute shit. You know this better than I do. This planet is shrinking as the population is growing, so we're going to need more mines, but we're going to have less places to dig them - it's a paradox that hurts my brain. I just watched a video on China's One Child Policy - it was weird and a little scary, but you know what? In a sense, China has got it figured out: they know they can't sustain their current population, so they need to shrink it. Desperate measures, I know, but what are North Americans doing?

-Not much. That's what.

I leave for Alberta on Friday, and I'm back in Bedford between the 8th and 15th of August. I'm sure we'll see each other at some point.

8:27 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

Just make sure you come see Ava before you go.

8:59 AM  
Blogger Andrew J. said...

Three points:
1. can't we all just get along
2. you guys are entertaining
3. Don't leave Jason. Stand your ground.

9:14 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Jason... are fat.

5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home