Wednesday, 26 March 2008
In reference to the previous post...
I just realized that I subscribe to 23 users on youtube, which is far more than the number of tv shows I watch on any regular basis. I actually only really follow 1 or 2 shows consistently...hmmm
If the internet were deleted tomorrow...
wow, first post in a month. I have a cool topic though I think, hoping for some responses.
If the internet were deleted/banned/etc tomorrow, what website would you miss the most? Would it be google? wikipedia? facebook? myspace? maybe something less popular?
There as certain sites that I would certainly miss in the short term (as I did when I deleted Facebook a while back), but many of these sites really don't serve any real purpose to my life. Google would be missed dearly, but in actuality, the site that I would be most upset to lose would be YouTube. Surprised? Admittedly, I use Youtube as much for pure entertainment as the next person, but the infinite video library isn't what I would miss most. What I would miss most about Youtube (and the internet) is what the site means for everyday people communicating with each other. There is a convincing presence on Youtube of returning media to the everyday Joe/Jane, one that I find absolutely irresistible. Not only does it provide channels for anything from how to build a house to the benefits of a raw food diet, but it opens up the discourse of our society up to the public, and exposes this discourse to a network that previously was limited to our own circle of acquaintances. Wow. That was a long sentence. Anyways, the long and short of it is that Youtube and similar sites are a powerful, largely uncensored voice of public opinion that would be sorely missed by myself and many others if they ceased to exist. So, there you have it. Feel free to comment and let me know what you would miss most if the internet was shut down.
I forgot to mention that Youtube allows the creation of amateur comedies/dramas/etc, which are of as much value in terms of returning the media to the people as video commentaries on our socio political environment.
If the internet were deleted/banned/etc tomorrow, what website would you miss the most? Would it be google? wikipedia? facebook? myspace? maybe something less popular?
There as certain sites that I would certainly miss in the short term (as I did when I deleted Facebook a while back), but many of these sites really don't serve any real purpose to my life. Google would be missed dearly, but in actuality, the site that I would be most upset to lose would be YouTube. Surprised? Admittedly, I use Youtube as much for pure entertainment as the next person, but the infinite video library isn't what I would miss most. What I would miss most about Youtube (and the internet) is what the site means for everyday people communicating with each other. There is a convincing presence on Youtube of returning media to the everyday Joe/Jane, one that I find absolutely irresistible. Not only does it provide channels for anything from how to build a house to the benefits of a raw food diet, but it opens up the discourse of our society up to the public, and exposes this discourse to a network that previously was limited to our own circle of acquaintances. Wow. That was a long sentence. Anyways, the long and short of it is that Youtube and similar sites are a powerful, largely uncensored voice of public opinion that would be sorely missed by myself and many others if they ceased to exist. So, there you have it. Feel free to comment and let me know what you would miss most if the internet was shut down.
I forgot to mention that Youtube allows the creation of amateur comedies/dramas/etc, which are of as much value in terms of returning the media to the people as video commentaries on our socio political environment.
Monday, 25 February 2008
The Great Procrastinators- Getting Bizzy
Recently, the David Suzuki Foundation released a recommendation for a national carbon tax program similar to those used in Europe. In the report, the Foundation stated that a national carbon tax program could help to raise funds in the neighbourhood of $50 billion a year for our government, which would allow for drastic reduction of other taxes. The Harper government released a statement that they have no intentions of implementing such a program, and instead intend to pursue a regulatory approach. Of course, this "regulatory" approach has been used ineffectively by Canadian government for decades, and we would only hope that Mr Harper would be aware of the past failures of the government he is charged with. The current regulatory goals that have been set out by the Canadian government call for a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. However, current emissions are so far above the 1990 levels noted for Kyoto that a 20% reduction is more of a return to 1990 levels than a reduction at all.
Furthermore, the provinces are free to set their own regulations, with Alberta setting the stingy goal of 14% by 2050. In the past, this kind of political pandering has proven to be nothing more than a mechanism for businesses to forward their own agendas. This is done by placing economic pressure on the provinces to lower their own standards by threatening to relocate their operations elsewhere. We see this already in Alberta's barely existent regulations, since the oil sands are the base for the province's booming economy. We cannot possibly expect them to choose the environment over the survival of their economy, which is why it is so imperative for Ottawa to take a leadership role in improving our environmental record.
Ottawa faces two courses of action if we truly want to change our place as one of the worst polluters in the world. First, we must implement legislation at the federal level to halt the regulatory "race to the bottom" that has taken place over the last few decades. By relieving some of the pressure from the provinces, we allow them to take a proactive role in exceeding the minimum requirements instead of being forced to opt out of them. Second, by implementing a carbon tax program, we can use capitalism to our ecological advantage (who knew?) by making it in the best interests of corporations to be more environmentally friendly. Subsequently, individual income tax could be reduced, some of which would cover the inevitably higher costs of the new eco-products. What is most important to remember, however, is that these programs are not mutually exclusive. Either one implemented on its own would produce positive environmental changes, but combined they have the potential to change our place in the world. It is about time that our governments began to realize that concern for the environment is not a fad, and ignoring it will only leave us in the wake of the many others who have embraced it.
Furthermore, the provinces are free to set their own regulations, with Alberta setting the stingy goal of 14% by 2050. In the past, this kind of political pandering has proven to be nothing more than a mechanism for businesses to forward their own agendas. This is done by placing economic pressure on the provinces to lower their own standards by threatening to relocate their operations elsewhere. We see this already in Alberta's barely existent regulations, since the oil sands are the base for the province's booming economy. We cannot possibly expect them to choose the environment over the survival of their economy, which is why it is so imperative for Ottawa to take a leadership role in improving our environmental record.
Ottawa faces two courses of action if we truly want to change our place as one of the worst polluters in the world. First, we must implement legislation at the federal level to halt the regulatory "race to the bottom" that has taken place over the last few decades. By relieving some of the pressure from the provinces, we allow them to take a proactive role in exceeding the minimum requirements instead of being forced to opt out of them. Second, by implementing a carbon tax program, we can use capitalism to our ecological advantage (who knew?) by making it in the best interests of corporations to be more environmentally friendly. Subsequently, individual income tax could be reduced, some of which would cover the inevitably higher costs of the new eco-products. What is most important to remember, however, is that these programs are not mutually exclusive. Either one implemented on its own would produce positive environmental changes, but combined they have the potential to change our place in the world. It is about time that our governments began to realize that concern for the environment is not a fad, and ignoring it will only leave us in the wake of the many others who have embraced it.
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Bullfrog Power
I want everyone to be aware of this wonderful company that is popping up in the news called Bullfrog Power. Basically Bullfrog power is your everyday hydro company, except that all of their hydro power comes from renewable, environmentally friendly sources like wind and non-invasive water generation. By comparison, conventional power is generated largely by burning coal, one of the dirtiest energy sources we have, possibly THE dirtiest. Bullfrog admits that their product costs slightly more than normal hydro, supposedly about a dollar a day more. Given this, I would assume this is on the low side just because it is in their best interests to do so, but I wouldn't think it's far off. Even with the extra cost, Bullfrog takes the initiative to give you tons of easy ways to permanently make your energy consumption more efficient, thereby more than making up for the extra cost. This includes things such as using flourescent light bulbs, insulating your water heater, installing low-flow shower heads, and properly sealing your windows and doors (also using double-paned windows) These are all easy things to do, and I am really very excited if this is the direction the world is heading. Bullfrog currently serves Ontario and Alberta, and already has some large businesses signing up for their product, including BMO. Obviously they can't serve everyone, but they are making a huge difference and it's really quite exciting. You really can't imagine the difference this makes to the environment, if you could do only one thing for the environment, this should be it. Hydro is such an enormous part of greenhouse emissions, and this company lowers that part of your footprint literally to zero. Incredible
here is the website for anyone that wants to go check it out, please try to encourage your parents to consider it, or at least spread the word to people who might. www.bullfrogpower.com
on that note, the thought for the day is... "at what point does greed transcend selfishness and become downright irresponsible? If the smallest sacrifice could make the biggest difference, would you make it? What is worth changing, and what would you give up to do it?"
here is the website for anyone that wants to go check it out, please try to encourage your parents to consider it, or at least spread the word to people who might. www.bullfrogpower.com
on that note, the thought for the day is... "at what point does greed transcend selfishness and become downright irresponsible? If the smallest sacrifice could make the biggest difference, would you make it? What is worth changing, and what would you give up to do it?"
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Canadian Filmmakers continued...
I forgot to add that Ryan Gosling has also received critical acclaim for his role in "Lars and the Real Girl" which I also have not seen, but I want to. The guy has definitely come a long way since his days on "Breaker High", when he was the skinny guy who could never get girls, and now he is an international heartthrob, not to mention a great actor. Kudos, Mr Gosling.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Thumbs up for Canadian filmmakers
wow. So I am feeling great about the Canadian film industry right now. There were concerns that our improving dollar would discourage filmmakers from shooting here, but this year's awards shows seem determined to make sure that doesn't happen. Two films in particular, Away From Her and Juno come up often in the lists of nominees, and so far have even been on the list of winners as well. I am not exactly sure exactly what either are about since I haven't seen them yet, but I know that Away From Her was adapted and directed by Sarah Polley, a Canadian, and Juno stars several canucks, namely Ellen Page and Michael Cera. Page is even one of the nominees for Best Actress at the Academy Awards, and the film itself is also up for Best Picture, despite being originally shown as a limited release. Polley is also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. Both Juno and Away From Her were shot in Canada, and Away From Her also features acclaimed Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan as producer, and three other Canadians as part of central cast.
I think this is a huge step forward for Canadian film, which usually only garners acclaim from the success of one actor/actress, or is considered Canadian because it was shot here. There are a few exceptions, but clearly this year is a standout year, with Canadian presence in at least 3 of the major categories at the Oscars and many others at other shows. The future looks bright for movies in Canada, and I tip my hat to them.
I think this is a huge step forward for Canadian film, which usually only garners acclaim from the success of one actor/actress, or is considered Canadian because it was shot here. There are a few exceptions, but clearly this year is a standout year, with Canadian presence in at least 3 of the major categories at the Oscars and many others at other shows. The future looks bright for movies in Canada, and I tip my hat to them.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Case for localized economy
So as I'm sure a few of you know, I like getting into discussions (sometimes heated) about political and social issues, sometimes ones that I don't know that much about. It's easy to get caught in a web of supposedly causal relationships, and the amount of information that we posess today makes just about anything believable. However, amoungst all this deliberation and discussion, one issue has continued to bother me. That is, how many countries/cities with so much to offer are still so paralyzed by poverty. What I have realized is that in the age of franchises and megastores, borderline economies are being stripped of their potential to grow. It is easy to blame companies like Wal*Mart for uderpaying their employees, but is that ultimately the issue? Maybe we should be considering where this saved money is going in the physical sense, not just to who.
Conservatives like to think that capitalist economics function best in a "trickle down" format; that is, more money for the rich will allow for more business ventures to be started and more products purchased, which in turn provide income for the lower-class citizens who make those products and will work for these new companies. Unfortunately, the trickle effect leaves the working class begging for leftovers like dogs at the dinner table.
Back to the point. Let's assume that the rich and poor generally inhabit the same areas (they don't). If this were to be true, perhaps the trickle down effect might actually work. IN fact, in the case of local start-up companies, it can. The sudden influx of money from a successful start-up can infuse a local economy with new life. This is because the management exists in the same space as the rest of the company. In other words, the money that is made stays WHERE it is made, and can trickle down. In the case of companies like Wal*Mart, those that make any real income are removed from the localities that support their business, and so this income is not reinvested back into the economy. This is where low wagescome into play. Consider the income that could be made by someone who owned their own restaurant, and then consider the drop in income if they were to work for McDonalds. His McDonalds location generates just as much profit as his restaurant, except it isn't distributed among the employees. Instead, the profit is made by satellite managers who live elsewhere and spend their money elsewhere, and so this lost income is not just lost for our entrepreneur, but for the community he lives in.
As much as this is a problem in the western world, it is even more so in the Third World. Countries that have valuable resources sell them at bare minimum prices to the developed world
, where they command high prices. Consider the case of coffee. This is a resource we charge enormous amounts for given the cost to the companies, and yet the vast majority of the profit stays here, instead of making its way back to the people who actually farmed the beans. At the very least, if Tim Hortons (for example) is to make so much money from coffee, they should at least distribute the income to the country from whence it came. If they set up a management office in Costa Rica, for example, and employed Costa Ricans at comparable salaries to work in these offices, the country would experience an influx of income because the people making money from the transaction would also be spending it in Costa Rica, allowing eventually for higher taxes and social programs like schooling, healthcare, etc. (obviously there are educational barriers to begin with, but the point is to encourage wages at the bottom end that are proportional to the end profit.
Conservatives like to think that capitalist economics function best in a "trickle down" format; that is, more money for the rich will allow for more business ventures to be started and more products purchased, which in turn provide income for the lower-class citizens who make those products and will work for these new companies. Unfortunately, the trickle effect leaves the working class begging for leftovers like dogs at the dinner table.
Back to the point. Let's assume that the rich and poor generally inhabit the same areas (they don't). If this were to be true, perhaps the trickle down effect might actually work. IN fact, in the case of local start-up companies, it can. The sudden influx of money from a successful start-up can infuse a local economy with new life. This is because the management exists in the same space as the rest of the company. In other words, the money that is made stays WHERE it is made, and can trickle down. In the case of companies like Wal*Mart, those that make any real income are removed from the localities that support their business, and so this income is not reinvested back into the economy. This is where low wagescome into play. Consider the income that could be made by someone who owned their own restaurant, and then consider the drop in income if they were to work for McDonalds. His McDonalds location generates just as much profit as his restaurant, except it isn't distributed among the employees. Instead, the profit is made by satellite managers who live elsewhere and spend their money elsewhere, and so this lost income is not just lost for our entrepreneur, but for the community he lives in.
As much as this is a problem in the western world, it is even more so in the Third World. Countries that have valuable resources sell them at bare minimum prices to the developed world
, where they command high prices. Consider the case of coffee. This is a resource we charge enormous amounts for given the cost to the companies, and yet the vast majority of the profit stays here, instead of making its way back to the people who actually farmed the beans. At the very least, if Tim Hortons (for example) is to make so much money from coffee, they should at least distribute the income to the country from whence it came. If they set up a management office in Costa Rica, for example, and employed Costa Ricans at comparable salaries to work in these offices, the country would experience an influx of income because the people making money from the transaction would also be spending it in Costa Rica, allowing eventually for higher taxes and social programs like schooling, healthcare, etc. (obviously there are educational barriers to begin with, but the point is to encourage wages at the bottom end that are proportional to the end profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
