Old School is Old School

I thought I'd put down the serious topics for a bit, and so here we are...

a poem for you... or is it for me? Us? Something like that...
Enjoy

"Old School is Old School"

by: ...me.

I'm feelin' old

So let me know

When I talk

Does it show?

Is money still called "dough"

It's kinda hazy

One day the 'word' is "crazy"

And the next, its "wack"

How do you say

"Gimme a break?"

It used to be

"Cut me some slack"

I'm in need of some 'info'

Do you 'got my back?'

Should I say "I've gotta go?"

Or do you have to 'Blow?'

Sayin' I've got a timeless line

Is a stright up lie

'cause thing are changin'

Every single day.

Time's not kind

And in my mind

No-one's got time for losers in their life.

Or a man who thinks

And a man who sings

Like it's 1989.

Am I 'in the zone'

'On a roll'

Or 'in the flow?'

"Buddy" turned to "Jack"

Then it's gone and turned right back.

These things weren't meant to last.

So what's the 'Low-down'

Or should I say 'Story'

With 'righteous,' 'rico,' and 'gnarly?'

If something were broke

We'd call it "Smoked"

Hitting was "Cranked."

Stealing was "Gangked."

That was 'cool'

That's no joke.

Make up your minds

Or better yet

Make up mine.

I ain't got time

It's the end of the day

As my 'Coolness'

Coolly slips away

No-one's got space

For a man who thinks

And a man who sings

Like it 1989.

Oh!

I ain't got time.

It's the end of the day

As my 'Coolness' slips away.

The image used for this post is a drawing of mine called "Window"

Are we really worried about Earth, or our Reputation?

Some how, maybe it's because of movies like "Inconvenient Truth" (we love movies) or maybe it's because of gorgeous actors standing in front of the cameras talking to us about the importance of the environment, that it's become a fashion trend to suddenly care about the Earth. But the importance of educated input is shot down. Much like how it's 'cool' to worry about humanitarian causes, almost as important as looking cool, so we shop at the GAP... knowing that it's clothing is manufactured by practically in-human child labour factories.
Somewhere, personal responsibility and logic has been replaced by Youtube and Wikipedia.

What do I mean?

Well, let's look at the lineup of "alternative" sources of energy.

Hydrogen fueled cars. Where do we get hydrogen from? A process called Electrolysis, where a tremendous amount of electricity is applied to water, splitting it's molecular structure (2x hydrogen and 1 part oxygen) into oxygen and hydrogen. Sure, the part you always hear is, when you burn hydrogen it emits only pure, clean water. But the big question is...

does it not require a HUGE amount of power to do this? And for such a little amount of fuel?

Kind of like saying, "if I want to make my 1 kilometer walk to the store more efficient, I should first walk 3 kilometers in a semicircle. Once I get there, it's only half of kilometer from there." It makes no logical sense! But instead of educating ourselves on the process, we watch Youtube videos and Wikipedia, which tells us, "C'mon. It's only half the distance from your new point, doesn't that sound better?"

Windmills.

Windmills for alternative power sources in a broad sense works. Using wind power (which is going to blow around anyways) sounds like a viable idea. But there are two major problems with this.

#1: You are disrupting the natural patterns of wind flow over the planet. Creating pockets of hot / cold air, which would be otherwise following a route in it's natural path. Creating pockets of slower wind flow in large areas, as we would need fields of these things to make a dent in our consumption. So, good alternative...fail.

#2: These towers create a large amount of low frequency sound which has proven to affect humans in very negative ways. Creating illnesses ranging from nausea and hallucinations to persistent flu-like symptoms. Also, evidence shows that even small, intermittent exposure to such frequencies actually drive natural wildlife to go mad. Bears exposed to planes flying overhead for minutes, or even seconds have suffered from a madness that has caused bear attacks and violent behavior among themselves as they suffer from the same symptoms as humans. A sense of nausea, panic and hallucinations have driven herds of these animals to maul other animals for no apparent reason, each other and even humans, where no attacks have previously been recorded.

Hydrogen...

Must I say more? If you know anything about physics, it's basic science that you can't get out of ANY system, electrical or mechanical, more than you put in. Actually, it's much less. Think of a light bulb. Electricity goes in, ideally for one thing... creating light. But that's not all it creates. A lot of energy is simply wasted creating heat. A small amount of energy is used to actually create that which we want, light, and a massive amount is wasted creating heat. Even heat lamps and hair dryers. You plug one in wanting heat, and you get a red glow. Light... not what you wanted, but that's what happens. Any time you convert one sources of energy into another, you are WASTING a huge amount of power.

Solar cells...

Probably the most efficient of all alternative power sources. These are great for sparse, personal use, but let's stop and think of what they are. High gloss, black panels. As an alternative power sources for mass consumption, we again (like windmills) would need fields of these panels to power our cities. Heating the air above them, not only do they drive any residual pollutants higher into our atmosphere, they would, once again, disrupt natural wind patterns terribly. Huge pockets of unnaturally heated air would stop weather patterns in their tracks and create weather phenomena that could be devastating.

And any mix of these on a large scale would cause natural disasters unlike we've ever seen.

So what do we do?

I know this might sound elementary, but seriously, we can't change the fact that what we do is harmful to our planet. You can't really change the impact of our use, but we can change our use of what we have.

Walk to the store, instead of finding new ways to power our vehicles to drive there.

Stop the constant drives out to the country, to 'take it in.' Take a bicycle, or simply not go as much. Why are we saying the planet is so important to us, just to pour all this waste into it, put up a tent and say "Ah, yes. We love nature."

Flying is a HUGE problem. I flew to the Bahamas to take it in, when on the plane, I realised, 'wait a second, I'm pouring thousands of pounds of chemical waste directly into the atmosphere at around 35,000 feet to enjoy the planet?'

The simple answer to our problem is, do we NEED to do this? I know some people say they "Need" to get away, but seriously, do you really NEED it? Are we so mentally unstable that we NEED to get away? Or is it a really bad want?

I think a lot of our problems in the North-American society is that most of our wants seem so attainable, possibly even accessible, that we trick ourselves into seeing them as needs. After all, our actually needs are pretty much met and we don't even recognise them. And when wants are taken for needs, be prepared for a huge amount of waste.

Is the environment really as important to us as we think it is? If so, our problem isn't new power sources, the problem is us. Our confusion over wants=needs, and vise-versa.

And when we come to our honest conclusion, let's be honest with ourselves, and the planet.

Do we NEED this? And go from there... then we can say we truly care.

Otherwise, let's be brutally honest. We really WANT our wants, or "need" our wants, and really that's what's important. Realise this and shut up!

Why can't we stop these games?

Why can't we stop turning serious, real issues into fashion statements and movements? Why can't we just take personal responsibility?

I just don't have that answer.

Sexism in anti-sexism? Go figure.

There is no question that the images of women in advertising, TV shows and movies promote skewed views of the role of women in society as the domestic workers, talkers, sex objects and subservient to men.

But one thing that is never mentioned is, what is the message to young boys and men about themselves and not simply how we (males) view women. Let's remove the women depiction from the equation (as when we talk about the female side of the argument we usually talk about how these 'things' usually effect girls)

We mostly talk about how these images teach men to treat women and girls as such... but how about the direct message to boys.

The message is never: "Sexy women fall for (or belong to) MEN because men are powerful (or any other symbol of 'manly' power)." The message is usually sexist towards both WOMEN and MEN together. Look at the guys in these ads. Do they look or dress like your average male? No! They are usually "ripped" or "Cut" and dressed in either expensive suits or fashionably dirty clothes. The message is: if you're a man you MUST NOT be weak, you should be rich and sexy. Hard and controlling. Otherwise you don't deserve these 'party on' moments.'

These ads also promote the idea that real men shouldn't be able to cook or be able to take care of themselves. Men should be inept at basic life skills like proper communication, confli­ct resolution and emotional conveyance. Men are meant to compete, conquer and "Man up," otherwise known as treating situations with aggression for resolution and not capitulate. Is this a good message for young boys? Why is that aspect never mentioned?

Also, in movies, when there is a simple minded, bumbling character... it's male.

A popular argument about (particularly) children's shows and cartoons, the roles of characters and movie premise. A number of comparisons are drawn. Particularly from those in my generation, ie. "My Little Pony" vs. "Transformers" where the My Little Pony story lines usually revolve around friends bickering and 'hurt feelings' and Transformers is about epic battles between good and evil, hard fighting and conflict.

Now neither one is a terribly good message to hammer out stereotypic roles, but if you look at the message:

One deals with conflict resolution in situations that we all encounter in our lives. Arguments with friends and family. The importance of patience, communication, listening, mediation and emotional reactions.

The other teaches an example of "importance" being weighed on only massive consequential situations, and ignoring the 'small stuff' like emotions and the ability to cultivate any meaningful sense of friendship. The 'conflict' in these programs demonstrate power, hard-hearted, fighting and absolutely no capitulation.

In real life the forceful influence of strong feminist opinions on women is also apparent. Just as it was for men at one time (you should be strong, not weak and play only powerful roles) removes the individual's ability to express who they really are. Why can't you be a strong Man? Or a quiet woman? A quiet Man, or a strong woman, if that is who you are instead of being told "You are a woman (man), this is what you should act like."

I have witnessed (during conversations in psychology classes) arguments that a handful of women were grilled by other women that genuinely wanted to have children and be at home that they were WRONG! Isn't feminism about giving women freedom to do as they choose, and not belittle them as saying if you want a certain type of life, that's because you have been influenced by outside forces (in essence calling them weak minded and making bad decisions).

Family friends who are very close to me had an interesting contrast in reaction to their daughter and son having chosen life paths. The mother (who once worked for a Women's Rights organization) reacted a little disappointed when she first heard her daughter was going to have a baby. Seeing this as a possible path to 'domestication' and stereotypical role-playing of women in her daughter.

But her son who chose to be a mechanic isn't a problem... because guys, cars and rough work isn't a stereotype of male roles?

So instead of fighting for Men's rights or Women's rights, shouldn't we be striving for true equality? "Bad" imagery of women also hurts men, not just because it goes back to how men treat women, but because when we say "Women are this" we're also saying "Men are not this."

Which also cultivates ideas such as a male being labeled as "gay" or weak for displaying emotions, good communication skills, intelligent, open and able to care for himself.

Why Can't We Not Be Happy

this post is an opinion piece and is based on personal life experience, conversation and ponderance...

Why Can't We Not Be Happy

Why can't we not be happy? Why is it wrong to simply be content with who we are, where we are, and simply be content with the world around us?

Have you ever tried to answer the question "How are you?" with simply "content"?

Through my experience, the response to this is concern.

It's interesting, in our Western-World culture how it's not 'OK' to be content. And this reaction speaks volumes about who we are. Our warped view of happiness that totally [1]monopolizes one of the most natural emotions.

The ability to feel content is truly, very empowering, feeling secure and relaxed with that which is our world. We forget all too often, in our land of quick answers and quick fixes the importance of "taking a breath" and "taking in the moment."

You can not be happy all the time. I know the term "happy" is thrown around a lot, and although it is our right to feel happy, it's not necessary or (in my opinion) healthy to feel the need to feel happy every waking hour.

The problem lays in the concept that 'if we're not happy, something's wrong, and we need to fix it.'

If you think of happiness as a drug: if you need a "hit" of this drug when you wake up, and take another "hit" a couple hours later, then feel the need to have another a few hours later, not only are you dependant on that drug, you need it to function (or to feel 'normal') and after a hand full of hours into the day you won't even feel that you are "high" or in this case happy. You more than likely will be seeking out your next dose just to sustain a sense of normalcy.

Not to say it's a bad thing to wake up happy, it's just a problem if you wake feeling as though you SHOULD be happy.

This, no doubt explains why we have addictions in our society to activities such as shopping, or having to catch the next episode of our favorite program.

We NEED to feel stimulated. We NEED to feel more than just content with our lives.

And the idea of true happiness dies. Happiness is no longer a joyful sensation, a reaction to deserving moments in our lives. It is then an obligation. A requirement to search out the next thing to feed our social addiction. Once you attain or acquire that which is new and makes you happy, it will then become old and normal. No longer exciting, but rather expected and boring. Maybe even depressing. So we need more input, more stimulus.

Then that becomes old...

normal...

maybe even depressing...

So then we need more...

Where is the happiness?

After all...

we need to be happy....

[1] monopolize: have and control fully and exclusively; "He monopolizes the laser printer" - Webdefinitions

Maclean's Magazine [H1N1 Propaganda (?)]

the following is not meant to encourage nor discourage the personal choice to take the H1N1 vaccine, but is a response to MacLean's article on the immunization shot.

I know MacLeans's magazine has the tendency to be a bit biased with their political and social commentaries, but most publications are. Every writer and editor has a lean to their opinions and it is very difficult to be 100% unbiased, we are, after all, human.
The October 26, 2009 issue of MacLean's however crosses the line from biased opinion into hard pressing propaganda. Not just clever, sly tactics, but what could be taken from "The Running Man" script, fear and overt dis-information, propaganda.
The cover, solid bright red with giant, bold, all caps writing exclaims (complete with under-lined words for focused emphasis) reads:
"everyone NEEDS the shot.
few plan to get it.
SWINE FLU FIASCO
what you need to know.
what you need TO DO."

Once you turn to page 50, you are faced with a page where the top third of the page is an eerie image of people in biohazard suits, the bottom third is the beginning of the article, and in the middle, a third of the page is solid black, with the huge block letters once again reading "SWINE FLU FIASCO" with bolded text reading:
"Everyone needs the H1N1 vaccine. Few plan to get it. What you need to do."

The article, written as an informative piece, not a commentary or editorial begins by dividing the populous into two segments:
*Those who are well informed and will get the vaccination shot.
and
*Those who are "confused" about the mixed messages they hear about the shot and simply are "People [who] throw their hands up and say 'I don't know how to decide, so I'm not going to do any of it'." [actual quote]

When in fact there is a much more complex and diverse reaction, generally ranging from the:
"Yes, I believe it is the right thing to do"
to
"I don't know"
"Done the research and decided, after intelligent consideration will not"
To people who just rebel against whatever the popular message is, and those who accept the popular message without question.
No doubt that reactions to most movements are far more diverse than people who are smart do what is expected and those who don't are simply 'confused.'

The article informs us of who fits into the 'High Risk' criteria. Most flu viruses are dangerous to the elderly and infirm. Most people who meets this criteria are easily convinced that they could suffer serious health issues if the warnings are not heeded. After all, even if it's not true, people who hear that THEY may be at personal risk feel anxiety over the possible threat. Instead of giving the age bracket for dangers due to H1N1, the article breaks into smaller bits, seeming to hit the people in them on a personal level. According to the article, pregnant woman are at risk. Infants from 5 months to 4 years of age are at risk. Children from 5 years to 18 years are at risk. Adults from 19 years old to 65 years old are at risk. If you fit in any one of those 'specific' ranges you are at risk. I guess if they simply said the highly specific age bracket is from unborn fetus to 65 years old, may not sound as personally threatening to the individual and may actually sound unconvincing.

Now that the article has set us in the right mood [if you agree with getting the vaccination, you are intelligent and informed, if not, you are confused and NEED to learn the 'facts'] there is a barrage of 'facts' and information in this article to convince you of (as is said in the title) "What you NEED to do." And the only people who should panic are those in the specific 'high risk' age brackets, THAT MEANS EVERYONE! Unfortunately, these convincing facts, provided by "professionals" range from biased and fragmented to misleading, untrue and outright lies.
Below are quotations which were highlighted in the article, and the actual facts, based on CDC reports, medical research and publications, H1N1 patent and contents, and Doctor's reports on the vaccine and it's effectiveness.

"Everyone should be vaccinated, especially young adults"
under this heading it expands on 'young adults' as:
"... it's important to vaccinate children and youth ages five to 18. Adults between 19 and 65 are also at increased risk for getting severely sick with H1N1." - page 52
-fact:
*"significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting"- October 2008, Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

*"We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits."- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The National Institutes of Health. The Lancet.

"The H1N1 vaccine has not been much more differently or more hastily than other flu shots" - page 52
-fact:
*" ...the rush to get a vaccine to market, marked by fast-track clinical trials for new strains and techniques, has prompted some experts to sound a note of caution."- AFB

*" 'No Canadian Tested' with Swine Flu Vaccine"- Health Canada [quoted in Suite101.com]

*"Health Canada approved this country's H1N1 vaccine without evaluating its safety and effectiveness on a single Canadian citizen. Instead, the federal drug regulator approved the pandemic vaccine based on the results of a small clinical trial in Belgium."- The Ottawa Citizen

*"Health Canada has authorized the sale of Arepanrix™ H1N1 based on limited clinical testing in humans under the provision of an Interim Order (IO) issued on October 13, 2009."- Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/)

*[1] " ...despite federal warnings and mounting concern about the illness' seriousness was concern about side effects and disbelief in its safety, especially suspicions that it has been inadequately tested." -ABC / Washington Post open public opinion poll on how secure the public feel with the vaccine. Results also published in The Los Angeles Times.
[1] sounds like a solid response, not derived from confusion or 'throwing hands in the air out of not knowing what to do.'

"Health officials say the vaccine is safe." - page 52
-fact:
*There is no all encompassing body of "Health Officials" that unanimously claim any vaccine is safe. How many health officials claim the vaccine is safe? How many disagree? And why do the equally qualified health officials question the safety of the vaccine? Why is their opinion not mentioned or even eluded to as existing?

"While adjuvants haven't been used in other Canadian flu shots, they are common in other vaccines." - page 53
-fact:
*This particular adjuvant (Arepanrix) has not been used previously and due to it's rush to market as the additive for this vaccine, its release was "based on limited clinical testing" for human safety, and is only granted a provision of "Interim Order" by Health Canada.- Health Canada Product Information Leaflet Arepanrix™ H1N1 AS03-Adjuvanted H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine.

*The thimerosal contained in this vaccine has a mercury content that is "...about 25 micrograms, and if you look at the warning signs of mercury, that exceeds the toxic dose of mercury that is not recommended by the EPA and the CDC unless you're over 550 pounds"- Dr Mercola

In closing the post about the MACLEAN'S article about the H1N1 vaccine, the last large, yellow, all caps, block letters on the black background announces:
"EXPERTS SAY EVERY TIME SOMEONE REFUSES TO GET THE SHOT, IT JEOPARDIZES THE WELL-BEING OF OTHERS"
___________________________________________________________________

What is in the flu vaccine? Here is the ingredient list and EPA / CDC warnings;
-Egg protein

-Formalyn: 37% gaseous formaldehyde and methanol (formalyn is considered a vapor toxin and is considered a hazardous compound)

-Polysorbate 80 (shown to cause infertility in lab mice)

-Monosodium Glutamate [MSG], a preservative known to cause numerous health related problems ranging from head aches and nausea to heart palpitations, anaphyllactic shock and asthma (among many others)

-Potassium phosphate, commonly used as a salt based fertilizer

-Thimerosal, a high mercury content additive in most vaccines. (mercury is the second most toxic item on Earth to humans. Mercury is second only to uranium.)

-Polyoxidonium, synthetic material with selective phenotypic results, affecting the body's recognition to inflammation

-Squalene (in Canadian and European vaccines only) has been banned in USA for it's prone ability to cause blindness, autoimmune dysfunction and inhibit sperm production.
ingredient list and warnings are available from many sources, this list is condensed from the pages of docstoc.com.


"This morning comes word from a new ABC News/Washington Post poll that almost four parents out of 10 do not believe the vaccine is safe and have no intention of allowing their children to receive it.
More than 60% of adults say they have no intention of getting the vaccine either." - The Los Angeles Times, October 22 / 2009.