Thank god for Steven Harper! If we didn’t have clear thinking people like him around, we might almost have believed the thousands of scientists who say we need to, as a society, use less energy and possibly have a little bit less fun (at least, where fun is equal to the consumption of energy, which it usually is in any fun thing like powerboating or race car driving or airplane flying, what fun thing doesn’t use energy?) Thank god we can keep getting richer and working harder forever. Because everyone knows that the only thing worth having is more of everything.
But if you do, here is a link to a perticularily interesting and current blog about contemporary issues in Toronto urban design, planning, and culture. (No, not “planning-culture”, at least not yet). It’s kept up by a friend I made living in campus-cooperative residences in Toronto last year.
Merge: art show with dance and live painting!
No copying each other. Also, no copying me – who thinks wikipedia is the best.
why the americans are an unpopular group in Bagdad?
(Malcolm had the good sense of posting this in the comments page of a previous post, I’m just reposting it so you all get a chance at it).
If you didn’t get a chance to see the film in theatres (I didn’t), it’s not available on DVD, but you can watch this trailer on youtube:
1) Some children are taught to believe in a regular catholic ontology to be true and factual
2) This ontology includes real torture for those who choose not to believe in it, or believe in it and break it’s laws (even those ones which are not what we would consider part of normal liberal morality).
3) Is it thus possible that the imposition of hell as an idea authoritatively decried as truth could be construed as something other than psychological torture?
I’m serious – can anyone please disprove this?
The “if you choose not to believe in it, then the idea of hell looses its impact anyway” objection fails, I think, because the notion of hell as a possibly real threat remains in the choice of whether to believe or not, and therefore influences (in quite a perverse manner), that choice.
A quote which is more explosive for the institutions which produce fear, ignorance and violence than any scientific proof Dawkins can offer:
“…anyone for whom the Bible is divine revelation and truth already has the answer to the question, “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” before it is even asked: beings, with the exception of God Himself, are created by Him. God Himself “is” as the uncreated Creator. One who holds on to such faith as a basis can, perhaps, emulate and participate in the asking of our question in a certain way, but he cannot authentically question without giving himself up as a believer, with all the consequences of this step. He can act only “as if” – . On the other hand, if such faith does not continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience. It becomes an agreement with oneself to adhere in the future to a doctrine as something that has somehow been handed down. This is neither having faith nor questioning, but indeifference – which can then, perhaps even with keen interest, busy itself with everything, with faith as well as with questioning.”
Heidegger “Introduction to Metaphysics” p. 7-8
The effects of jet aircraft trails, and other particulate pollutions on something called “Global Dimming”, BBC 50min documentary
“So, this is the crux of the problem. While the greenhouse effect has been warming the planet it now seems global dimming has been cooling it down. So the warming caused by carbon dioxide has been hidden from us by the cooling from air pollution.”
“The models everyone has been using to forecast climate change predict a max warming of 5 degrees by the end of the century, but now temperatures may rise twice has fast as previously thought. Global warming by 2030 exceeding 2 degrees….Many of the world’s major cities could be living on borrowed time.”
This (http://www.artofbleeding.com/rex.html) is probably more up the ally of homeland security minded people.