Wealth and the Occupy Movement

A little while ago, I read yet another off hand comment about how lazy everyone nowadays is. Condemning the Occupy Wall Street movement as a bunch of worthless vagabonds who just want a "free lunch" and that they are waiting to see someone hold up a sign to say they wanted a new New Deal where jobs would be created so that those lazy homeless people could work 10 hours of back-breaking labour a day for six days a week and get paid good money.

I'd hold up that sign. Not that I think this is the most important aspect of an economy in the modern sense but having jobs would be the step we need. And I think everyone agrees with that.

I'll comment from a psychological point of view: almost no one wants a "free lunch" really. I don't know anyone who does and I think if I did I would chalk it up as some sort of disorder on their part. Most people do not like to feel like they are in debt to someone. It makes them feel subservient and like they owe. I, for a long time, lived in such poverty (because all my income went to education) that I wouldn't spend anything on myself. I would go out to eat with friends and order water. I didn't want anyone to pay for me, I didn't get food stamps, I didn't get any welfare. I just contented myself with a jar of peanut butter a week and a bag of bread every day.

Not the most healthy time of my life. I do not think that I am atypical in this regard. There are so many people I meet living on meager means but refuse any help extended to them. Some bizarre American Pride. But it isn't bizarre because no one wants a hand out. I makes you feel the poverty you have.

And yet we are so afraid of anyone getting something that they didn't earn. As if that means they deserve it.

Right now, I have the highest paying job of my life. A whole $10.70 with a $0.50 bonus if I work all the way to March - so $11.20 per hour. This is the easiest job I have ever had. Previous to this, I have worked with some of the poorest people in the world. Not just in wealth but in self-esteem. Mostly in custodial positions, these people work very, very, very hard doing something many people couldn't imagine doing. And most of them don't even feel gratitude.

Yet there are those who cheat the system. They don't feel remorse for just taking from the work of others. The vast majority of these people are very poor themselves and haven't seen a way out of poverty. Some of them seem to enjoy it because they've got their leisure time while the working stiffs do not. A slim proportion of these people are massively wealthy. They are the ones who suck the majority of the actual wealth out of the system. They sort of work hard, making sure that they keep their position, no one starts paying attention to the fact that they have sucked the money out of your wallet. But I have a hard time imagining that they are working harder than the proud single mother who works 60 hours a week at 3 different jobs just so her children can keep playing soccer and eating.

Somehow we don't care that they get enough free lunches to feed Africa. All to their lonesome little greedy selves.

For a while now I have been interested in doing a little bit of research. We talk about the inflation of a dollar. How the value of that dollar has changed though time. Now-a-days, people make 20,000 dollars which would look like a helluva lot to an old miner in 1824. But it isn't much now. But what does inflation really mean? I suspect it changes quite a lot based on what you used to compare. How much did a loaf of bread cost in 1824? How much did a copper statue cost? How much did a horse and carriage cost and how much is a car now? I suspect that the cost in bread has not changed quite as much as all this other stuff. Even the poor now can afford iPods. But still they can't afford to eat. In the 1960s, my grandparents supported a family of six kids off of one college professors salary. They must not have been saddled with the PhD debt that they would have been now, but even without that, do you think one college professor could support eight mouths and the house to hold them all in?

I sort of doubt it.

The reason I really support the Occupy Wall Street movement isn't just for the poor and homeless, if is for everyone who is working and cannot make what the richest can toss out of their pockets on accident. There is no amount of work in the world that justifies one human being having that much wealth. The distribution of wealth in any community should not look like a backwards L.


Think about it this way:
The richest person on the planet right now is Carlos Slim (and his family). As of November, he was worth 68.3 Billion dollars. Write it out: $68,300,000,000.

Right now, I'll inflate my worth to 68,300. That's actually about 683 times more than I actually am worth.

A penny to me is 1/68,300,00 or .01/68,300

That same amount of money to Carlos is (.01/68,300)*68.3E9 = $10,000. As easy as it is for me to crush a penny into a commemorative plate in an amusement park, Carlos could pay off my college debt. The cost of renting a movie from my local movie store ($1.62 -> 1,620,000) could buy me more house than I would ever want. What I spend on groceries in a month (~$300 -> 300,000,000) could pay off all the debt accrued by all of the graduates from my small college in a year and have enough left over to get a few more another degree.

What could they possibly want with that?

Warren Buffett wants his taxes raised and he is in the top tier. The 3rd richest person in the world right now. Thank god.


What I think a lot of people are missing is that taxes really are a wealth re-distribution process and that there is nothing wrong with that. Every culture with wealth has had a re-distrubution system. In the northwest of this country they had the Pot-Latch. Where the rich gave everything they had away and got status in return. Few people want a free lunch, and most would like to give them. If we had sane people in as the rich, they would want to redistribute. They would want to give back to society.

But then they wouldn't be billionaires. That is what greed means.

Musings on Homes and Structures and Deep-Green Building

Permaculture has a great list of ideals that apply in just about anything that can be done. It has a lot in common with a gross of other movements both recent and historical. One thing I find in common with all of them is an attention to systems. We like to use the term "attention to detail" as some sort of buzzword for a good, intelligent, "critically thinking" person. "Critically Thinking" is another of those buzzwords. But "attention to macrocosms" might be more appropriate term for a "system-thinking" person, to replace both of them.

Most, if not all, of these movements are conciously or unconciously being Biomimetic. The "inventors" of Permaculture were certainly being so, even if the term "permaculture" was coined in the '70s while "biomimicry" was first said in the '80s. Yet the practice of biomimicry could be said to be much older. As old as the biosphere, one might say. And that is the reason that Permaculture works, is so close to being universally sound.

Thus, for the best house possible, it is essential to consider those rough guiding points:

1. Catch and store energy: This is very important for a building. Because people are generally pretty bad at it (we are too spoiled). We need a home to be a comfortable temperature and environment inside no matter what is happening outside and that takes quite a lot of power. For the best dwelling, that power should not come from anywhere else but home. Ideally.
2. Observe and interact: Watch what nature is doing and consider "vernacular building". What will work in this climate and with your soil and ecosystem. And with your local building materials.
1. Use and value diversity: Notice that diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats, it increases resiliency, and can take advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides. Here is a chance for that "Attention To Detail" motif.
2. Use edges and value the marginal: The interface between things is where the most interesting events sometimes take place and often they are overlooked. Think about the gray areas and how one thing a thousand miles away from another can have profound butterfly effects. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.
1. Integrate rather than segregate: Thinking about the edges and interplays will probably lead directly to this. Relationships develop between everything; with the right things in the right place those relationships can be very powerful. More than the sum of the parts, so to speak. Things can work together and support each other.
3. Design from patterns to details: By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.
3. Use and value renewable resources and services: Make the best use of nature's abundance to reduce consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable non-local resources. Again, anything that is taken out is returned. Hopefully in folds.
1. Obtain a yield: Think of it as a continuation of point 4. Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the work that you are doing; not only for you yourself, but also for the land under the house and the rest of the ecological system around you. Be a part of that system and gear past being regenerative or restorative but progressive. The walls of a house do not really separate you from the rest of the world.
2. Produce no waste: By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available nothing goes to waste. "Waste" is returned to the rest of the system.
4. Use small and slow solutions: Think "Small House Society". Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones. Though sometimes increased size can mean increased efficiency, it also means increased difficulty. Make the best use of local resources and produce sustainable outcomes.
5. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: Keep learning and keep growing. Keep evolving. Keeping an open and flexible mind is one key to staying young in the head.
1. Creatively use and respond to change: We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.

Thus, the ideal house depends on where it is put. And thus, like most things good, it is very difficult. In Gunnison it is different than in Denver. In either location, I would rather not "sprawl" and take over yet more land. That seems to me to break some of these points. No matter how great the house is, it is not as good as no house to the rest of the biosphere. Besides, perhaps, a tree. The living trunk and canopy. At least I have yet to see another one. We human beings have claimed plenty of ground, I dare say.

I am intrigued to think about cities such as our local Denver. In order to have a small footprint for a city, one must build up. However, natural building is not very conducive to building up too high It's not possible to build a Rose Tower out of straw. Or even brick.

But what is possible? It would be possible to build a structure more like the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is 480ft tall. The Pyramid itself is probably the tallest "Natural Building" ever made (even if it isn't inhabited). Logistically, it would be difficult to acquire the space in the modern world for such a structure; and it is probably inadvisable from an ecological point of view. But it presents some possibilities.

I would like to see sky-scrapers take some principles from the Deep Green Building movement. Perhaps the natural material isn't very feasible for the supporting framework, but are the local materials in Denver even straw? Perhaps recycled metals and unused foundations could be part of it. Using fly-ash cement in the concrete and other such ideas. Perhaps straw could be part of the insulation, as long as there are good moisture guards. A green living roof seems to be a good idea and is being utilized in cities such as New York and Chicago for office buildings. Then, at least, there is other life atop our cityscapes. If there are enough edible gardens throughout cities, how much would it save on shipping costs? Therefore cut down on the actual cost of living, cut down on the carbon emissions, and become a small carbon storage system. And give office workers a fulfilling thing to occupy their coffee breaks; I have heard that it does wonders for employee moral. Most skyscrapers already have the flat roof that it would require.

Green roofs are actually one of my favorite ideas. I would love to explore all the potential for them. How could a green roof work on a straw-bale and mud walled building? In a snowy climate like Gunnison? Is is possible to still have solar-tube lighting with a green roof? How much roof/yard should be sacrificed for a solar-voltaic system? Any? Can electricity be cut out all together? Probably not.

In a general sense, not considering the specific limitations of an area, the great question to me is how a building can limit its intake of resources from off of its own land. How little can it take in and how much can it give back. Having a "Net-Zero" (or better) building according to its hers rating is a nice crutch, but it assumes that you have no impact on the house. But what if one wants to drive the house? What if there are days that the house should be hotter and days that it should be cooler? What if there is one tenant who likes their house to be about 80° and the next buyer likes it closer to 60°? The house should be able to preform for both without additional energy. Ideally.

My Ideal House:

Though a city can be argued to be a more "sustainable" place to live because it takes less resources for each person, as an average, I would really rather not live in a city. So I have to figure out how best to make a good house in a smaller town or in the country. Without taking more land, without making myself a nuisance.

Thus I do not think that making a new house is the answer. Perhaps renovation; perhaps a renovation so thorough that the original structure is carefully dismantled and a new structure put up on the old foundation. Then all those pieces of the old house can be used somewhere in the new one.

Despite the call to have a small house, I would like to build a relatively large house. With relatively little square-footage to each resident. Perhaps an apartment building, with four-bedroom apartments and a communal living area and an outdoor square. A garden would be necessary, the roof could be part of it.

The entire utility bill should be covered by the local environment, passive heating and cooling of space and water; solar ovens in each unit and a cool corner for dry-storage and the refrigerator; so that the ambient temperature is close to the temperature inside the box. The heat generated by refrigerators could be piped to other rooms.

Indoor and outdoor gardening; composting equipment applicable for the environment (if it is in Gunnison, for example, something that can produce compost year-round). Most of the lighting being passive solar lighting as well. Essentially, the utility bill for the building should be in the negatives every month no matter what.

I would like the house to be build using as low embodied energy as possible.

The other part of the puzzle, though, is to make the set of houses communal and of social gain to the community as well. Not only for the tenants and home-owners, but for neighbors and passersby as well. If it would be possible for the zoning to support small business ventures; so that, at the very least, excess food could be sold or given back to the community. The house should be such a desirable place to live that it would entice others to follow the example. It should foster community enough that people get to know each other better and become strong neighbors who, even if separated by a move, will stay in contact and fellowship.
It should cost nothing, but generate wealth instead. Of every kind.

All of the doors, therefore, would face into the same space. It would encourage foot traffic, for automobile consideration would be smaller - having no driveway, even, into the property. Though every unit could have a solar oven, there would be one central communal kitchen with a stove big enough to cook for everyone. To encourage relationships. Supplies would be shared like in a commune so that there is less external consumption. Having one kitchen is also more energy efficient than having single separate ones. The mailboxes would be in one place outside of the home for another meeting place. The apartment complex could have an attached shed space for all, but with divisions and the possibility to add partitions and more separations. We don't want to push people's trust too far. But inside, there would be doors, lockable from each side, into the next door neighbor.

Because of solar energy concerns, the complex would probably have to be built fairly linearly; for they would all need southern exposure. The entry-ways would therefore need to be on the north, I think and the sheds could be up there as well, connected or not, The communal area would be on the north with the doors along with some gardens and the walk-ways in (not cement, because that's really hard on people's knees; something softer would be preferable). The communal kitchen would be a thin sliver of an apartment between all of the others so that it could have a solar oven of its own... but then again, perhaps that is unnecessary. Solar cooking is possible in the apartments.

In order for a lot of this to fit and work, it would defy the square shape. There would be less straight lines in this house. The shape would have to be artistic.

Another idea that I liked in a hippy house somewhere in the world is a community comments mailbox. Where people could leave poetry. Perhaps a space for public graffiti and play. Perhaps space for public classes and workshops to be able to be held there, like at the Fred Field center or Parish Hall. The house(s) should be open and valuable.

It by Stephen King, 1986, and It the TV mini series (1990)

I must thank Tim Curry. Without him, I wouldn't be alive right now to write this review. He saved my life while I was watching It. If he hadn't consented to be in this awful, no-good, very bad movie, it would have killed me.

Maybe that's an exaggeration.

But maybe it's not.

I got hooked into reading It by the first 50 pages. They were interesting. They tied back onto each other and and had enough interesting little details that I thought the book would have a fairly complicated plot. In the end, It didn't. By the time I got to page 600, I had started reading really fast. By 700, I was skimming parts that didn't seem like they'd be much more interesting to actually read and weren't important to my general understanding. By page 800, I was skipping parts. By page 1000, I was starting to read again.

But, Jesus, that 3/4 mark was grueling. I was just wishing that Stephen would stop using so many words!  The book managed to end strongly, but it is simply Too Long. Really, It could be thought of as "It 1" and "It 2" (like Thing 1 and Thing 2 but not quite so cool) all rolled into one book and spliced together. It bounces back and forth from "It 1" to "It 2" and, like a disney sequel, they are the same story (Little Mermaid and Lion King are the best example). King uses this feature a little bit, but mostly it gets tiresome hearing about how, 'oh, we're not kids anymore' No shit. 'oh, I hope it's a little different this time. So we can win' Weel, ya kinda did last time. It is a lot of flashback in a lot of book.

Yet watching the "movie" made this book look like an unrivaled masterpiece. I think the movie is the worst thing I have ever watched. Even beating out The Magic Sword. And you cannot see anything in that movie. It is no wonder that King doesn't like people making movies of his stories after this... um... I suppose "It" is an appropriate word. This Thing. It is impressively bad. Out of a core cast of 8 characters, only 2 or 3 give a performance that I would say is better than "L" or "M" acting caliber (There are some who give downright "Z" caliber acting) and even Tim Curry isn't better than "B" acting in this. But it seems fitting. Like he's making fun of his role. He isn't scary, he's funny. And that is what saves your life if you have the balls to try and watch this Wretched Movie. I have been trying for two weeks to find the right way to emphasize how bad this movie is, but I haven't managed to do it yet. It is just awful.

That it won an Emmy does nothing for the reputation of that award. Unless they were trying to award turds like the Razzie. I would have given this movie all of my Razzies. I don't expect the remake to be much better. But unfortunately for me, I am curious.

Some things that should have been done:

• Fired their director.
• They shouldn't have made Bill Denborough stutter. They could have easily changed it to some other "loser" quality.
• They should have only told one of the two stories. It 1 and left out It 2. Because It 2 is dependent on It 1 and It 1 should be a little scarier; since it's about kids.
• Actually build up a character or two. If you are going to spend 195 minutes on a film, then there should be someone to care about. King realizes, while he is writing, that you have to care about a character to get scared (consequently, his books are 1100 pages). The bullies in this movie are so etherial that there doesn't seem to be any thing to worry about.
• Show something scary or just jump two feet into comedy. There is a scene with a rock fight and everyone throws about one rock and one person gets hit and it doesn't even seem to hurt. The whole scene is about 15 seconds long and looks like a girly sleep-over pillow fight in a teen movie.
• Hired some good actors.
• Kept Steven King on the writer's roll. Even if he is long-winded. And not scary.

Somehow, I seem to be alone in my estimation of this movie. It is hard to find other reviews that support my opinion. Seems most people like this thing. So, hell, don't take my word for it. But if watching this movie kills you, it is not my fault.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brisingr 2003, 2005, 2008)

(By Ellie:)

So I should be doing homework....or something more productive, like laundry, but I have to get this off my chest:

Someday I'd like to meet Christopher Paolini, perhaps while he's walking down the street, and when he least expects it, punch him as hard as I possibly can in the face.

Why, You may ask, do I want to punch Paolini in the face?

Because! his book series was the greatest disappointment in my entirety of reading!

You see, I love dragons. My room is decorated with dragons and a large chunk of my art is dedicated to dragons. I've wanted to read his books for a while but it wasn't until recently that I've had the time. So I started reading his series in May and I just now finished.

His first book I felt like, "Okay so you can tell this was written by a sixteen year old." But hey, no biggie, I was told by several other people that you gotta trudge through the first book to get to the second which was supposed to be better.

it was not.

Oh....Kay. Before I go off on all the reasons I didn't like his books, I'll mention the things I did like:

I liked the dragon Saphira, she was at least a fairly interesting character, my bias coming from the fact that I like dragons. I also liked the story of Roran and his escape from the Ra'zac and the survival of Carvahal, it kept me interested (page turner). I liked the idea of the dragon and it's rider sharing a consciousness and being equals, instead of some guy taming a dragon and riding it around like it's his pet. Oh and Angela was a fairly interesting character.

Now the reasons for wanting to punch Paolini in the face:

One: his writing style. His dialog is similar to his narration. Although there are a few characters who have a different way of speaking (Angela, sometimes Saphira), for the most part everyone has the same dialog and says similar things. I suppose I could pull out a few examples from the book but I'm lazy.

Oh! and how he uses descriptions. He'll describe the tiniest, most unimportant shit, like the shadows on his knuckles, the way a sunrise looks, the way the sap dribbles off a tree and bla and bla and bla and bla and bla. I think there's a way to do description which helps your reader to see what it is you are describing all the while giving them the liberty to have their own picture in their head. And quite honestly you don't need to describe a sunrise in explicit detail. Everyone has seen one at least one.

Two: the character Ayra... I wouldn't cry if she dropped dead, you know, just in the middle of the story. So, anyways, Eragon falls in love with this elf warrior and, well, she has the dullest personality out of everyone in the book. It would be like falling in love with an angry stump. A bitter, angry, sad little stump protruding from the ground. She hardly laughs, smiles, or does anything for that matter other than fight and be angry. Quite honestly, I'd like to know how many guys would fall for someone so boring and angry just because she's a hot elf with a tattoo.....uh I might be mistaken.

Three: The Urgals vs. Raz'ac. So the series has like two bad guy groups, the brutish Urgals and the dreadful Raz'ac. What I liked about the book was that Oromis and Glaedr, Eragon, and Saphira's mentors, teach them both that the Urgals are not necessarily bad evil creatures, just simply misunderstood. He explains to the hot-headed Eragon that it's not right to judge them, for having a different culture and bla bla bla and that they do not deserve to be driven to extinction.
BUT FUCK THE RA'ZAC! kill them all, they're evil bitches they are! In fact Eragon you should wipe them off the face of Alaglasea!

Ahem..

Four: Eragon gets to celebrate with the elves the blood oath celebration, in which he is given a gift that restores his body and makes him look elfy... Yay.
In the celebration there are a set of twin elf ladies, who get naked and show off their--get this--Rainbow dragon tattoo. Rainbow....Dragon.....Tattoo. Singular.
They then dance and the dragon tattoo comes to life and blesses Eragon. But seriously... A shimmering Rainbow Dragon Tattoo? Does anyone else think that sounds incredibly cheesy? It makes me constipated it's so cheesy! Oh other cheesy things

• Brom in diamond tomb - CHEEZE


• The dwarves giant rose shaped gem thing - CORN


• the name: Saphira - Big serving of mac and CHEEZE!


• Riders having a sword the same color as their dragon - Blaaaarge!


• Flaming Blue Sword - Corny Poopie (And that's the Rating!)


• Ayra - WTF. Why does she exsist?


• The elves themselves.... Legolas would cry

Five: The Ancient language. So this language is like cheating, It makes it too easy to write the story. So how the language works is that whenever someone speaks in this language they have to tell the truth, and if you promise something in this language you can't go back on it. So basically the bad guys, never really have their own motives, the reason why they do bad things, is because the one bad guy Galbatorix, has forced them to swear loyalty to him in the ancient language. Basically if something difficult arrises in the plot Paolini just has to say..."well they swore in the ancient language." Grrrrrrrrrr! So Hitler was able to kill a shit ton of people with his Nazis, do you think they swore in some ancient language?

Six: The gore. Alright so I think a lot of Epic fantasy writers look up to Tolkien and his works because he really set the scene for how we view fantasy, including elves, dwarves and the like. He's also a pretty good writer and story teller. Thing about Tolkien is that he himself was a soldier in world war one and lived through world war two. And yet in his writing he never describes the battles in explicit detail. You watch the movies and the battle scenes are epic, you read the books and they almost seem diminished.

Paolini hasn't gone to war. I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone. But he's fine with going into explicit detail on every battle scene or gory event in his books. One particular scene that stands out in my mind, is when bloodthirsty Roran is fighting in battle, and he's practically fighting all by himself with an injured shoulder and leg, and somehow he ends up standing on a hill twenty feet high composed of dead bodies, bodies of the soldiers he killed. All of them who probably swore to Galbatorix in the stupid ancient language. (that's convenient)

Eragon and Arya kill a group of soldiers with their bare hands, one of which pleaded for his life before Eragon killed him. Of course they go to battle a bunch more times and kill some more, and then they kill a little bit more. Towards the end of Brisingr, In the last battle of the book, Eragon is described as being "surrounded by a mist of blood".

I'd honestly like to take Paolini, stick a sword in his hand, ship him overseas to fight in the military and see how well he can hack someone to bits.

It's not that a little bit of gore is a bad thing, and he does mention the twinge of guilt his characters have for killing people, but I feel that he describes it to such a great detail, that it's just immature. I'm not sure how his books have gotten to be so popular, because he writes like a guy who plays too many video games, or maybe a pampered home-schooled rich kid....tell me if I'm close?

In the end I think my question is, will I read the last of the Inheritance Cycle? Hmm maybe. As long as I get to throw the book at his head.

(Anybody have some suggestions of other fantasies series I might actually like? I need to cleanse my brain of all this cheese, corn and gore.)

Birth Rate

Steve King (a representative from Iowa) thinks that if we cover birth control and allow our birth rate fall below our replacement rate (death rate) then we are a "dying civilization".

Perhaps Steve has never heard of a diet.

Right now we are not anywhere near risk of being a "dying civilization". The population of humans on earth is about 70,000 times too many people (population we should have: ~100,000 divided by the population we do have: ~ 7 billion.) I think that we just need to go on a diet. Otherwise we are liable to die of congestive heart failure. Has anyone ever been so obese that their own weight crushed the life out of them like a trash compacter? That will be the fate of our species.

North Dakota Pharmacy Ownership

Once again, big retail stores who also run pharmacies are trying to overturn North Dakota's pharmacy requirements. Right now, a pharmacy in North Dakota must be at least 51% owned by a licensed pharmacist. Because Walmart, Walgreens, or other supermarkets are not owned by actual pharmacists, they cannot open in the state.

The big stores argue that they would provide cheaper drugs to North Dakotans than local pharmacists can if they were allowed to operate here. Many of them now publish lists of prescriptions they offer for $4. "Hundreds of Prescriptions" are claimed. However, out of the 310 drugs which Walmart lists, only about 135 are unique drugs; most of them are repeated as different dosages once or twice, Amoxicillin is listed 16 times. And among the drugs on the list is Ibuprofen.




The list, of course, does not apply to high cost drugs. It also does not work in conjuction with any other financial aid including insurance, which covers 93% of North Dakotas seeking a prescription.




Everyone is hoping to find things for less. But the fact is that North Dakota already has a cheaper average prescription cost than the national or regional average. We also have more pharmacies per person which would suggest greater competition between businesses. For contrast, over 50% of the pharmacies in Sioux Falls, Billings, and Cheyenne, outside of North Dakota, are shared between only 3 businesses.




However, as Kevin Oberlander, a local pharmacist explains, costs are not in a competition system, "it is a managed system" of "take it or leave it contracts" and the $4 prescription promise is a marketing ploy. "These are high profit companies, They know how to make money." If they are offering $4 prescriptions, they are making that cost up somewhere else.




The real issue to Kevin is access to care. "The law is good for the patient. I will argue that to the bitter end." Kevin has colleagues in other states jealous of our requirement. One of his friends, who has worked in a big-box store pharmacy and has some ability to fight for his patients still has decisions made for him by non-medical people. "It is not about the patient. Sometimes decisions are made for us and we have no say in that."




"We are not guaranteed low prices, especially when competition goes away." says Mike Schwab Executive Director of the North Dakota Pharmacists Association. Along with Oberlander, he fears that if the law passes, we will lose many of our pharmacies and that once we lose them, we cannot get them back. "People will lose access to care." says Oberlander. Compared to South Dakota and other similar states, we have fewer counties without a pharmacy and these big box pharmacies have been involved in many court cases for unethical conduct in the last few years. Which North Dakota has not had to suffer.




North Dakota is the only state in the Union which still has a pharmacy ownership law, which Mike believes is good for health and safety; the supreme court agrees as this issue has made it to that level in the past. We should "value being the only state with this law." says Mike, "sometimes being different is a good thing and I like to think that there was some foresight here".

One small story of you, one giant leap for mankind

Hello, my friends.

Recently I began volunteering for the Courage Campaign out of California. What they want right now (for the next two weeks, especially) is for people from across the country to share their stories about dealing with homosexuality in our country. What challenges there are and if there is any backlash for supporting any people regardless of their sexuality.

Some of you may not think you have much of a story, because you aren't homosexual or aren't trans-gender, you may think that you don't have too much of a story to tell. But if you care about this issue, if you have one friend who isn't straight and boring heterosexual person, then you can find something to say. Every story says something and we want any story, big or small.

As an example, I have included the story I wrote for this (Also on http://whythefuckamistartingablog.blogspot.com/2011/06/declining-bigotry.html). It isn't too remarkable. It isn't a life-long struggle, it is just one of the only fights for rights I have been in recently and I thought it would be an appropriate one to tell. After you tell your story, write it down or (better for them) record it on video, or take a picture, you can upload it at: http://testimony.couragecampaign.org/home. If you have any trouble doing this, you can contact me and I can try to help you.

Please, tell use one story in your life about supporting equal rights for all. It doesn't matter how big it is or small it is or if you think you are a good writer. It only matters when you tell your story. It will do something, big or small, it will do something. And I hope you can be proud of that!

Thank you for your time,

My story is down here,

TTFN, Edward

Declining Bigotry

There are times when the problems in the world seem over whelming, that everything is going downhill. But then there are times when we have to realize that ignorant bigotry is disappearing. It is a slow and unsteady process marked at times by the passing of a generation out of our world, but it is happening, at least in some places.

Where I live, one hardly experiences it. The laws in Colorado are not always the most progressive; despite having a very well educated population, we don't spend very much on keeping it; and we are not of of the states in the Union which has done much to specifically legalize marriage between two people of the same sex, but at the same time, I have not heard much of a push to define it as a "one man one woman" thing. We just sit is political stagnation about everything.

However, out of all the people I have ever dealt with in my life, I have never felt much pressure against gay marriage, I have never felt that if I stood up for anyones rights I would be attacked. Or that anyone would care very much; apathy is the deadliest problem with my fellow Coloradans that I have witnessed. My few experiments into this arena testify to this for me.

I have a co-worker, we'll call him "Dave", who is constantly the butt end of every joke in the facility, has his intelligence insulted by his own parents, and has enough self-esteem to drink himself into making out with sidewalks at 3:00 in the morning most days. I am probably the only person at work who doesn't spend most of my time trying to make fun of him. Ryan takes slow parts of the day to seek Dave out and tell him to talk, because anything he says will be hilarious because it is stupid.

I feel a little bad for poor Dave. It isn't always that he is completely brain dead, but he doesn't have a lot of confidence and, after all, has been taught by our society to act this way. It has brought him social success; any attention is good. However, a few weeks ago, he expressed that, "if it weren't illegal, he would kill homosexual people. All of them."

Kill.

I immediately shot back that this pretty much proves what people say about him. He isn't very smart. "Really? A lack of law is the only thing that prevents you from being a homicidal maniac? That's pretty scary, Dave. I think we should probably put you in jail right now, just to get you off the streets. Because that is pretty crazy. That's really unhealthy. That is very bad."

He was a little taken aback. "What!" He replied after several minutes of this, "It was how I was raised."

"That's not a very good reason for anything," I told him, "That's just a poor excuse. You can be more than what you were raised told you to be. You don't have to do what your parents did. You can make up your own mind, Dave."

The part of this story which is the most heartening is that everyone who heard of this sided with me. Ryan, of course did. He likes Dave only to hear him say stupid things. But there was absolutely no one who gave Dave an ounce of support. He was instantly vilified for this. It wasn't funny (completely. Some people found it funny, because it was Dave and he is always stupid and this was just a one-up from anything he'd said before.) it was stupid, purely.

It is this which gives me hope. I see that even people like Dave will change their mind in the fairly near future because they will have to. It is no longer socially advantageous to be a bigot. There is nothing to gain, there is plenty to lose so that even the most selfishly minded in our society will not be able to maintain their bigotry.

The pendulum is slowing. There isn't much to fight against, so fewer people fight very hard. This leads to stagnation on any issue. This is what has to be fought where I am. But the good news is: that progress has been made which can lead to political action.

Declining Bigotry

There are times when the problems in the world seem over whelming, that everything is going downhill. But then there are times when we have to realize that ignorant bigotry is disappearing. It is a slow and unsteady process marked at times by the passing of a generation out of our world, but it is happening, at least in some places.

Where I live, one hardly experiences it. The laws in Colorado are not always the most progressive; despite having a very well educated population, we don't spend very much on keeping it; and we are not of of the states in the Union which has done much to specifically legalize marriage between two people of the same sex, but at the same time, I have not heard much of a push to define it as a "one man one woman" thing. We just sit is political stagnation about everything.

However, out of all the people I have ever dealt with in my life, I have never felt much pressure against gay marriage, I have never felt that if I stood up for anyones rights I would be attacked. Or that anyone would care very much; apathy is the deadliest problem with my fellow Coloradans that I have witnessed. My few experiments into this arena testify to this for me.

I have a co-worker, we'll call him "Dave", who is constantly the butt end of every joke in the facility, has his intelligence insulted by his own parents, and has enough self-esteem to drink himself into making out with sidewalks at 3:00 in the morning most days. I am probably the only person at work who doesn't spend most of my time trying to make fun of him. Ryan takes slow parts of the day to seek Dave out and tell him to talk, because anything he says will be hilarious because it is stupid.

I feel a little bad for poor Dave. It isn't always that he is completely brain dead, but he doesn't have a lot of confidence and, after all, has been taught by our society to act this way. It has brought him social success; any attention is good. However, a few weeks ago, he expressed that, "if it weren't illegal, he would kill homosexual people. All of them."

Kill.

I immediately shot back that this pretty much proves what people say about him. He isn't very smart. "Really? A lack of law is the only thing that prevents you from being a homicidal maniac? That's pretty scary, Dave. I think we should probably put you in jail right now, just to get you off the streets. Because that is pretty crazy. That's really unhealthy. That is very bad."

He was a little taken aback. "What!" He replied after several minutes of this, "It was how I was raised."

"That's not a very good reason for anything," I told him, "That's just a poor excuse. You can be more than what you were raised told you to be. You don't have to do what your parents did. You can make up your own mind, Dave."

The part of this story which is the most heartening is that everyone who heard of this sided with me. Ryan, of course did. He likes Dave only to hear him say stupid things. But there was absolutely no one who gave Dave an ounce of support. He was instantly vilified for this. It wasn't funny (completely. Some people found it funny, because it was Dave and he is always stupid and this was just a one-up from anything he'd said before.) it was stupid, purely.

It is this which gives me hope. I see that even people like Dave will change their mind in the fairly near future because they will have to. It is no longer socially advantageous to be a bigot. There is nothing to gain, there is plenty to lose so that even the most selfishly minded in our society will not be able to maintain their bigotry.

The pendulum is slowing. There isn't much to fight against, so fewer people fight very hard. This leads to stagnation on any issue. This is what has to be fought where I am. But the good news is: that progress has been made which can lead to political action.

Raising Funds or the Moral High Road

I have been spending some time lately in Denver's Alliance Center as I am pretty much bent upon doing something worthwhile with my life. And while the Center is not the be all and end all of humanitarian missions in Colorado (and, in fact, houses some groups I am pretty unhappy with; by "some" I mean "one" and they are the real subject of this angry "rant" - read "argument") it is a good place to start.

I am currently working for the Fund for the Public Interest in the basement of this building as a databaser. The Fund is like a gang of mercenaries. They are a small office of people and they do the work that no one else wants to do: ask for money. It is a good thing to do, very important. There are so many things wrong in the world and so many people trying to make it a good place and The Fund raises awareness for some important issues and makes money for them. Goodness, yes. Yet I am afraid.

I am afraid that The Fund is far to focused on the making money part and are not taking the "moral high-road" which is short sighted. They have traded long-term support for money now.

The first time I faced their tenancy toward deceit, I thought that it was a mistake. I was living in Gunnison where there are precious few paying jobs and even fewer funds for what I would call "good work". It is a small town. But I was making progress. They are weathering recession better than most because it is easier to make a small umbrella than a 90K hectacre umbrella. They don't realize this and are trying to grow the size  of their economy rather than the effectiveness of their economy, but that's a different issue. I interviewed with The Fund and was told I would have a job over the summer in Denver. What's more, my girlfriend got the same message. Stupid me, I then quit looking for other jobs and missed out on  being a rafting guide or working for the Coal Creek Watershed Coalition in Crested Butte. Or interning with ORE. All of which would have been the very job I was looking for! Or at least a lot of fun. Instead I said: I have a job.

But when I arrived in Denver, I realized that such status was as tenuous as thread. I did not have a firm position. I was on trial: if I couldn't raise $110, I was not a canvasser.

This makes sense. If you cannot pay your own salary, then no money can go to actual projects. You are hired to make money for the organization, not take money away. There is a minimum and you must meet it quickly. What I am angry at is that they do not make this very clear and now I am stuck in a city 40 times bigger than what I can happily stand. What I think is a mistake: if you make over $110, the rest is commission. if you make $400 not only does Environment Colorado or CoPIRG (who contract The Fund) get more money, but so do you. This makes it too much about the money and not about the cause. You push people harder and harder to donate money at the door. This is where I have fear. That a senior canvasser gets more money because they pressured some "member" to donate more money and they do, but leave the door thinking "Wow. That was... uncomfortable. I didn't like that. You know, I don't think I'm going to donate to them ever again." Next year (or month if they feel like harassing people for a specifically important goal) when some young rookie comes to their door they say instead: "No"
"But--"
"No I'm am not donating today, sorry."
"Can I at least--"
"Thank you." slam.

When I was a canvasser, I felt really good if I got a post-card signed. This would represent support, even if they didn't donate money, they would have voted and with a big stack of citizen support, an elected official will listen. This was a palpable action: it did something specific and important. It is an action, it is what we are raising money for; it is change. While the money is just the funds to keep doing this. I also felt really good if I left a door with a positive impression. Left a little leaflet which explained the group, left with a promise for the person that they would look into it, were really interested, and would probably donate online. They just didn't do this sort of thing at the door.

"That's Alright." I would say, "You know, if you can donate at the door, that is what keeps me out here, and this is a very pertinent issue right now, so we would really, really appriciate your support." But I wouldn't press them. "If you don't feel like you can donate at the door, I understand. I know that people like to do their own research, but the sooner you can give in whatever way you want, or support us in any way--be a volunteer, whatever--the better. Thank you." I would leave thinking that they would do something and liked our group and that was more important to me than extracting $30 from their wallet right then like an oil miner or downright thief.

If they didn't donate with me, or even that year, maybe they would donate next year, for some other rookie, because they remembered me. Because they thought I was respectful and kind and not too pushy and remembered that they forgot to look into it or donate or even if they did remember trusted the group more and would give at the door. And then that new kid can keep his job and perhaps, just maybe, he will be a less pushy canvasser and that will continue.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the successes of the Civil Rights movement in this country it is the long lasting and ever growing power of non-violence and active peaceful work. Here a black man sits in a restaurant and refuses to leave because of some archaic, biased, stupid rule that anyone of his skin tone cannot be served in the restaurant; there a black woman doesn't give up her seat in a bus because they are the wrong race. Here and there they are beaten by policemen for there insolence and all though the ordeal of having their teeth cracked and their bones broken, they never lift a hand in violent retaliation. They allow the beating to occur and do not respond in kind. Their house is blown up, still they are peaceful. Anyone watching such a spectacle cannot hold for long the belief that a black person has any sort of inferiority to any other person anywhere for it must take such strength, such courage, such temerity and bravery to do such a thing that it will move leaders, doctors, the homeless and downtrodden, even, to tears. And soon, as Gandhi would say: "and then you win."

And sexism in the country began a descent at the same time. As an outgrowth. Because such profound work couldn't be contained to any one group of people. And even now, it is that legacy now 50 years old which carries movements for my generation. It has petered out a bit, it needs to be rejuvenated with more of the same, but it is still here a little.

But I do not think that The Fund is on the moral high road. Not most of the time.

There is good that The Fund does: I think they bring in new activists, if they are successful in canvassing. They spread awareness and they do make money. But they also alienate people like me. Because I am a passionate activist, I am just not very good at canvassing and now, because they were unclear--and I am beginning to think they were purposefully unclear just to get us in the office at whatever cost--I and my girlfriend have no job.

Well, I have one now. As a databaser. I do about 10, maybe 13 hours of work a week at minimum wage pouring over the pages of poorely penned numbers from the day before which were made by the canvassers. They spend 5 hours a day filling in these sheets and leave out so much information that I think they should all be databasers before they are canvassers or at least trained in what those little blanks they are filling out really mean -- because most of them have no idea.

I get to listen to them every day give the same spiel to prospective job candidates and they are just as vague with them as they were with me. They say that you will have the opportunity to have an "observation day" as if it is a day to get used to canvassing, get some help and get used to it because the idea of going door to door is understandably frightening for anyone who is not a sociopath. But it isn't so much an "opportunity" as your trial day. If you can raise $50 in an hour and a half, you get to be in training and if you don't raise $110 in one day on one of the next three days, you are let go kindly.

If you are me, they call you back to do database work. But you are no longer respected. I have recieved such a frigteningly small amount of training. Instead of showing me about the office, showing me where yesterdays forms are and giving me the tools I would need to access their computers and their online database and an email which I can send mail to the system with (I tried to contact the company and they refused gmail service. I assume that you have to have an associated email to contact the system administers). In short treating me like a trusted employee. Instead, I am yelled at for going in the office. Because it is private.

Hiding something?

It's annoying for me to work this way and I cannot imagine it is any less annoying for my supervisors. I have to have them set me up every day rather than go about their business and allow me to set up myself and just get to work.

Nope. That would be too foresightful. And The Fund, whatever else they are, are not foresightful. And that is why I am beginning to really not like them. I am treated better as a dishwasher at the Nursing Home in Gunnison. I went around to other groups in the building and had better treatment as a stranger.

And so I am afraid of what will happen to the groups they work with. Environment and CoPIRG. These are important groups which are actually doing the good work. I would rather be there. Fundraising is important, but I am not particularly brilliant at it, I can admit that. I know that.

But is The Fund good at it? Really? And could they admit it.

I want to do a study: I want access to their records. I want to see when people pledge. Make a graph to show their giving and see who got them to pledge, when they ceased being a member, who talked to them last before they ceased being a member. My hypothesis is that the senior canvassers aren't the last person they talk to, but the second to last. That they ruin people's experience, make them annoyed, and they do not donate next year.

Maybe I am wrong, but I still believe that it is important to take the moral high road. Every time. Short term, you may lose, but long term you will have more effect. And more importantly, better effect.

They are already losing me. I would rather work with a different group doing Good Work.

Walt Disney was a Dancer

Music and visuals are as important as each other.

Plus it is a great double alliteration. Doesn't that just sound great?

Walt Disney was a Dancer!

Protect Our Land; Say NO to Tar Sands!

Tar sands is awful. Head-twitching, wide-eyed, seizure-inducing awful. Please sign against it.

I just sent a message calling on the State Department to protect our land from tar sands oil, the dirtiest fuel in the world. You should join me! Check it out:

To take action on this issue, click on the link below:
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?s_oo=bDnrA5-BHZ6EmkewZnP_dw..&id=6265
If the text above does not appear as a link or it wraps across multiple lines, then copy and paste it into the address area of your browser.

If you no longer wish to receive email messages sent from your friends on behalf of this organization, please follow the link below:
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/TellFriendOpt?action=optout&toe=bff760785038dbe279505de4090471731ccd4c50a5c00593

Canada Tar Sands

Holy Fucking God the tar sands suck.

It puts baby seal clubbing to shame.

What sort of amoral blinded-by-profit worshiper-of-oil follower-of-the-"free-Market" retard could ever believe that this is a good idea?

Oh, but it gives us a few more years of oil, so it's all worth it. If we don't have oil, then we'll live as cave men! Oh! I just couldn't do that.

Humans deserve extinction.

Let us hope it is soon and quick.

The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003 movies)

As a long-time fan of Tolkien's masterwork, it was difficult for me to let go and enjoy The Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson. But they were very well done. They are not completely to my liking, of course, but it would be impossible to please every fan of this (or any) work in translation. Always something is lost, but always something is gained. It becomes something else, a little, no matter how faithful it attempts to stay to the source material.

'Tis best not to try being completely true. Some things just cannot translate. Which is why I am glad that Jackson (and no other filmmake who has adapted The Lord of the Rings) has ever tried to do Tom Bombadil. It would have been grotesque. There are so many people who are disappointed by this decision, but I feel that if you want to hear about Tom, then you should read it from Tolkien. I would rather see a good movie production than a generic reproduction.

But these movies are very artistic. Their attempt at the Shire is most remarkable, their Gandalf is good (though they never call him Mithrandir... Ok, once.), the dwarves and elfs are decent (I still say the elfs should have been computer generated. Elfs would look odd if you ever saw anyone so blemishless) If you are not familiar with the books, you can easily follow the plot (I think) but you do miss out on details (such as their cloaks from Lothlorien; and when they are used, you would be very confused), which is fine. If you want to know everything about Middle-Earth, read the Silmarillion (and then read Snorri Sturluson, the Icelandic Homer). Tolkien's work is five times as deep as it is long.

Poor Gimli takes a lot of brunt as a joke. But he seems to take it well. Every good story needs a good relief and Gimli does a fine job.

I must admit these movies to be a "Success" even if I am not too much a fan of the dominance the battle scenes exert over the trilogy. And re-watching them I was again reminded of the antiquated way in which Tolkien considered blood-line. Very British. Royalty deserves their royalty because of some Manifest Destiny. It is somewhat 'offset' (a bad solution) by the more valuable and wise philosophy and thought in the story. This movie can move emotions of any kind. The music is stellar.

The End of the Matter by Alan Dean Foster (1997)

The End of the Matter is an alright book. It succeeds in being "Entertaining", but only just. It did derail me from my reading of Light in August. It has one of those "Let's just wrap this up already" endings; things are contrived and explained with dialogic narration rather than actual story telling.

There are some fun characters and I can sometimes see the person who wrote Star Wars in here.

Mostly, my problems with the production have to do with inconsistencies which can only be discussed with horrible scary Spoilers!


Analysis (Haven't done this in a while)


While the story can be said to be entertaining, it is so filled with character holes that it will boggle your mind more than wondering how anyone can "watch" a quasar form when they are traveling past the speed of light.

Answer: you can't.

Flinx is randomly interrupting any other thoughts that might have gone said to worry about the danger he puts people in 'people seem to die around me.'

Really. Well, perhaps that is because you have the galaxy's most feared family of assassins after you. Should you tell anyone?

'Nah. They already don't trust me enough. No need to put them on edge, right?'

Eh, you might be right. Jus' let 'em die without warning instead.

To be fair, the Qwarm (the assassins) aren't all that good at their job. They fail to kill the teenager even when they have a direct shot (somehow killing who he is talking to instead). They are really just the most feared incompetent best assassins in the universe.

The geniuses in this book are hardly geniuses either. It takes them months to figure out some rather simple things that are floating around their faces for most of the book. Even though there are more than one of them. I suppose they did find the remains of an ancient civilization that is legendary throughout the galaxy

If you can forgive this story it's moments of lunacy, it can be an entertaining story. If you want cohesion, it will annoy you to no end.

I'm in the middle. I'll complain about this book, but I did read it all the way through. And even if the end slows the story down a bit, it isn't half so slow as Light in August.

The Influence you Wield

How much influence do you have?

On the world!

Well, I suppose that it is important to establish what that means in the first place since everyone seems to have a different idea of what 'the world' really is. Mine is probably very different from the normal.

What I would assume would be 'normal' is to define "the world" something along the lines of 'what people do. the memes and temes and jemes that we have created which do more to govern us than we do to govern them. Government and Business, as the dominant power-structures from the north'

I usually think of the world as also including the entire biosphere, the atmosphere, the lithosphere, et cetera. In this case, you, alone, don't do hardly anything to influence the whole being. The atmosphere a little, the lithosphere a little less, the biosphere a little more, and the homosphere ('peoplesphere')...

Well, that's your choice (somewhat - never take anything as an absolute!)

I vote everyday. Today I listened to people bitch about our representative democracy system. And while I kinda think that it's less and less productive (especially in this computer age - we can calculate to such a degree that we could all vote on every issue and all have an equal voice) but we don't just have a say in whose elected. In fact, I don't think that's the best way to affect our democracy. Since we only have two parties, they can both get away with pretty much whatever they want. How are to to "hold them accountable" (as some of them will even ask us to do - facetiously, really) when there's only one other option that people consider?

"Oh God! Obama screwed up on that whole Guantanamo Bay thing! I don't think I can vote for him next term!

"Oh wait... The Republicans are putting up Bobby Jindall and Joe Mengele... Well, I can't vote for them. Obama it is!" (If your a republican, just switch the names up a bit, the premise is the same.)

I vote every single day: I join a new movement almost every day, I sign about an hour or two worth of petitions a day, I write these blog-posts that no one reads every day, donate what little sums of money I have, and consciously vote with my dollar every time I buy something. Ironically, though they are Fundamentally Incompatible (I'll have more on that someday, but a little right here) capitalism can be a good opportunity for democracy.

Equality is as much of a myth in our society as social mobility, and while a lot of it (a whole lot of it) has to do with how much money you happen to have, it also has a little to do with how much hope you have. Everyone in America votes every time they buy anything from douches to turd sandwiches; some of them realize it, some of them don't. So rich wins. But many people, rich and poor, vote only in presidential elections where you have about 1/90 million say in what is going on. Which is less than your chance of winning everything in Powerball.

It is funny when people say that they only vote in the presidential elections like that excuses them from other elections. The presidential election is the least important. When I vote in my local elections (little Gunnison) I sometimes have as much as 1/500 say in what is happening. I would play Powerball with those odds.

When you lobby, really when you say anything to anybody, you are expressing your power just a little bit more. It is just a little bit, a drop. But if you have ever tried to catch the drip out of a leaking faucet, you can see how quickly those drips'll add up if you keep 'em coming.

I try to vote with every faculty I have: educated purchases, talking to people, lobbying, signing petitions, and writing these pieces (that nobody reads). They all do some damage.

Oh, and actually voting. That does a little too, I guess.

Prolificity

My most prolific month of posting onto this 'blog' my random thoughts correlates to my least prolific on reviews.

I haven't been doing any of those lately... Not really for the last three months. But already, this early into April, I have two more posts than I have ever done before.

A lot of them are somewhat stupid. So they don't really count to my prolific publication of worthy thoughts (will I ever get readers if all I say is pointless, inane, self-reflecting jibber?) but the correlation stands:

I seem to have a certain capacity for writing stuff and I rarely go over it. My capacity is about a page or so a day of unfinished work. That's about 1/15 of what I would need to make writing a regular line of work, no matter what field of writing I was considering.

Sometimes, I think it would have been better to have just let the government shut down.

Right now, there is a rather startling number of people in this country that don't like/don't trust/downright hate our government while somehow loving the country at the same time. It's amusing to say the least.

Perhaps I am an optimist, but I think that if the government shut down we would realize fairly quickly how much we wanted it back. Of course I fear that the wealthy will weather a government shutdown best right now, and that sucks, they might fully take over the country when it comes back, that's a possibility. But it is also a possibility that we, the people, the normal citizens would take it back from the overwhelming control which the aristocrats have over us now.

Maybe not, but if nothing drastic happens, I think we'll just continue down this steady decline until bloody revolution.

And it will be very, very bloody and very, very destructive if The People (Proletariat?) have to try to take some power out of the greedy Aristocracy. Perhaps that part is unavoidable, but I tend to think that the sooner it happens, the less awful it will be because the sooner it happens, the less money-power the Aristocracy will be in control of. During a revolution, what will happen is that people will realize that money isn't really power, it is only as powerful as we let it be. But our mental bookkeeping of this power wont fade overnight, there will always be people who can't let that go, and they will be easy pawns for the Aristocracy to defend with. Even the French nobles had a few loyals who probably extended their life-spans by, oh, two or three days.

The sooner revolution happens, the less money they have to fight with.

Also, if it happens quietly, instead of explosively, it may be less drastic...

Or will it simply be less of everything?

The Next Computer for Graphic Professionals

In 2015 or so the computer of choice for graphic professionals, I predict, will be the iPad Pro. Or something like it. It'll have stats like Wacom Cintiq: 2048 levels of sensitivity, 60 degree pen tilting, hyper-accurate, display under your pen, all of that. But under that will be your computer. All in one. And it'll be between $1500 and $3500 by that time and people who are really into graphic design (especially the people who pull in over 100 Gs at it) will buy the thing. They may even offer it in two sizes: approriate and excessive.

Sustainability Statement

In our culture, it is impossible to live sustainably. Which makes everything sound hopeless. But that is just right now; it is not impossible to make our society sustainable, in the future, if we keep the fight up. The more individuals and organizations who are interested in living sustainably, the easier and more possible it will be in the future.

My current sustainability goals, to make my life as good as it can be right now, are rather demanding. I don't buy anything new (yes, that includes even underwear) if I can help it. The major exceptions are when I have to get something for somebody else. The more that I can recycle, the less goes to the landfill, the more complete the cycle of matter is.

I try to throw away as little as possible. I am less successful with this than I am with the above goal. I don't even compost very well right now and one would think that would be easy.I recycle what the Gunnison Recycling center takes, but don't have an impressive collection to take out of the valley when I have the opportunity.

I turn off everything I can, even unplugging them to limit "phantom load". The less power I use, the less CO2 is burned for my own energy.

I never drive. Only rarely carpool. I use buses for long distance travel more than anything else. I rather abhor cars and don't think I will ever have one. No, I will never have one.

I try to buy what I can from good businesses and boycott the ones that are less sustainable and ethical themselves. I try to buy what I can locally and eat as few animal products as I can. Though I am quite the failure at cheese, I am still trying to reduce it.

I always want my mind to be open to new ideas in the future. What can I do to make my own footprint smaller and smaller and smaller. More than that, what can I do to make other's footprints smaller? This is a very tricky question, but one which is important to engage in: no matter how good I am, I am only 17*109 of the world's human population. A very small portion. Whatever outreach things I can think of, I try to do. Currently, I am trying to implement a Bicycle Library in Gunnison and implement recycling in the Nursing Home kitchen where I work. And will be beginning a Sustainability Plan for the Firebrand and then the Nursing Home in the future.

I do what I can to support forward thinking organizations. I sign about 2 hours worth of petitions a week and donate what I can.

If I could go back in time, I would have never taken loans from financial institutions who are arguably the spawn of satan (I really hate you, Nelnet.). They have made them selves more money (out of thin air) and are causing me untold amounts of stress, when usually I suffer almost none.

Chromeos and the Cr-48 (Google's online operating system)

I got a little laptop from Google the other day. I had to buy it off of Craigslist, but I was intrigued.

I am not quite the tech-head that most people with these things are. But I already sort of like it. I like the lack of logos, I like the name, and I like the style. But physically, Cr-48s are built like Fisher-Price toys. That is the primary detraction. It's a Macintosh from Mattel. In the software, I would have also liked access to just one folder for a file system. Just a little local storage. But what can you do. I expect that will be included by the time the OS actually launches.

Overall, I think that it's a little underwhelming. Partially because I wanted to use the battery-efficient computer to watch Netflix and didn't realize that Linux has no compatibly with Silverlight. There were also some compatibility issues with Google Docs... which is rather strange. Both of these I expect to be fully resolved by launch as well. The computer is very open, so I loaded Ubuntu on the thing with instructions I got from here (rather than Google's instructions... I'm not that good at Linux and I didn't have a way to print it or anything for reference. I am not sure how either way works, or if there are problems with one over another but I read from someone on a forum who also used the easy way that his Ubuntu disappeared after he used Chromeos again... So I am hesitant to move back for a little while...)

Ubuntu's running pretty well. I've not had the chance to use Linux on a competent computer and am pretty happy. I run Chrome for the internet, so I'm pretty close to still being a Chromeos user. However, Ubuntu is not set up to use the nifty touchpad that comes with the Cr-48's. Caps-lock doesn't work, most of my f keys don't work, it's not set up for it. Someday, I'll figure those little things out.

In Chromeos, everything works pretty well. Pressing Alt+Ctrl+/ will bring up a shortcut key layout which will help anyone figure out how to use the operating system. Early users complained of how the touchpad functioned, but I didn't have any problems. Instead, I have a lot of those problems in Ubuntu.

Chromeos is "Nifty". If you can handle livin' in th' clouds, it's great and I kinda think it and it's ilk will work well on netbooks. But I also expect the line between netbooks, tablets, laptops, and desktops to be further blurred. Most "netbooks" of the future will probably be "tablets", which means that Android is the Google OS of choice in the future and it is already out.

Rango (2011 movie)

The movie Rango is quite good, despite the fact that it is entirely peopled (with the exceptions of Rango himself) of very standard, cliche, but quintessential characters: the Wild West gunslinger, the fat banker, the old mayor, the Native American Tracker and the South-west shaman, Mexican mariachis, the damsel in distress. Hillbillies (with a blind pa). Clint Eastwood, for a second there. This all may be an intentional metaphor. The main character is an actor, and therefore endowed with the miraculous ability to do anything. He is also a director. Filling the story with obvious celebrity worship only heightened by plastering Johnny Depp's name across the top of every poster.

But in this movie, the Depp worship it is somewhat appropriate. In the beginning, I thought of this movie as something of a filmography for Johnny Depp. It seems to reference a few of his characters from the past. It moves out of that, quickly. It becomes a little more about story and it does story better than most films.

First of all, the movie succeeds in character development. Instead of instantly changing character 60-70% of the way thorough, everyone slowly evolves. Details are important. Attention to detail is handled very well.

Visually as well. The style is unique. The animals aren't caustically cute, they are rugged, ripped and gritty. They are all pretty hideous and the effect is a very pretty movie. The cinematographers prove them selves to be pretty well traveled, including little details such as blooming flowers and sand-slides on dunes. Either that or they come from the desert.

It is a movie that is worth it. It may not be the best computer animated film of all time or anything, but it stands out.

Activism

I just spent an hour answering all the calls for petition signs and calls to congress that come to me in my email.

That's a lot of petitions. It tells me that there are definitely some problems in our world today.

Yesterday, I was talking to someone about that; it seems to come up in my conversations a lot. His response was, "Whatever. As long as I am electricity and access to all the porn I could want, I'm happy."

What a sad state. What's more depressing is how many people have this very same attitude. At my job-site, I recently implemented recycling. It is relatively short-sighted endeavor, there is no official support or institutionalization. Once I am gone there will no longer be recycling there. But at least it is helping right now. Perhaps there will be a measure of buy-in by the time I leave and it will continue.

But probably not. Instead, my coworkers spend their time drawing cartoons of me: See Special Ed, he says: "you can recycle that!". A nice little stick figure to accompany it. As Mahatma Gandhi said, though, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." So I'm in step two. I thought I'd promote their fun (they are telling the truth after all) and add a few more thought bubbles from the stick-figure face, "You can turn that off" "That is wasteful" "This is a problem" "We should fix this!"

Now it is even more true.

I was once told by a professor of mine that life is made worth living if there is something bigger than yourself that you care about and work for. I already agreed, "Life is not worth living unless there is something you would die for", and I find it sad how many people don't have this. They just lead these sort of empty-shell existences. Their favorite experiences are things that they can't even remember. "Dude! It was the best time of my life. Three weeks there I remember less than three hours!"

Wow. Seems to me that's a sign of a life being wasted. If you would rather be dead. That is a sign of a decadent society.

Signs that you are in a Healthy and Vibrant Culture

To combat the overwhelming pessimism of Signs of a Decaying or Decayed Culture, I have decided to post this list of good signs for your culture. In honesty, it is a reaction to the former list, which is another sign, I think. I wish this to be as culturally universal as possible, but since that is impossible, it is not. Some items are not universal, though many I believe are. The list is in no particular order.

1. Most everyone knows the name of most of their neighbors
2. People are excited to do, and like to do, what they have to do.
3. People sing.
4. People laugh easily.
5. Citizens have some autonomous control over their own lives
6. Freedom isn't important, it is implied. But no one really uses it.
7. 
   

Keep ideas coming for this list!

Signs of a Decaying or Decayed Culture

Despite the overwhelming pessimism of such a thing, I have decided to post this list of signs that the society you are living in is rotten, dying, or simply unhealthy. I wish it to be as culturally universal as possible, but since that is impossible, it is not. Some items are not universal, though many I believe are. A companion to this list is Signs that you are in a Healthy and Vibrant Culture. The list is in no particular order. 

1. People are always looking forward to something else "I can't wait until tomorrow..."
2. People are often looking forward to bedtime because they would rather be asleep.
3. People exult the times they cannot even remember as "fun" and even "the best of times"
4. Citizens are afraid of and hate their own peacekeepers. (Damn Police?)
5. Citizens detest their own government (You should always ask what your country can do for you: that is why it is there.)
6. Most everyone finds it easer to point on problems than anything good. (Or: people tend to be pessimistic)

I'll try to keep this going as a running list. I am open to suggestions, too.

I just toured a landfill

I'm a little depressed.

Landfills can be interesting places. To see where all the crap goes from whatever city you liver in. It is always remarkable. The amount of trash we can generate is amazing and disgusting. The callousness with which people throw stuff away is even more so. Obviously, more people need to visit their local trash hole.

Besides that I am completely against even having landfills (especially out of sight and out of mind; if we actually lived with this, you can bet that we would treat it better.) we don't run them very well. One thing I learned while I was there is that trash cannot be sold for some cheap price.

It seems in our best interest to allow it to be. If trash could be repossessed no only would it not be thrown away and thus end its cycle, but it would benefit someone who would otherwise have to buy new, something we should all avoid.

I propose several changes to the system before phasing it out entirely:

1: put them in our backyard instead of out of sight and out of mind. We don't want to live in trash, then we don't generate trash.

2: put in every opportunity to re-purpose anything that does make it to the landfill. The scale of this can grow and grow and grow until "landfills" are actually recycling centers.

3: part of the ability to run such a more complicated landfill can be re-purposing criminals. I am a fan of convict labour. If no one else will do it, make them do it for free. Instead of rotting in jail they can make something out of their life.

4: Sell anything that is still viably useful. It will generate income, value, and cut down on the need for landfills in the first place.

5: outlaw the plastic bag from grocers. They are the fucking plague. They go everywhere. At our landfill in Gunnison, they one guy who works there all the time spends 15-20 hours a week just picking up plastic bags. This burden, now that it has been collected, should be put back on the grocers who make them. Use re-useable bags or none at all. "Containerism" is the future.

6: do not kill the crows that fly around the trash. If we don't want them to become "contaminated" then lets stop generating such a massive-scale trash heap. It is our fault, we should reap the pain.

There's probably a lot more we could do, but this is the end of this little vent.