|
momak
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Monty
Gender: Male
Interests: quee, sports(bball, hockey, soccer, baseball, pingpong), pets(mainly aquatic, or domestic pets. ie. dogs), music, movies, reading(though I dont do enough), chillin, politics, social issues, social responsibility.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Research
Message: message me
MSN: hockeyrage@hotmail.com
ICQ:  40032122
Member Since:
5/18/2004
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
|
so yeaaa this is a little ridiculous, but once again I cant seem to sleep. My mind is filled with totally unfocused thoughts that are leading off onto a tangent of unquality, injustice and unfairness in society. And this is clearly not the type of logical deduction that I would be endeared to, having a crucial midterm the day afterwards. However thoughts like these keep me up, the frustration of the challenges some people have to face out there simply because of who they were born to be. I mean is this world honestly that superficial and materialistic that it has become one where labelling people is that necessary?? Perceived discrimination vs. discrimination. It's essentially the same thing with regard to who the victim is. Discrimination builds perceived discrimination. And yet in this world where everything is supposed to be "liberalized", in a direction of "equality" and "fairness" we have so much short-sighted superficial judgemental views, generalizations. The freedom to abuse these freedoms, is that really what "freedom" is? Why do people always say "I believe in the freedom of speech" when their speech violates the freedom of others?, which by the way I reckon this form of "freedom of speech" is not authorized by the constitution in the first place. Why do some of us do this simply to have others "fall in line" of inferiority for? Opinions affect people, generalizations affect people, especially those that have to live through it. This world simply frustrates me at times, especially the views of people at times. Clearly our world's not perfect, but can't one somehow envision that things could be better than it actually is? Instead, we keep perpetuiting the stereotypes (both negative and positive) that exist, building upon the superficiality of our views, and developing into social issues where people have to experience perceived injustice simply for being who they are. An individual's preference can sometimes be another individual's suffering. In a large and continuous scale, this results in stereotyping. Maybe this is an exaggeration of the blindness of a portion of society. I am aware these views are partially socialistic in nature, and before we criticize such views, is that not simply labelling of opinions, building upon the sterotype that such ideology is negative? Honestly my views are likely blown out of proportion in a reasonable manner, but when the thoughts are built in the mind, when it's late at night, when there is no sleep, there is no energy to study, when there is a very crucial test the following day, it all needs to be said. I really did not need this.
3:30 - and I'm still awake. This is so frustrating, I seriously hate being thrown off my groove the night before my test. I swear I need better mental preparation than that. I cant even think toxicology right now. Nobody take my mind off of school for the next week.
| | |
| So I'm doing some basic research on the issue of global warming, and I am appalled at some of the perspectives out there. Basic background: Kyoto Protocol, to commit to emission cuts of greenhouse gases back to around the levels in 1990 (less than that actually). It sounds very idealistic and perfect in nature. But get this, US backed out because of economic concerns and pressure from corporations. The same was said for Canada. Now this is a little irritable since you'd think a free country that has supposedly led the world in tackling social issues is turning its back to the proposal, saying that....It costs too much! Their other argument. It'll take the competing edge out of Canada from the international markets. North America, being one of the most industrialized regions holds its stubbornness of seeking a strong commitment to an agreement that benefits the environment, the world, the health of people in general. All because they're afraid of spending the necessary bucks, and losing control of their markets. It's all economics. And to an economist, it makes perfect sense why to oppose this. On the contrary, it has been shown that businesses can actually benefit if they reduce their emissions, or energy usage, in the long run. It can also spur many new jobs in clean and friendly industries that develop, contradicting the point that jobs would be lost. But when it comes down to it, the refusal to help the environment is an economic concern. People dont want to lose money. That's the frustrating thing I see, essentially it's a somewhat selfish ploy by some industries (some industries have complied, so they deserve some credit as well) to keep their hands in the dough, despite the collapsing environment. Simple question, 50 to 100 years down the road. How many billions will governments be willing to spend on trying to save the environment, and the general health sector? As much as it will take, likely. How many can be spent? None, the damage has already been done. How can economics take precedent over environment and the general health of the entire population??? That's just blind. Yes, my beef with the Conservatives' stance on the environment shows. I'm a treehugger.
Oh, and I just saw a commercial for FFXII. It's out =D
| | |
| I cant sleep....I cant understand why.
| | |
| Man it's sometimes a frustration to actually feel like wanting to share about something significant about something going on around the world just to kinda be told what my opinions should be even before I was able to actually share my opinions and how I feel about it. I hate wanting to actually talk about something, and having the conversation just taken away. It's like having words thrown right into my mouth that arent mine, without even hearing my words. Sometimes it'd just be nice to be heard, without having to storm over the flurries of contrasting opinions, and comments. It just reminds me past experiences of listening but not really being heard.
| | |
| Planet wearing out faster than ever: study
CTV.ca
The lifestyle of developed nations is going to wear out our planet, according to the conservation group World Wildlife Fund.
WWF released its 2006 Living Planet Report Monday in Beijing. The
report notes that humans have been living beyond our means for 20
years, consuming more resources than the planet can sustainably
produce.
"The bottom line of this report could not be clearer," said Carter
Roberts, president of World Wildlife Fund, "for 20 years we've lived
our lives in a way that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth"
The group says if we don't curb our consumption, we will need two
planets' worth of natural resources by 2050. This is partially because
of a population explosion, from three billion people in 1960 to about
6.5 billion people today.
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," reads the report.
Projections indicate 9.5 billion people will call the earth home in 2050.
While humans prosper, other species falter. Populations of many
animals, including fish, birds and mammals fell by about a third
between 1970 and 2003, predominantly because of human impact such
as pollution, logging and over fishing.
"The fact that we live beyond our means in our use of natural
resources will surely limit opportunities for future generations that
follow," said Roberts.
At the launch of the report in Beijing, WWF Director-General James
Leape pointed out that the developed countries are leading the way
toward depletion.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would
need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
According to the report, people in the United Arab Emirates put the
most strain per capita on the planet, followed by Americans, Fins, and
Canadians.
In order to ensure the planet continues to support us, the report
recommends cutting the use of fossil fuels and changing farming and
fishing practices.
Specifically, the report highlights proper land management.
Avoidance of toxic chemicals, responsible irrigation and use of farming
practices like terracing will protect land from problems like soil
erosion and pollution.
If we don't adopt these types of measures, warns the report, we risk losing our lifestyle altogether.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the
abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain
their prosperity," he added.
WWF has measured what it calls the "Ecological Footprint," or the
demand people place on nature. The current demand is 25 per cent
greater than the planet's ability to produce resources and recover from
human waste.
In 2001, the disparity was 21 per cent.
According to the report, "people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources." | | |
|
