What are Blood Diamonds?
Conflict diamonds, sometimes called
blood diamonds, are stones sold by rebel and terrorist groups to fund
armed conflicts and rebellions against legitimate governments. During
the last 15 years, the illicit trade of blood diamonds has been most
prevalent in central and West African nations, and affected mainly
Sierra Leone, Angola, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the
Ivory Coast. In all of these countries, citizens have been terrorized,
and many times killed, by groups in control of the local diamond trade.
Human rights organizations link no less than four million deaths to the
trade in conflict diamonds.
International Cooperation: the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
The
international diamond industry is eager to assure consumers they can
buy a diamond knowing its history is untainted by bloodshed.
In
2000, the South African countries known to have legitimate diamond trade
began a campaign to track the origins of all rough stones. This
campaign eventually resulted in the Kimberley Process Certification
Scheme (KPCS), an international effort to eliminate the trade of
conflict diamonds. This agreement involves dozens of governmental and
non-governmental agencies, representing all the major countries who have
agreed to prevent the trade of diamonds that are being used to fund
violent actions in Africa.
These days, most reputable jewelers
provide Kimberley Process certificates to prove the stones they sell are
conflict-free. However, many countries haven't committed to the program
and additional measures must be taken in order to eliminate completely,
or at least minimize, the trade of these diamonds.
How to Avoid Buying Blood Diamonds
There
is no quality difference between legitimate and conflict diamonds. They
cannot be differentiated once the stones are cut and polished. So the
question remains - how can you avoid purchasing conflict diamonds and
inadvertently supporting the continuation of brutal oppression?
First
of all, always purchase diamonds from a reputable jeweler. Be sure to
ask where the diamonds came from and ask to see the diamond's
certificate that details specific information about the stone. Be
suspicious about unusually low prices, and try to avoid purchasing
diamonds from countries that neighbor known diamond smuggling states.
Demanding to know that the diamonds are conflict-free sends a strong
consumer message that you will not support an industry that is funding
violence against the population and against legitimate governments.
Legitimate Diamonds - Political and Ethical Benefits
There
are strong moral and political reasons to avoid buying blood diamonds.
Diamond communities in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of
Congo, for instance, are not currently benefiting from the sale of
diamonds. Helping those governments build a respectable diamond trade
will contribute to their countries' economic growth and to the quality
of life of their citizens. Conflict diamonds damage this process and
lead to violence and suppression of basic human rights and freedoms.
Jumat, 27 Januari 2012
Selasa, 24 Januari 2012
Competition Is for Losers
The title of this article will appear as anathema for the
millions of us who have been accustomed to hearing the aggressive
management-speak of the last twenty or so years this is so often fond of
paraphrasing the principals of Darwinian evolution into distorted
cliche's like 'only the strongest survive'. We have been so bludgeoned
by endless repetition of this dogma that few of us are capable of
questioning it, but the time to question it is now. Evolutionary
Biology, like its subject matter, has not stood still this last few
decades, and theoreticians of all hues are developing a deeper
understanding of what it means to compete, and when it's an optimal
strategy, and when it's not - when co-operation can trump it.
This is a complex area so we'll do well to clean up one or two of the most common mistaken beliefs about evolution before we can build on a more solid foundation. Evolution doesn't give a damn about successfully competing individuals. Think about a disease that overwhelms its host and kills it, then the virus that caused the disease dies too, having no host left to live on. The virus population sure was successful in overwhelming the host's immune system, so how come its reward for doing so well is its own extinction? Obviously the answer lies in understanding what really wins, and the answer is the virus as a species, or put more broadly, the virus as a group. During the period it was active in an infected host, that host will have been spreading the disease, the virus jumps hosts, maybe even jumps species, as it's spread continues to grow. What does it matter to evolution if every successful instance of it dies off? Not at all, given that the total virus population is growing ever bigger. Evolution doesn't care about the individual. If only those overly ambitious executives had understood that, they would perhaps have indulged in their self serving 'survival of the fittest' mantra a little less often and spent more time worrying about how extra-vulnerable their failure to grasp the subtleties of what it means to be 'fittest' actually made them.
So where does this leave us, as both individuals and as a society? The answer is both shocking and yet, once it has been introduced and adequately explained, shockingly obvious. New developments in Evolutionary Biology have brought such specialists to the attention of Economists, who are keen to explore the relationship between economic growth and evolutionary theory, and the extent to which biological models can predict the success of failure of various economic strategies. The findings have implications that extend far beyond the sphere of economics and into everyday life. Our society can be most usefully understood not as billions of individuals, but as millions of groups of varying sizes. We are each of us a member of at least one group: we are part of our employers business, we are part of our running club, we are part of our township, and so on. In most cases, each of these groups is competing with similar groups for scarce resources. So which of these groups is most likely to succeed? To learn the answer we need to consider how the groups are variously constituted. Some will be made up of competing individuals. Others will be made up of co-operating individuals. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that the groups made up of co-operating individuals always out-perform groups that are made up of competing individuals, because the co-operating individuals function more efficiently as a group - and here we are once more, witnessing the group, not the individual, as the only unit of currency that counts in terms of evolution.
There is a kind of 'trickle down effect' that is taking this awareness from the giddy heights of high finance, where the realisation that the dog-eat-dog model of traditional capitalism might not necessarily be the healthiest schema for a robust economy to hinge on, into smaller groups, like the neighbourhood and the family unit. Sharing is becoming the strategy of choice in enjoying limited resources, and while the acquisitive, possessive imperative that we used to take for granted is starting to come into question, people are finding the idea of pooling anything from land to skill sets to possessions to be a new and exciting way of getting things done. They are half right. As a model of social and economic exchange it used to be known as barter, but while a superficial analysis might assume we are turning full circle, the truth is that we, as a society, are simply responding to change in the most adaptive, most appropriate way possible. Sharing things makes sense in a world we are starting to see as really quite small and really so finite in its capacity to feed our demands, and this is perfect, because sharing requires co-operation and co-operation trumps competition, every time.
This is a complex area so we'll do well to clean up one or two of the most common mistaken beliefs about evolution before we can build on a more solid foundation. Evolution doesn't give a damn about successfully competing individuals. Think about a disease that overwhelms its host and kills it, then the virus that caused the disease dies too, having no host left to live on. The virus population sure was successful in overwhelming the host's immune system, so how come its reward for doing so well is its own extinction? Obviously the answer lies in understanding what really wins, and the answer is the virus as a species, or put more broadly, the virus as a group. During the period it was active in an infected host, that host will have been spreading the disease, the virus jumps hosts, maybe even jumps species, as it's spread continues to grow. What does it matter to evolution if every successful instance of it dies off? Not at all, given that the total virus population is growing ever bigger. Evolution doesn't care about the individual. If only those overly ambitious executives had understood that, they would perhaps have indulged in their self serving 'survival of the fittest' mantra a little less often and spent more time worrying about how extra-vulnerable their failure to grasp the subtleties of what it means to be 'fittest' actually made them.
So where does this leave us, as both individuals and as a society? The answer is both shocking and yet, once it has been introduced and adequately explained, shockingly obvious. New developments in Evolutionary Biology have brought such specialists to the attention of Economists, who are keen to explore the relationship between economic growth and evolutionary theory, and the extent to which biological models can predict the success of failure of various economic strategies. The findings have implications that extend far beyond the sphere of economics and into everyday life. Our society can be most usefully understood not as billions of individuals, but as millions of groups of varying sizes. We are each of us a member of at least one group: we are part of our employers business, we are part of our running club, we are part of our township, and so on. In most cases, each of these groups is competing with similar groups for scarce resources. So which of these groups is most likely to succeed? To learn the answer we need to consider how the groups are variously constituted. Some will be made up of competing individuals. Others will be made up of co-operating individuals. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that the groups made up of co-operating individuals always out-perform groups that are made up of competing individuals, because the co-operating individuals function more efficiently as a group - and here we are once more, witnessing the group, not the individual, as the only unit of currency that counts in terms of evolution.
There is a kind of 'trickle down effect' that is taking this awareness from the giddy heights of high finance, where the realisation that the dog-eat-dog model of traditional capitalism might not necessarily be the healthiest schema for a robust economy to hinge on, into smaller groups, like the neighbourhood and the family unit. Sharing is becoming the strategy of choice in enjoying limited resources, and while the acquisitive, possessive imperative that we used to take for granted is starting to come into question, people are finding the idea of pooling anything from land to skill sets to possessions to be a new and exciting way of getting things done. They are half right. As a model of social and economic exchange it used to be known as barter, but while a superficial analysis might assume we are turning full circle, the truth is that we, as a society, are simply responding to change in the most adaptive, most appropriate way possible. Sharing things makes sense in a world we are starting to see as really quite small and really so finite in its capacity to feed our demands, and this is perfect, because sharing requires co-operation and co-operation trumps competition, every time.
Rabu, 18 Januari 2012
Socialism and the American People - How Much More of This Can They Take?
When I say that progressives are not progressive, but rather they
are regressive, I say that because socialism has never worked in the
history of mankind in any nation it has ever been taken to. Oh sure, it
works okay in the short term if there is good growth rate, but Lord help
that nation if they have a demographic shift, or come onto hard
economic times where they can no longer deliver to the people what they
had promised, and there just isn't enough wealth amongst the wealthy to
squeeze out anymore.
Still, when I use that "S-word" to refer to the Democrats, neoliberal socialist party, I am often called onto the carpet because it's not politically correct to label what's been going on as socialism. However, it is socialism, and since socialism doesn't work, and since we have the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind, it seems rather stupid to be pushing further into that territory.
Some of the nonsense, and excuses of why we have to keep moving closer towards full on socialism in this country boggles my mind. Let me give you an example, because perhaps you don't agree with me, or perhaps you been overeducated by academia to think that this is how a society and civilization should be run for some reason. It's not. It is destroying productivity, making people fat, dumb, and lazy. Essentially it is domesticating humans.
Not long ago, I received one of those viral emails, a political one and it stated; "Isn't It Ironic? The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."
Is it ironic? No, it's pathetic in my humble opinion, what hypocrisy indeed. Obviously, if you keep giving free stuff to people and reward them for doing nothing, then they are going to get really good at getting free stuff, and not doing anything for it. We're making the weak weaker, the strong less than strong, and those in the middle think that they are fully justified to just sit there with their hands out because now everyone else is.
That's not what we stand for in this country, and so I ask; why are we are being so discriminatory against the 1%? That makes no sense. We pride ourselves in this nation for not being discriminatory, and instead we are going after the 1%. If we were going after 1% of our population that happened to be homosexual or 15% of our population which happened to be of a certain ethnic origin, all of a sudden everyone would scream bloody murder. As well they should, because that's unacceptable in our nation also.
Going after people because they are wealthy, because they earned a lot of money, or have had businesses which have provided everything you see everywhere we go in our civilization, well that's just un-American. It makes no sense whatsoever, there is absolutely no justification for it, and yet we are led to believe that this is somehow perfectly fair. It's not. As a matter fact it's disturbingly ignorant. And I thought Americans were smarter than that. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on.
Still, when I use that "S-word" to refer to the Democrats, neoliberal socialist party, I am often called onto the carpet because it's not politically correct to label what's been going on as socialism. However, it is socialism, and since socialism doesn't work, and since we have the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind, it seems rather stupid to be pushing further into that territory.
Some of the nonsense, and excuses of why we have to keep moving closer towards full on socialism in this country boggles my mind. Let me give you an example, because perhaps you don't agree with me, or perhaps you been overeducated by academia to think that this is how a society and civilization should be run for some reason. It's not. It is destroying productivity, making people fat, dumb, and lazy. Essentially it is domesticating humans.
Not long ago, I received one of those viral emails, a political one and it stated; "Isn't It Ironic? The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."
Is it ironic? No, it's pathetic in my humble opinion, what hypocrisy indeed. Obviously, if you keep giving free stuff to people and reward them for doing nothing, then they are going to get really good at getting free stuff, and not doing anything for it. We're making the weak weaker, the strong less than strong, and those in the middle think that they are fully justified to just sit there with their hands out because now everyone else is.
That's not what we stand for in this country, and so I ask; why are we are being so discriminatory against the 1%? That makes no sense. We pride ourselves in this nation for not being discriminatory, and instead we are going after the 1%. If we were going after 1% of our population that happened to be homosexual or 15% of our population which happened to be of a certain ethnic origin, all of a sudden everyone would scream bloody murder. As well they should, because that's unacceptable in our nation also.
Going after people because they are wealthy, because they earned a lot of money, or have had businesses which have provided everything you see everywhere we go in our civilization, well that's just un-American. It makes no sense whatsoever, there is absolutely no justification for it, and yet we are led to believe that this is somehow perfectly fair. It's not. As a matter fact it's disturbingly ignorant. And I thought Americans were smarter than that. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on.
Minggu, 15 Januari 2012
A Walk To The Supermarket: Observations On Human Nature
'm in a fortunate position where I can easily walk to the supermarket
and get my daily quota of groceries, as well as my daily quota of
exercise - killing two birds with one stone as it were. In terms of the
highlight of the day, it surely does rank as that - only the worst
highlight of the day.
THE WALK TO THE SUPERMARKET
I'm convinced that drivers are the scum of the earth. There's something about getting behind the wheel of a car that turns many a decent human being into a raving selfish lunatic. For example:
*I've had it happen, not frequently but too frequently for comfort, that while crossing a road, for lack of a crosswalk or traffic lights, an approaching car in the distance will all of a sudden speed up and slightly alter course to head or aim directly for me, as if I'm somehow trespassing on their personal turf. The driver, ten times out of ten, is male.
*Again not frequently, but too frequently for comfort, I've had a car-full of young male hoons passing by who find it a delightful pleasure to yell obscenities out the window at pedestrians. Brave lads one and all of course, passing by in a speeding vehicle, since of course the lone pedestrian, a total stranger is obviously a major threat to their wellbeing and has grievously insulted them by the mere fact of existing.
*Speaking of drivers, an awful lot of them must be on the road heading towards a really HOT date, given their excessive speed.
*And whether it's a speeding driver, or even a shopper in the supermarket, texting and talking on their mobile is infinitely more important than paying attention to their driving or their shopping. That's odd behavior since presumably, in either case, the reason they are driving or in the supermarket in the first place, is to drive or to shop.
*There's one pedestrian crosswalk between home and the supermarket, and I usually try to time things to make at least one driver stop or at least slow down for me as I cross, not that that little road rule means much sometimes as not all drivers care to slow down, far less stop, for a pedestrian who is on their turf, resulting in some close calls. One idiot driver chose not to slow down far less stop in full sight of a passing police vehicle - tisk, tisk. I bet that's one driver who won't be pulling that stunt again.
*And then there are those cyclists who use the sidewalks instead of the road, which normally isn't a problem, except when they race around a blind curve not expecting anything in their blind path, until, oops, they slam into you.
*While walking to my destination, I can always tell when I've left the wilderness and crossed over into civilization by the increasing amount of litter I spot along the roadside, not to mention the ever increasing amount of graffiti.
*And don't you just love your neighbors when residents don't bother to trim their front yard trees, hedges and bushes that grow and hang out and over a public sidewalk thus denying access and forcing all and sundry to go around. I see that every day on my walk.
*The neighborhood recycling bins are routinely collected same day every fortnight. Yet somehow some people can't quite figure this routine out. And so I spot them out on the sidewalk awaiting collection that's many a day away, and it's not because the residents have gone off on holidays and had to put their bin out early. And some people can not, or will not, come to terms with what is, and what is not, recyclable. Apparently soiled disposable nappies are a regular item that some people consider recyclable.
*Speaking of bins, various charitable organizations put out charity bins at local shopping centers for people, who want to donate used, but useable clothing, blankets, etc. Alas, these bins have been turned into rubbish dumps as people leave all sorts of broken, unusable junk rather than taking their large item rubbish to the tip - where they would have to pay a fee. Instead, the charity is legally obligated to clear up the rubbish dumped and take it to the tip where they have to pay the fee, meaning less money for them is available to assist the needy.
*If it's been a bit wet, you can tell where humans have treaded by the number of stomped on snails littering the sidewalks. It's probably a natural, if over-the-top reaction to that proposed Hollywood, and future Oscar-winning epic and sci-fi blockbuster, "The Revenge of the Snails".
*Amazingly, the one thing I can't fuss about is roaming dogs, apart from doggy-poop.
*When it comes to parking at the shopping center, where the supermarket is located, drivers rule, OK? I am a driver and I am entitled to park where I want to, when I want to, for as long as I want to and the absolute hell with anyone and everyone else. Is this a loading zone only? - Tough luck. Is this space reserved for the medical profession only? - Too damn bad. Is this parking space reserved for the handicapped? - Let them eat cake. Is this a "no parking" zone? Sorry, that can't possibly apply to me.
*There is a sidewalk that leads from the main road to the mall and supermarket, with parking spaces alongside. So, of course shoppers wheel their trolley full of goodies back to their parked cars adjacent to said sidewalk. Now, what do these drivers (which there must be since they are unloading their trolley's goodies into cars) do with the now empty trolleys? Do they return the trolley to a designated return point for empty trolleys? Not on your life. The empty trolleys are just left on the adjacent sidewalk which means those using the sidewalk, can't. People in wheelchairs; moms pushing prams; kids on bicycles; and of course ordinary pedestrians, have their access blocked, just because the driver can't be bothered to spend one extra minute taking the trolley back to the appropriate trolley return area. I make a point of putting said sidewalk-blocking trolleys into the parking spaces. Drivers can inconvenience other divers, but not pedestrians - that's my motto.
*But of course trolleys get scattered far and wide. They tend to be abandoned all over the place. I'd like to blame kids, but I've seen way too many adults wheel the loaded trolleys home, then abandon them - but not too close to their home.
*Speaking of that staple of western civilization, the shopping trolley, supermarkets have to employ lads to round them up when customers leave them scattered all over the place. Let's just say that the local lads employed to perform such duties usually are doing anything but, nearly forever goofing off. I won't say what ethnic background they're from least I offend the innocent, but I wish I'd had it that easy way back when.
IN THE SUPERMARKET
*It must be said at the outset that supermarkets are run by a for-profit organization and as such they use every sneaky marketing and psychological trick known to all in the retail trade to separate you from your money to the maximum extent possible. They may advertise themselves as your 'friendly grocer', but supermarkets are not your friend.
*I often find pre-school kids on the rampage in the supermarket; to them it's a lovely playground. The parents could care less about proper supervision. As we all know, the supermarket isn't a playground, though many a parent doesn't seem to be aware of that, or more to the point, they can't be bothered. They got enough on their plate trying to shop and talk or text at the same time.
*Of course it really makes for an enjoyable shopping experience when some pre-school brat is just screaming their head off at the top of their lungs - mom might be wearing ear plugs, but that doesn't help the rest of the innocents. And it's as certain as death and taxes that there will be always one such event per visit per supermarket. It's one of those highly unpleasant inevitable facts of life that only death can give one a release from. In fact, to be blatantly honest, I'm of the opinion that just because a couple enjoy a roll in the hay, doesn't mean that the rest of the world should have to endure and suffer the resulting product(s). Of course to the parents in question, that's a non-issue. It's 'my little darling right or wrong', and wrong is totally synonymous with right as in 'my little darling always is right'.
*When it comes to mom and the kids, well, mom has really figured out a racket - how to feed the kids lunch at no expense to her. I've seen it again and again, mom wheeling the kid(s) along in the shopping trolley, grabbing a candy bar here, and bread rolls there, some grapes, etc. All are nicked off the shelf, given to the brat, and by the time she and brood rolls up to the checkout counter, all the evidence of what's been nicked has been consumed, meaning there is no evidence and no product(s) to pay for. I'd like to say that's confined to young mothers, but I've seen mature-aged women treat the supermarket as a free smorgasbord. I'm never seen an adult male help themselves to 'free' off-the-shelf food consumed in-store, but that's not proof they don't. Still, it does appear to be a primarily feminine trait. Help yourself to the goodies on display and help out the family budget. Of course it's honest people like you and me that ultimately pay for this in higher grocery prices.
*Speaking of brats, you just know that a lot of the kids you spot hanging around the mall and supermarket should really be in school. By wagging it, I guess they are just following the example set by their parents. It's the kids' version of the time honored adult sickie.
*There is an express twelve items or less lane, for those who have, well, twelve items or less. The numerate level of shoppers is obviously challenged for there are many who feel that a trolley full - say 60+ items - is obviously close enough to twelve to qualify for them to use the express lane. If, as a shopper standing behind them you politely point out the discrepancy, well let's just say you'd better be prepared for a barroom brawl. The innumerate don't like to have their mathematical abilities questioned. You'd think the staff would enforce store policy, but they won't say anything and in fact they have been directed not to rock the boat and alienate a customer.
*Another irritation is that you often have two separate couples with trolleys who meet in an isle and have a right royal catch-up gossip session, totally blocking the isle to other customers yet totally oblivious to that fact; the fact that they are inconveniencing others.
AFTERWARDS
*However I too get my jollies. The parking lot is usually pretty full up, so when I leave and walk through the lot homeward bound, there often will be some driver slowly following behind me thinking I'm headed for my car and that they'll get my parking spot when I load up and pull out. Alas, when I reach the parking lot's perimeter I just keep on walking. Usually pisses them off no end, he-he.
CONCLUSIONS
Of course in some parts of the world the 'walk to the supermarket' could be far worse. One could be mugged at best; blown up by a suicide bomber at worst. That's something I've yet to experience.
So, given this is just humanity in microcosm, and one really has to extrapolate to humanity in terms of the big picture, please let the culling being - pretty please. It's really time for another dose of the 'Big Wet', say another forty days and nights of rain and thus another global flood! There of course would be survivors, but hopefully most of the dead-shits would be too preoccupied being their little nasty selves to notice until it was too late!
THE WALK TO THE SUPERMARKET
I'm convinced that drivers are the scum of the earth. There's something about getting behind the wheel of a car that turns many a decent human being into a raving selfish lunatic. For example:
*I've had it happen, not frequently but too frequently for comfort, that while crossing a road, for lack of a crosswalk or traffic lights, an approaching car in the distance will all of a sudden speed up and slightly alter course to head or aim directly for me, as if I'm somehow trespassing on their personal turf. The driver, ten times out of ten, is male.
*Again not frequently, but too frequently for comfort, I've had a car-full of young male hoons passing by who find it a delightful pleasure to yell obscenities out the window at pedestrians. Brave lads one and all of course, passing by in a speeding vehicle, since of course the lone pedestrian, a total stranger is obviously a major threat to their wellbeing and has grievously insulted them by the mere fact of existing.
*Speaking of drivers, an awful lot of them must be on the road heading towards a really HOT date, given their excessive speed.
*And whether it's a speeding driver, or even a shopper in the supermarket, texting and talking on their mobile is infinitely more important than paying attention to their driving or their shopping. That's odd behavior since presumably, in either case, the reason they are driving or in the supermarket in the first place, is to drive or to shop.
*There's one pedestrian crosswalk between home and the supermarket, and I usually try to time things to make at least one driver stop or at least slow down for me as I cross, not that that little road rule means much sometimes as not all drivers care to slow down, far less stop, for a pedestrian who is on their turf, resulting in some close calls. One idiot driver chose not to slow down far less stop in full sight of a passing police vehicle - tisk, tisk. I bet that's one driver who won't be pulling that stunt again.
*And then there are those cyclists who use the sidewalks instead of the road, which normally isn't a problem, except when they race around a blind curve not expecting anything in their blind path, until, oops, they slam into you.
*While walking to my destination, I can always tell when I've left the wilderness and crossed over into civilization by the increasing amount of litter I spot along the roadside, not to mention the ever increasing amount of graffiti.
*And don't you just love your neighbors when residents don't bother to trim their front yard trees, hedges and bushes that grow and hang out and over a public sidewalk thus denying access and forcing all and sundry to go around. I see that every day on my walk.
*The neighborhood recycling bins are routinely collected same day every fortnight. Yet somehow some people can't quite figure this routine out. And so I spot them out on the sidewalk awaiting collection that's many a day away, and it's not because the residents have gone off on holidays and had to put their bin out early. And some people can not, or will not, come to terms with what is, and what is not, recyclable. Apparently soiled disposable nappies are a regular item that some people consider recyclable.
*Speaking of bins, various charitable organizations put out charity bins at local shopping centers for people, who want to donate used, but useable clothing, blankets, etc. Alas, these bins have been turned into rubbish dumps as people leave all sorts of broken, unusable junk rather than taking their large item rubbish to the tip - where they would have to pay a fee. Instead, the charity is legally obligated to clear up the rubbish dumped and take it to the tip where they have to pay the fee, meaning less money for them is available to assist the needy.
*If it's been a bit wet, you can tell where humans have treaded by the number of stomped on snails littering the sidewalks. It's probably a natural, if over-the-top reaction to that proposed Hollywood, and future Oscar-winning epic and sci-fi blockbuster, "The Revenge of the Snails".
*Amazingly, the one thing I can't fuss about is roaming dogs, apart from doggy-poop.
*When it comes to parking at the shopping center, where the supermarket is located, drivers rule, OK? I am a driver and I am entitled to park where I want to, when I want to, for as long as I want to and the absolute hell with anyone and everyone else. Is this a loading zone only? - Tough luck. Is this space reserved for the medical profession only? - Too damn bad. Is this parking space reserved for the handicapped? - Let them eat cake. Is this a "no parking" zone? Sorry, that can't possibly apply to me.
*There is a sidewalk that leads from the main road to the mall and supermarket, with parking spaces alongside. So, of course shoppers wheel their trolley full of goodies back to their parked cars adjacent to said sidewalk. Now, what do these drivers (which there must be since they are unloading their trolley's goodies into cars) do with the now empty trolleys? Do they return the trolley to a designated return point for empty trolleys? Not on your life. The empty trolleys are just left on the adjacent sidewalk which means those using the sidewalk, can't. People in wheelchairs; moms pushing prams; kids on bicycles; and of course ordinary pedestrians, have their access blocked, just because the driver can't be bothered to spend one extra minute taking the trolley back to the appropriate trolley return area. I make a point of putting said sidewalk-blocking trolleys into the parking spaces. Drivers can inconvenience other divers, but not pedestrians - that's my motto.
*But of course trolleys get scattered far and wide. They tend to be abandoned all over the place. I'd like to blame kids, but I've seen way too many adults wheel the loaded trolleys home, then abandon them - but not too close to their home.
*Speaking of that staple of western civilization, the shopping trolley, supermarkets have to employ lads to round them up when customers leave them scattered all over the place. Let's just say that the local lads employed to perform such duties usually are doing anything but, nearly forever goofing off. I won't say what ethnic background they're from least I offend the innocent, but I wish I'd had it that easy way back when.
IN THE SUPERMARKET
*It must be said at the outset that supermarkets are run by a for-profit organization and as such they use every sneaky marketing and psychological trick known to all in the retail trade to separate you from your money to the maximum extent possible. They may advertise themselves as your 'friendly grocer', but supermarkets are not your friend.
*I often find pre-school kids on the rampage in the supermarket; to them it's a lovely playground. The parents could care less about proper supervision. As we all know, the supermarket isn't a playground, though many a parent doesn't seem to be aware of that, or more to the point, they can't be bothered. They got enough on their plate trying to shop and talk or text at the same time.
*Of course it really makes for an enjoyable shopping experience when some pre-school brat is just screaming their head off at the top of their lungs - mom might be wearing ear plugs, but that doesn't help the rest of the innocents. And it's as certain as death and taxes that there will be always one such event per visit per supermarket. It's one of those highly unpleasant inevitable facts of life that only death can give one a release from. In fact, to be blatantly honest, I'm of the opinion that just because a couple enjoy a roll in the hay, doesn't mean that the rest of the world should have to endure and suffer the resulting product(s). Of course to the parents in question, that's a non-issue. It's 'my little darling right or wrong', and wrong is totally synonymous with right as in 'my little darling always is right'.
*When it comes to mom and the kids, well, mom has really figured out a racket - how to feed the kids lunch at no expense to her. I've seen it again and again, mom wheeling the kid(s) along in the shopping trolley, grabbing a candy bar here, and bread rolls there, some grapes, etc. All are nicked off the shelf, given to the brat, and by the time she and brood rolls up to the checkout counter, all the evidence of what's been nicked has been consumed, meaning there is no evidence and no product(s) to pay for. I'd like to say that's confined to young mothers, but I've seen mature-aged women treat the supermarket as a free smorgasbord. I'm never seen an adult male help themselves to 'free' off-the-shelf food consumed in-store, but that's not proof they don't. Still, it does appear to be a primarily feminine trait. Help yourself to the goodies on display and help out the family budget. Of course it's honest people like you and me that ultimately pay for this in higher grocery prices.
*Speaking of brats, you just know that a lot of the kids you spot hanging around the mall and supermarket should really be in school. By wagging it, I guess they are just following the example set by their parents. It's the kids' version of the time honored adult sickie.
*There is an express twelve items or less lane, for those who have, well, twelve items or less. The numerate level of shoppers is obviously challenged for there are many who feel that a trolley full - say 60+ items - is obviously close enough to twelve to qualify for them to use the express lane. If, as a shopper standing behind them you politely point out the discrepancy, well let's just say you'd better be prepared for a barroom brawl. The innumerate don't like to have their mathematical abilities questioned. You'd think the staff would enforce store policy, but they won't say anything and in fact they have been directed not to rock the boat and alienate a customer.
*Another irritation is that you often have two separate couples with trolleys who meet in an isle and have a right royal catch-up gossip session, totally blocking the isle to other customers yet totally oblivious to that fact; the fact that they are inconveniencing others.
AFTERWARDS
*However I too get my jollies. The parking lot is usually pretty full up, so when I leave and walk through the lot homeward bound, there often will be some driver slowly following behind me thinking I'm headed for my car and that they'll get my parking spot when I load up and pull out. Alas, when I reach the parking lot's perimeter I just keep on walking. Usually pisses them off no end, he-he.
CONCLUSIONS
Of course in some parts of the world the 'walk to the supermarket' could be far worse. One could be mugged at best; blown up by a suicide bomber at worst. That's something I've yet to experience.
So, given this is just humanity in microcosm, and one really has to extrapolate to humanity in terms of the big picture, please let the culling being - pretty please. It's really time for another dose of the 'Big Wet', say another forty days and nights of rain and thus another global flood! There of course would be survivors, but hopefully most of the dead-shits would be too preoccupied being their little nasty selves to notice until it was too late!
Rabu, 11 Januari 2012
Secret Silbury - The Age Old Question
At the recent MARLBOROUGH MOUND TRUST 5TH ANNUAL LECTURE, in the
Ellis Theatre at Marlborough College, Jim Leary gave a lecture titled 'The Marlborough Mound and the other Giants of Wessex'.
Jim, who was the chief archaeologist on the English Heritage Silbury
Hill Conservation and Restoration Project in 2007/2008, reiterated his
views that Silbury Hill is indeed a 4,400 year old mound. It was built
in phases that grew and grew as each basket load of material was piled
on top of the previous pile, but not to any predefined architectural
blueprint. His idea endorses the conventional view for the age and
construction of Silbury Hill.
The study of numerous mounds similar to Silbury Hill around the world has provided clues to an alternative theory. Many of these mounds when unearthed show sophisticated pyramids that had been built to a specific plan. Dating is difficult, as I will explain later, but it is believed that many of these constructions are much older than previously imagined.
So, is Silbury Hill a 4,400 year old mound, which would support the conventional date, or is it an ancient pyramid. This pyramid theory would push its creation way back into our mysterious pre-history?
Who is right? It seems the key to understanding the function and purpose of Silbury Hill lies in determining its age!
In his lecture Jim Leary was unequivocal that the date for Silbury Hill was around 4,400 years. This speculation is based on carbon dating of an antler found in the side of the hill in 1968; the dating of insects, moss and grass found in the mound in 2007; and the dating of core samples taken from a 10 centimetre diameter hole drilled vertically at the centre of nearby Marlborough Mound (Merlin's Mound) in 2011. All methods coincidentally provide a consistent date for Silbury Hill and the Marlborough Mound of approximately 4,400 years old. But, can we trust the current science and technology used to support this assertion?
Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called "absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an "age" determination. Despite its obvious appeal to archaeologists, most radiocarbon facilities date bone only rarely. The principal reason is often poor preservation of collagen in many contexts. Preservation of bone collagen is influenced principally by the environment within which the bone is deposited, and, specifically, by the interrelated influences of pH, microbial activity, temperature, and water. However, these digenetic influences can be extremely variable between, and within, sites. In general, there is a broad gradient in the preservation state of bones from those deposited in warmer, more humid environs to those recovered from archaeological contexts in colder, more temperate climes. Over many years, it has become apparent that the characterisation of the quality of the extracted "collagen" is crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained 14C determinations. Several methods of achieving this have been tried but few 14C laboratories regularly apply the range of analytical measurements necessary to provide minimum assurance for submitters of bone samples (e.g. C to N ratios) even when the samples are of crucial importance to studies of late human evolution.
The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have. It therefore seems unlikely that modern Radio Carbon dating techniques can so accurately date the Silbury Hill antler to 4,400 years - and this is accepting the huge assumption it was used as a pick in the construction of Silbury Hill!! The same principles apply to the core samples from the Marlborough Mound.
Without going into the technical details associated with dating insects, i.e., molecular clock rates, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), chitin, etc., similar problems apply in the dating of insects, grass and moss collected from inside Silbury Hill in 2007! According to the English Heritage archaeologists the fresh and green vegetation preserved inside the mound in an "oxygen free environment" was dated to 4,400 years. Ii is unlikely that an oxygen free environment or vacuum exists within Silbury Hill, but anyhow on exposure to the outside elements would immediately contaminate the samples!
Contamination when removing samples is a big consideration. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart at a Yale University study yielded three different ages for an antler -- 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years. What caused variations in the result can be explained - limestone contamination of the sample. The 5,340 years is the carbon 14 date for the antler; the 10,320 years is the limestone contaminant; and the 9,310 years is the date for the antler and limestone combined.
The alternative theory expounded by many independent researchers including myself that suggests Silbury Hill is much older, may also prove impossible to confirm. As much as I would like to use flint flakes dated to 12,000 years old, found in pits at the top of the first phase in the construction of Silbury Hill as a possible date stamp, but for the reasons mentioned above, there is also some incongruity when arriving at this conclusion. Also the flint flakes may have been scooped up unintentionally from the landscape and deposited unknowingly in the centre during its construction? Interestingly, nothing was found in these pits according to Jim Leary in his recent lecture.
There seems to be so much emerging from scientists not ground in the dogma of their prior academic standards, whether archaeological, geological, etc. Although ridicule is still a barrier, many are delving deeper, sharing, networking and laying out their findings alongside the conventional. Big problems are arising for people trying to maintain doctrines that are not maintainable under these new measures!
So, why are Jim and his fellow archaeologists keen to hold onto this date of 4,400 years? It would seem this date can be neatly shoehorned with the time line when the Stone Age slips into the Bronze Age, a period when emigration, bringing its new ideology, pottery, etc., was gaining momentum. Silbury Hill and the surrounding mounds, stone circles and henges in Wiltshire are seen to be an important part in the understanding of this transition!
A similar problem exists with Egyptologists who have dated the pyramids on the Giza plateau to the same period around 4,400 years. This enables them to verify their belief that these pyramids were built as tombs by the pharaohs. Interesting in the Great Pyramid, they fail to mention an amazing subterranean chamber, chiselled out of the solid rock, which provided a source of water before a massive pyramid was built on top.
So, why is the belief that Silbury Hill was an ancient pyramid build around 12,000 years ago so important? We are discovering the amazing science of the pyramid with its ability to store energy via the natural flow of ions and convert this into different forms of energy. We are also discovering hundreds of pyramids, built in our pre-history, on every continent on Earth. If the science of pyramids was clearly understood by our ancestors, then Silbury Hill would become very important in exploring the possible existence of an intelligent race in antiquity.
The study of numerous mounds similar to Silbury Hill around the world has provided clues to an alternative theory. Many of these mounds when unearthed show sophisticated pyramids that had been built to a specific plan. Dating is difficult, as I will explain later, but it is believed that many of these constructions are much older than previously imagined.
So, is Silbury Hill a 4,400 year old mound, which would support the conventional date, or is it an ancient pyramid. This pyramid theory would push its creation way back into our mysterious pre-history?
Who is right? It seems the key to understanding the function and purpose of Silbury Hill lies in determining its age!
In his lecture Jim Leary was unequivocal that the date for Silbury Hill was around 4,400 years. This speculation is based on carbon dating of an antler found in the side of the hill in 1968; the dating of insects, moss and grass found in the mound in 2007; and the dating of core samples taken from a 10 centimetre diameter hole drilled vertically at the centre of nearby Marlborough Mound (Merlin's Mound) in 2011. All methods coincidentally provide a consistent date for Silbury Hill and the Marlborough Mound of approximately 4,400 years old. But, can we trust the current science and technology used to support this assertion?
Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called "absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an "age" determination. Despite its obvious appeal to archaeologists, most radiocarbon facilities date bone only rarely. The principal reason is often poor preservation of collagen in many contexts. Preservation of bone collagen is influenced principally by the environment within which the bone is deposited, and, specifically, by the interrelated influences of pH, microbial activity, temperature, and water. However, these digenetic influences can be extremely variable between, and within, sites. In general, there is a broad gradient in the preservation state of bones from those deposited in warmer, more humid environs to those recovered from archaeological contexts in colder, more temperate climes. Over many years, it has become apparent that the characterisation of the quality of the extracted "collagen" is crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained 14C determinations. Several methods of achieving this have been tried but few 14C laboratories regularly apply the range of analytical measurements necessary to provide minimum assurance for submitters of bone samples (e.g. C to N ratios) even when the samples are of crucial importance to studies of late human evolution.
The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have. It therefore seems unlikely that modern Radio Carbon dating techniques can so accurately date the Silbury Hill antler to 4,400 years - and this is accepting the huge assumption it was used as a pick in the construction of Silbury Hill!! The same principles apply to the core samples from the Marlborough Mound.
Without going into the technical details associated with dating insects, i.e., molecular clock rates, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), chitin, etc., similar problems apply in the dating of insects, grass and moss collected from inside Silbury Hill in 2007! According to the English Heritage archaeologists the fresh and green vegetation preserved inside the mound in an "oxygen free environment" was dated to 4,400 years. Ii is unlikely that an oxygen free environment or vacuum exists within Silbury Hill, but anyhow on exposure to the outside elements would immediately contaminate the samples!
Contamination when removing samples is a big consideration. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart at a Yale University study yielded three different ages for an antler -- 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years. What caused variations in the result can be explained - limestone contamination of the sample. The 5,340 years is the carbon 14 date for the antler; the 10,320 years is the limestone contaminant; and the 9,310 years is the date for the antler and limestone combined.
The alternative theory expounded by many independent researchers including myself that suggests Silbury Hill is much older, may also prove impossible to confirm. As much as I would like to use flint flakes dated to 12,000 years old, found in pits at the top of the first phase in the construction of Silbury Hill as a possible date stamp, but for the reasons mentioned above, there is also some incongruity when arriving at this conclusion. Also the flint flakes may have been scooped up unintentionally from the landscape and deposited unknowingly in the centre during its construction? Interestingly, nothing was found in these pits according to Jim Leary in his recent lecture.
There seems to be so much emerging from scientists not ground in the dogma of their prior academic standards, whether archaeological, geological, etc. Although ridicule is still a barrier, many are delving deeper, sharing, networking and laying out their findings alongside the conventional. Big problems are arising for people trying to maintain doctrines that are not maintainable under these new measures!
So, why are Jim and his fellow archaeologists keen to hold onto this date of 4,400 years? It would seem this date can be neatly shoehorned with the time line when the Stone Age slips into the Bronze Age, a period when emigration, bringing its new ideology, pottery, etc., was gaining momentum. Silbury Hill and the surrounding mounds, stone circles and henges in Wiltshire are seen to be an important part in the understanding of this transition!
A similar problem exists with Egyptologists who have dated the pyramids on the Giza plateau to the same period around 4,400 years. This enables them to verify their belief that these pyramids were built as tombs by the pharaohs. Interesting in the Great Pyramid, they fail to mention an amazing subterranean chamber, chiselled out of the solid rock, which provided a source of water before a massive pyramid was built on top.
So, why is the belief that Silbury Hill was an ancient pyramid build around 12,000 years ago so important? We are discovering the amazing science of the pyramid with its ability to store energy via the natural flow of ions and convert this into different forms of energy. We are also discovering hundreds of pyramids, built in our pre-history, on every continent on Earth. If the science of pyramids was clearly understood by our ancestors, then Silbury Hill would become very important in exploring the possible existence of an intelligent race in antiquity.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)