Today I would like to talk about GMCs, that is Genetically Modified Crops. More commonly referred to as GMOs (gee-mohs), these are crops in which the DNA of the plant has been changed in some way by scientific process. GMOs are relatively new to the market, first emerging under science funded by Monsanto Corporation in 1983.
In order to talk about GMO crops, and food in general, I would like to go on a small examination of how the average citizen in developed nations goes about acquiring food:
Step one: open fridge
Step two: observe emptiness of fridge
Step three: drive to store
Step four: buy required produce/food products
Step five: drive home and put acquired food products in fridge/storage
Step six: cook when ready.
It is perfectly acceptable, and perfectly normal, for over 70 per cent of the population of North America to get their food exclusively from wholesale food stores (grocery stores). That is the way the general food market operates these days-- with a few farmers supplying distributors with vast quantities of foods for people (not unlike myself) who live in cities and buy the food they need from a grocery store or food market.
Now, that's roughly 3/4s of a continent's population getting their food exclusively from grocery stores or wholesale food distributors. The other 30% might dabble in some backyard gardening for produce, visit a farmer's market or road-side stand (I highly recommend all three of these options, by the way) and they might get some portion of their food each year from these alternative sources. Most people, it is fair to say, will buy their food, most of the time, from a grocery store. And that's just fine!
Now that we have that out of the way, lets take a look at how the food gets from the ground to the grocery shelves. The average consumer today is far divorced from the actual process of manufacturing food thanks to these big wholesalers and massive markets. We like the burger, but we have never met (usually don't ever want to meet) the cow. We enjoy the carrot, but not if its got dirt on it!
Farmers are those people who produce what the rest of us (and themselves) consume. They grow a certain crop, usually under contract from a larger company, and they sell the company that crop at the end of the growing season in order to earn an income. This takes a lot of time, effort, and patience, and sometimes--depending on market fluctuation, crop prices, and weather, a farmer can have a bumper year (very, very good return on their labour) or a year that actually throws them into debt.
I don't envy farmers: they are the hardest working people I have ever met (and I have met some damned hard workers) who scrape for every penny they get by the end of the year and over half of their success is determined by Nature. Drought is catastrophic, but so is too much rain. A plague of insects, fungus, rot, or something else detrimental to the crop can ruin a family's income for years. Market prices can cause too much competition so the farmers literally don't get enough money from a crop in order to cover the cost of producing/harvesting it (this happened in British Columbia, Canada, last year, with cherries where 1000 plus tonnes of cherries rotted on the tree because the market was over-flooded with Washington and Oregon imports).
This is the agricultural business, and it is a hard business to be in.
The business gets even harder when you bring in a corporation that corners the market with specialized crops that are heavily regulated by the corporation that owns the patents. See, not even a century ago, crops weren't patented. Then larger agricultural corporations (we'll call them agricorps) came along and began to genetically modify certain plants for various things.
Monsanto is the leader in this genetic modification and owns a vast market share of the agricultural industry. With patents on seeds and crops, Monsanto is able to control where their product is grown, how it is grown, who grows it, and how it is distributed. Their business practices have become so corrupt, that multiple countries have kicked Monsanto out-- literally banned them forever.
Monsanto is regularly rebuked on the internet as being the most evil corporation (literally, the most evil, there are no other corporations more evil than this one [according to the internet]) in the world. The genetic modification of their crops has pushed out small farmers all around the world, including developing nations where farmers are committing suicide because of their inability to compete in the global market Monsanto has dominated.
Connected with everything from falsifying FDA approvals, to bribing congress-people for legislation that favors their patents and market schemes, to outright slavery in Argentina, it seems that Monsanto's sinister reputation is actually well-earned.
Monsanto Corp is one of the largest agricorps (if not the largest, and I couldn't find anyone bigger at the time of writing this blog) in the world. The practice of patenting and licensing its seeds has earned the corporation billions of dollars over several decades. It corners the markets on a number of crops, and does not allow farmers to keep seed crops for the next planting season (meaning farmers have to re-license with Monsanto every year in order to grow these patented GMO products). Monsanto will then buy the produce from the farmers and sell it to wholesalers with a mark up.
A lot of the controversy around GMO crops comes from the process of growing the crop itself. Almost all of Monsanto crops involve the heavy application of pesticides that poison the ground, nearby water sources, and (over time) are extremely detrimental to the soil. Monsanto uses chemicals similar to those found in Agent Orange (a WW2 nerve agent used to kill or directly maim combatant soldiers). A lot of what the food crops are sprayed with is poisonous to both humans and animals-- but necessary for the GMO crops to survive the growing process.
Because the introduction of GMO crops into the marketplace is a recent development (keeping in mind GMOs themselves are only 30 years old) there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that these crops and the chemicals used with them are safe. Recently, a study was released by the University of Caen (France) in which 70% of rats fed GMO corn that contained trace amounts of Monsanto-made "Round-up" brand weed-killer (available at a hardware store near you) grew massive tumors and most died prematurely. The study was published in peer-reviewed journals and is considered to be the conclusive study on the long-term effects of GMO consumption.
Interestingly, despite this study the USDA and FDA have not repealed any permits granted to Monsanto Corp for use of their crops or chemicals. While countries like Hungary have outright banned Monsanto crops--taking to the fields and burning them, then compensating the farmers generously for their lost income, the US Congress recently passed a bill that limited the power of the government to ban the sale of Monsanto crops if more concerns regarding the safety of the product arose.
A link to an explanation of this bill, provided by the astute Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, can be found here:
http://www.realfarmacy.com/jon-stewart-on-the-monsanto-protection-act/
So now the question becomes: now that safety concerns have arisen due to GMO products, what is likely to happen? Will the market continue down the path of mono-culture and genetically modified food? As a consumer, are you worried about what you are eating, even if it's produce and is claimed to be healthy for you?
Until next time, Adieu.
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Monday, 13 May 2013
spark a debate? more like re-ignite a wild-fire
Today headlines are being made about Kermit Gosnell, a 72 year-old abortion doctor of the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia. He's in the papers across the United States, and making waves in my native land because of abortions he performed on what witnesses assert were living infants (literally fresh from the womb). He has been found guilty of three counts of murder in the first, and one count of involuntary manslaughter due to the overdose of 41-year-old refugee Karnamaya Mongar.
A full article on the trail, and the details can be found here: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/13/kermit_gosnell_trial_philadelphia_abortion_doctor_guilty_of_murdering_infants_in_lateterm_abortions.html
This is a massive spark in the debate about abortion. In Philadelphia abortions are not granted after 24 weeks of pregnancy (for those who can't do math: that's about 6 months, almost the start of your third trimester). By this time an infant is fully developed with all the necessary physical bits (some organ systems still getting going). It's even developed taste-buds and the bronci (branches inside the lungs) are starting to develop so that eventually, once born, the infant will be able to breathe air.
So to sum up: it's a baby. It's still inside the mother, no doubt, but a full pregnancy is only 37 weeks (tell that to a pregnant woman!!) so at 24 you are already just 13 weeks away from Junior suckling your teat.
While all of the above might read like a pro-life commercial, I'm actually pro-choice. I have personal limitations on what I deem acceptable or responsible for aborting a fetus, but I still respect a woman's right to say "no, I'm not ready for this, I can't carry this pregnancy to term".
We will get to this later, for now lets focus on the scandal at hand-- Kermit Gosnell and his clinic of apparent horrors. I can only say apparent horrors because, well, I never visited the place, I haven't seen photos, all I have is what is reported to be witness testimony by a few news outlets. Granted, what the testimony seems to illustrate is horrifying but I can't claim to be an expert so I will say this: if the accounts are true, this guy should hang.
So today we tackle two things at once: I am pro-choice and pro-capital punishment *disclaimer* in certain cases. This seems to me, based on the evidence presented to the jury and what has been reported in the newspapers, along with the findings of the jury, a pretty cut-and-dry case. What this so-called "doctor" did was not only disgusting, not only abhorrent, but down-right criminal.
I am referring to the specific cases for which this man was found guilty: the deaths of three infants (they had been born and then their lives were terminated--which is infanticide any way you look at it), and the death of a patient, albeit unintentional. Not only did he go against city bylaws (that 24 week rule) he went against everything common human decency can provide-- the jury is still out on the death-sentence, but I have to go with: all the more power to them.
Now: a few sticky points came up in the above statements.
1. The women who sought the abortions: shouldn't some of the fault lie with them? All three women sought late-term abortions for their children to the point of they actually gave birth, and then the infant was killed. This means that the infant was able to survive outside of the mother's womb, on it's own. In my personal definition (which may, or may not reflect the views of other) a child becomes a child when this stage is met. It is no longer a fetus--if it can live outside on it's own, it's a baby. Biologically-- that's anywhere past the 21 week mark (earliest recorded pre-mature successful birth (Ottawa, Canada)). So Philadelphia's law of 24 weeks is very reasonable in my mind. Keep in mind, a premature birth as extreme as 21 weeks needs intensive post-natal care in a huge facility and chances of survival are slim. This enters an entirely different debate on nature versus medical science, but I say: we have the science, we really ought to use it (this will obviously be countered in future posts, but bear with me here).
So does some responsibility lie with the not-mothers? In my mind--that is a very very hard question to answer. Instinctively, I want to say yes-- because they should have known they were pregnant and couldn't handle it well before the point they came to. The more critical part of my brain has a bigger issue with this.
The issue is simply too complex to put down to a simple yes or no. Now, in my opinion, which you can feel free to disagree with-- if these women came from privileged, upper-class families with access to resources on pregnancy, an income, and stability, I would be firmly in the "yes, these women are irresponsible and should be charged with infanticide" column.
The facts of this case, and for most of the cases that Gosnell dealt with, was that the women involved were low-income, usually immigrants, without access to education, resources, or help. Some reportedly came from abusive households and turned to late-term abortions (in this case it is infanticide as the infants were alive and born when they were killed) out of desperation. So in this particular case-- I can't blame the women. Pregnancy, particularly in those circumstances, would be terrifying and without knowing what to do, I might have made the same choice.
So here is where that issue gets really muddled: did Philadelphia's 24-week law have a role to play in their decision to go to Gosnell for treatment? Yes. Absolutely. A clean, respectable clinic could not (legally) help these women so they had to turn to other means. These means ended up killing a woman, and putting three (or more!) others at serious risk. So the law has to be accountable in there as well-- with Gosnell (I just...I can't bring myself to call him "doctor" or even "human" at this point), and, depending on your opinion, with the women as well.
2. Does Gosnell's actions warrant him a death sentence? This question can't be answered by one person, it has to be answered by a jury. If, however, the evidence presented in the above cited article is accurate, and the conditions of the clinic were accurately portrayed, and the surgeries that were performed there were also accurate (see note about a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ADMINISTERING ANESTHESIA!!!) then I have to go with: burn him. Literally, I can't actually think of a more painful way to die, and this seems to suit.
My opinion is coloured by a few things: a) he was knowingly breaking the law, b) the apparent condition in which he performed these surgeries is better suited to a post-apocalyptic horror film than real life, and c) the extortion he indulged in--sometimes charging these desperate women tens of thousands of dollars to illegally end their pregnancies. This guy was in it for the money. He is the lowest of the low. I can't even believe we are part of the same species.
Rant over.
Where I live, the death penalty isn't legal. The fact that this is an option for this case pleases me. Why should he sit warm and snug in an institution while his victims pick up the remnants of their underwhelming, (in some cases) destitute and desperate lives?
3. To clear up my stance on the whole pro-choice/pro-life debate. I like life. But I respect a women's right to decide what is best for her body, and for her future. Nine months is a long time to carry an infant to term, with a lot of potential health risks and complications. Even though adoption is feasible for many many unwanted pregnancies, throwing more children into an already over-crowded system doesn't fix the problem. I support organizations like planned parenthood, who stress education and resources for women facing the decision. They don't advocate abortion, they just provide the services required if that choice is made by the educated individual(s) making the decisions.
Personally, I don't support abortion after the first trimester. It's three months-- plenty of time to come to grips with your situation and make an educated decision. I don't think anyone who knows they are pregnant forgets about it for longer than a few hours, it is kind of one of those things that dog your every thought from the moment you know it, until the moment it's over. It's a personal standard, though, and not everyone will agree with it-- that's fine. Do what is morally right for you, and I will do what is morally right for me.
A friend of mine, currently researching a master's thesis in sexual education brings up a great point in this whole debate. Education is lacking, and that is a huge factor as to why these travesties exist. Taking the time to educate the public on sex, pregnancy, and abortion is one of the best ways to ensure the topic is taken seriously. (A post on sex education will follow this up in greater detail)
It will be interesting to see how the policy-makers of America handle this instance and the publicity it manufactures. Certainly the pro-life/choice debate is up for renewal and just as certainly the conclusion of the debate (if ever it comes) will be unsatisfactory to someone. That's just the way things go. What I do hope, however, is that corrective action is taken to prevent this kind of disgusting circumstance from ever happening in the future.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment down below, share, and debate.
Until next time, Adieu.
A full article on the trail, and the details can be found here: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/13/kermit_gosnell_trial_philadelphia_abortion_doctor_guilty_of_murdering_infants_in_lateterm_abortions.html
This is a massive spark in the debate about abortion. In Philadelphia abortions are not granted after 24 weeks of pregnancy (for those who can't do math: that's about 6 months, almost the start of your third trimester). By this time an infant is fully developed with all the necessary physical bits (some organ systems still getting going). It's even developed taste-buds and the bronci (branches inside the lungs) are starting to develop so that eventually, once born, the infant will be able to breathe air.
So to sum up: it's a baby. It's still inside the mother, no doubt, but a full pregnancy is only 37 weeks (tell that to a pregnant woman!!) so at 24 you are already just 13 weeks away from Junior suckling your teat.
While all of the above might read like a pro-life commercial, I'm actually pro-choice. I have personal limitations on what I deem acceptable or responsible for aborting a fetus, but I still respect a woman's right to say "no, I'm not ready for this, I can't carry this pregnancy to term".
We will get to this later, for now lets focus on the scandal at hand-- Kermit Gosnell and his clinic of apparent horrors. I can only say apparent horrors because, well, I never visited the place, I haven't seen photos, all I have is what is reported to be witness testimony by a few news outlets. Granted, what the testimony seems to illustrate is horrifying but I can't claim to be an expert so I will say this: if the accounts are true, this guy should hang.
So today we tackle two things at once: I am pro-choice and pro-capital punishment *disclaimer* in certain cases. This seems to me, based on the evidence presented to the jury and what has been reported in the newspapers, along with the findings of the jury, a pretty cut-and-dry case. What this so-called "doctor" did was not only disgusting, not only abhorrent, but down-right criminal.
I am referring to the specific cases for which this man was found guilty: the deaths of three infants (they had been born and then their lives were terminated--which is infanticide any way you look at it), and the death of a patient, albeit unintentional. Not only did he go against city bylaws (that 24 week rule) he went against everything common human decency can provide-- the jury is still out on the death-sentence, but I have to go with: all the more power to them.
Now: a few sticky points came up in the above statements.
1. The women who sought the abortions: shouldn't some of the fault lie with them? All three women sought late-term abortions for their children to the point of they actually gave birth, and then the infant was killed. This means that the infant was able to survive outside of the mother's womb, on it's own. In my personal definition (which may, or may not reflect the views of other) a child becomes a child when this stage is met. It is no longer a fetus--if it can live outside on it's own, it's a baby. Biologically-- that's anywhere past the 21 week mark (earliest recorded pre-mature successful birth (Ottawa, Canada)). So Philadelphia's law of 24 weeks is very reasonable in my mind. Keep in mind, a premature birth as extreme as 21 weeks needs intensive post-natal care in a huge facility and chances of survival are slim. This enters an entirely different debate on nature versus medical science, but I say: we have the science, we really ought to use it (this will obviously be countered in future posts, but bear with me here).
So does some responsibility lie with the not-mothers? In my mind--that is a very very hard question to answer. Instinctively, I want to say yes-- because they should have known they were pregnant and couldn't handle it well before the point they came to. The more critical part of my brain has a bigger issue with this.
The issue is simply too complex to put down to a simple yes or no. Now, in my opinion, which you can feel free to disagree with-- if these women came from privileged, upper-class families with access to resources on pregnancy, an income, and stability, I would be firmly in the "yes, these women are irresponsible and should be charged with infanticide" column.
The facts of this case, and for most of the cases that Gosnell dealt with, was that the women involved were low-income, usually immigrants, without access to education, resources, or help. Some reportedly came from abusive households and turned to late-term abortions (in this case it is infanticide as the infants were alive and born when they were killed) out of desperation. So in this particular case-- I can't blame the women. Pregnancy, particularly in those circumstances, would be terrifying and without knowing what to do, I might have made the same choice.
So here is where that issue gets really muddled: did Philadelphia's 24-week law have a role to play in their decision to go to Gosnell for treatment? Yes. Absolutely. A clean, respectable clinic could not (legally) help these women so they had to turn to other means. These means ended up killing a woman, and putting three (or more!) others at serious risk. So the law has to be accountable in there as well-- with Gosnell (I just...I can't bring myself to call him "doctor" or even "human" at this point), and, depending on your opinion, with the women as well.
2. Does Gosnell's actions warrant him a death sentence? This question can't be answered by one person, it has to be answered by a jury. If, however, the evidence presented in the above cited article is accurate, and the conditions of the clinic were accurately portrayed, and the surgeries that were performed there were also accurate (see note about a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ADMINISTERING ANESTHESIA!!!) then I have to go with: burn him. Literally, I can't actually think of a more painful way to die, and this seems to suit.
My opinion is coloured by a few things: a) he was knowingly breaking the law, b) the apparent condition in which he performed these surgeries is better suited to a post-apocalyptic horror film than real life, and c) the extortion he indulged in--sometimes charging these desperate women tens of thousands of dollars to illegally end their pregnancies. This guy was in it for the money. He is the lowest of the low. I can't even believe we are part of the same species.
Rant over.
Where I live, the death penalty isn't legal. The fact that this is an option for this case pleases me. Why should he sit warm and snug in an institution while his victims pick up the remnants of their underwhelming, (in some cases) destitute and desperate lives?
3. To clear up my stance on the whole pro-choice/pro-life debate. I like life. But I respect a women's right to decide what is best for her body, and for her future. Nine months is a long time to carry an infant to term, with a lot of potential health risks and complications. Even though adoption is feasible for many many unwanted pregnancies, throwing more children into an already over-crowded system doesn't fix the problem. I support organizations like planned parenthood, who stress education and resources for women facing the decision. They don't advocate abortion, they just provide the services required if that choice is made by the educated individual(s) making the decisions.
Personally, I don't support abortion after the first trimester. It's three months-- plenty of time to come to grips with your situation and make an educated decision. I don't think anyone who knows they are pregnant forgets about it for longer than a few hours, it is kind of one of those things that dog your every thought from the moment you know it, until the moment it's over. It's a personal standard, though, and not everyone will agree with it-- that's fine. Do what is morally right for you, and I will do what is morally right for me.
A friend of mine, currently researching a master's thesis in sexual education brings up a great point in this whole debate. Education is lacking, and that is a huge factor as to why these travesties exist. Taking the time to educate the public on sex, pregnancy, and abortion is one of the best ways to ensure the topic is taken seriously. (A post on sex education will follow this up in greater detail)
It will be interesting to see how the policy-makers of America handle this instance and the publicity it manufactures. Certainly the pro-life/choice debate is up for renewal and just as certainly the conclusion of the debate (if ever it comes) will be unsatisfactory to someone. That's just the way things go. What I do hope, however, is that corrective action is taken to prevent this kind of disgusting circumstance from ever happening in the future.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment down below, share, and debate.
Until next time, Adieu.
I intensely dislike blogging...
I intensely dislike blogging, and bloggers. I think most of those out there with a blog (perhaps even myself included) think too highly of their opinions and feel that they must share them with the world. The only good thing about the medium of blogging, I suppose, is the fact that it is easy to ignore. I don't actively search for blogs, I don't seek out writers and what other people have to say--I can get through a day/week/decade of my life just fine without ever searching blogspot, or any other known blogging medium for anything (except maybe recipes, those come in handy).
So why do I start a blog now? To what purpose? What's the aim? I have no idea.
I think its because I used to write for another (pointless?) medium-- a newspaper. For one and a half years I had the privilege of being Editor in Chief for the Meliorist Independent Student Newspaper -- www.themeliorist.ca-- at the University of Lethbridge. I say one and a half because in the latter half the second year a royal asshole of an employee sought to have me fired-- he didn't succeed, but I stepped back and allowed the staff to make most of the decisions.
Fortunately, with the exception of the one asshole in the group, the rest of the people I worked with were extremely competent, thinking individuals and we got along just fine. Needless to say I used to write, and I used to write often: sometimes several full articles a week, and since ending that short employment (I was involved with the newspaper a total of 3 years, one as a section editor and two as the so-called "chief") I haven't wrote a damn thing. All of the various half-cocked novels I'd been working on before working at the newspaper have gone by the wayside and no matter how drunk or stoned I get (alcohol and marijuana always being the impetus of creativity) I can't seem to pick the tales back up again with any kind of verve.
The drive, as they say, is gone.
I have hit the block of all writers' blocks when it comes to the fiction, historical fiction, and historical works I once attempted-- the characters are decrepit or too flat, the plots are stale, the magic is gone. But what I can write, what I have been writing for two years, is opinion. I can opine as the day is long, give me a topic and I will sweep you up in the whirlwind of my odious, and somewhat complex, world views.
I can be a magnificent bore and so: I blog.
I think the failing of most people when they get into this type of activity (and a fantasy I myself used to indulge ages ago) is that what they write will somehow make a difference. I think our egos have lost the scope of how big the world is, how jam-packed it is with people, and how very much information survives on the world-wide-web. I also think that people are too small-minded to understand the scope of everything-- I don't even think the greatest thinkers of history, restricted as they were by geography, theology, and a general lack of information, (compared to what is available to anyone with a computer -- or, I guess, a phone) could quite comprehend the scope of the world.
I'm earth-centric. I can't begin to understand the way this planet, with all its infinitesimal natural phenomenon, its people, its gravity, and its history, works--I couldn't give two hoots about the universe. The universe to me is a vast plethora of shiny bright things where occasionally something interesting happens. I don't have enough imagination to go further into it than that.
Therefore what I will write will focus on the earth-- things I have noticed. Things I have seen. Things I have experienced. Things that I know, that I guess at, that I wonder-- it will all be here. Here will be the record (small though it may be) of my thoughts. Will they change the world? No, I doubt it. It isn't false modesty to say so, it's practicality-- and I am nothing if not practical.
If someone else is reading this you will notice two things right off the bat: my grammar leaves something to be desired, and I am opinionated. While there is no hope for my grammar, my opinions are fluid-- they fluctuate as I take in new information. What I write one day may be countered the next as more information becomes available. This is simply how I work-- I like to think of myself as an educated person with a relatively high level of critical thinking, and I like to think critically about things for a long time before forming an opinion of them. However, if new information comes to light, that opinion may change. It happens. I openly and freely admit when I am wrong, and I dislike a reputation of being bull-headed and stubborn.
So that is me-- your anonymous author. I am myself, and can only present as I am. You now know me more intimately than some friends. This, in my humble opinion, is the wonder of the Internet-- you know me so much, yet you know me so little.
Until next time, Adieu.
So why do I start a blog now? To what purpose? What's the aim? I have no idea.
I think its because I used to write for another (pointless?) medium-- a newspaper. For one and a half years I had the privilege of being Editor in Chief for the Meliorist Independent Student Newspaper -- www.themeliorist.ca-- at the University of Lethbridge. I say one and a half because in the latter half the second year a royal asshole of an employee sought to have me fired-- he didn't succeed, but I stepped back and allowed the staff to make most of the decisions.
Fortunately, with the exception of the one asshole in the group, the rest of the people I worked with were extremely competent, thinking individuals and we got along just fine. Needless to say I used to write, and I used to write often: sometimes several full articles a week, and since ending that short employment (I was involved with the newspaper a total of 3 years, one as a section editor and two as the so-called "chief") I haven't wrote a damn thing. All of the various half-cocked novels I'd been working on before working at the newspaper have gone by the wayside and no matter how drunk or stoned I get (alcohol and marijuana always being the impetus of creativity) I can't seem to pick the tales back up again with any kind of verve.
The drive, as they say, is gone.
I have hit the block of all writers' blocks when it comes to the fiction, historical fiction, and historical works I once attempted-- the characters are decrepit or too flat, the plots are stale, the magic is gone. But what I can write, what I have been writing for two years, is opinion. I can opine as the day is long, give me a topic and I will sweep you up in the whirlwind of my odious, and somewhat complex, world views.
I can be a magnificent bore and so: I blog.
I think the failing of most people when they get into this type of activity (and a fantasy I myself used to indulge ages ago) is that what they write will somehow make a difference. I think our egos have lost the scope of how big the world is, how jam-packed it is with people, and how very much information survives on the world-wide-web. I also think that people are too small-minded to understand the scope of everything-- I don't even think the greatest thinkers of history, restricted as they were by geography, theology, and a general lack of information, (compared to what is available to anyone with a computer -- or, I guess, a phone) could quite comprehend the scope of the world.
I'm earth-centric. I can't begin to understand the way this planet, with all its infinitesimal natural phenomenon, its people, its gravity, and its history, works--I couldn't give two hoots about the universe. The universe to me is a vast plethora of shiny bright things where occasionally something interesting happens. I don't have enough imagination to go further into it than that.
Therefore what I will write will focus on the earth-- things I have noticed. Things I have seen. Things I have experienced. Things that I know, that I guess at, that I wonder-- it will all be here. Here will be the record (small though it may be) of my thoughts. Will they change the world? No, I doubt it. It isn't false modesty to say so, it's practicality-- and I am nothing if not practical.
If someone else is reading this you will notice two things right off the bat: my grammar leaves something to be desired, and I am opinionated. While there is no hope for my grammar, my opinions are fluid-- they fluctuate as I take in new information. What I write one day may be countered the next as more information becomes available. This is simply how I work-- I like to think of myself as an educated person with a relatively high level of critical thinking, and I like to think critically about things for a long time before forming an opinion of them. However, if new information comes to light, that opinion may change. It happens. I openly and freely admit when I am wrong, and I dislike a reputation of being bull-headed and stubborn.
So that is me-- your anonymous author. I am myself, and can only present as I am. You now know me more intimately than some friends. This, in my humble opinion, is the wonder of the Internet-- you know me so much, yet you know me so little.
Until next time, Adieu.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)