Unkie Herb

Hopefully you’ve watched zeitgeist by now. Hopefully you were ready for it.

But hopefully you took it with a grain of salt.

Since watching it (and many others like it), I’ve been doing some homework on the other side. I’ve read some debunking 9/11 Conspiracy sites, which are particularly numerous. Unfortunately, just as there are some nutjobs advocating that 9/11 was an “inside job”, there are some wackos arguing against it. Watch Penn and Teller’s Bullshit episode on conspiracy theories if you want a good laugh.

A few thoughts:

1. First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the accounts of that terrible, terrible day. It is in no way unpatriotic or offensive to reconsider the evidence and wonder why there seem to be inconsistencies. For the families of those who lost loved ones in those attacks, an ongoing investigation is a good thing, and forcing ourselves to forget what happened isn’t healthy. Blind trust in government and police versions of events is what leads to corruption in the first place.
2. To say that “there is no way that the CIA or Bush or whoever could kill 3000 of its own people” is simply ignorant defensiveness. Believe what you want based on the evidence and by reading the reports. Don’t try to convince yourself that, at any point, the US Government and its spy operations give a shit about human life. They don’t - the families of more than 3000 American soldiers can attest to that, and that’s only since 2003.
3. Lastly, stop making this illogical argument: “If it was a conspiracy theory, numerous people must have known about it, so why hasn’t anyone come forward?” Bullshit. If, as far-fetched as it may seem, people were somehow able to pull off 9/11 and then convince us all that it was a bunch of Islamic terrorists in a cave, I’m pretty damn sure they can keep a few mouths shut.

All that being said, I’m not sure I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories. I love them, get entertained by them, and send links to my favourites to all my friends. It’s a great time and you should find a few and check ‘em out.

There are tons. 7/7: Mind the Gap is about the July 7th bombing in London.

Zeitgeist has whole sections on Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonklin (which a few years ago was officially recognized as untrue, despite it being the spark that led to the Vietnam War), and others. The opening forty minutes or so are dedicated to debunking Christianity, claiming that it is nothing but an extension of pagan solar worship, evolving through Egyptian and other mythologies.

Still, it seems pretty ridiculous that the official version of 9/11 was completely fabricated. For a little sanity, try this excellent Popular Mechanics debunking of the conspiracies. Reading it after watching something like 9/11: Loose Change is pretty interesting, although there are some assumptions made on both sides. Showing a scrap of mangled white metal isn’t “proof” that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. If it was a plane, why can’t they release the numerous surveillance videos of it?

Either way, the very fact that this debate exists is testament to the empowering abilities of the internet and the defiance with which people will defend their government even if, we hope, they have nothing to gain from it.

I love this stuff, and thanks in part to my oscillation between immersion and skepticism, I will continue to follow it with fervor.

(Oh, and finally, whether or not you think Bush engineered that stuff or not, you know he clapped his hands and did a little dance a few days later, because he had his reason to drop a whole lotta bombs.)

Share This

Watch zeitgeist.

Take a deep breath. Open your mind. And watch.

It may seem difficult. It may seem like it goes against everything you’ve lived your life for. Against everything you’ve been taught.

But ask yourself this: does it feel right?

Share This

I’m a little torn over this whole thing. What began as a break over the holidays has extended nearly to February. Why?

The most direct answer is: I don’t know. I’m not sure why I’ve stopped contributing on here. I have a few ideas, though they are unsurprisingly theoretical.

I’ve experienced some fairly encouraging growth in readership in the past four or five months. In August ‘07, I had 873 unique visitors and about 1900 visits, averaging out to about 60 visits per day. In October, thanks in part to the sudden public interest in Burmese issues, this bounced up to over 2000 unique visitors and well over 4100 visits, or about 130 visits a day. (A visit, FYI, is when an actual person behind an actual computer checks the site - robotic internet scanning programs, which exist to aid search engines, mostly, don’t figure in to the numbers.)

Needless to say this was encouraging. The growth in visits had increased slightly since then, though the unique visitor numbers, the number of individual computers who visit during the month, has since sagged. Now, to those outside the blogosphere these numbers might seem impressive. They aren’t, not really, especially considering the sheer volume of traffic that exists online. Technorati, a site that doubles as a search engine and community for bloggers, ranks my site 871,446th.

But wouldn’t it be incredibly vain and selfish of me to stop writing just because I’m not satisfied with my readership? Was I ever expecting to make money off this anyway? Was I really hoping to change the world?

Good questions, all.

I’ve given considerable thought to my life and career, and I still hope that, at least for a time, I can succeed as a freelance journalist/photojournalist traveling the world. Despite my inherent idealism, I understand that this is the dream of many of my contemporaries and, even without the competition, it will take a considerable amount of skill, luck, and perseverance.

As far as I see it, I have these things.

So the plan, loosely, is as follows. Set up a site, probably called evanherbert.xxx (my name, after all) and break it into three parts. One will contain my more professional stuff. Perhaps articles, interviews, news analysis, and so forth. Another will contain professional-ish photography; much of it will be geared toward the articles I write but some will be artistic, landscape-y sort of stuff. The third and final part will resemble what unkieherb.com should have been - a place for me to rant and tell stories and laugh and argue and generally get shit off my chest.

Alas this hasn’t been the case. Nevertheless I am undaunted. The aforementioned perseverance shines through.

This page will not disappear. I have it until next fall which is probably when I’ll begin to set up the newer site. I hope to throw some material up on here every so often, but much more infrequently than before. The months of five day a week writing (inspired by an excellent blogger named david) are over.

If you are reading this… thanks. Feedback is appreciated, as always, but it is enough for me if you smile and believe me when I say that the world will be a better place because you and I have made it so, not because you and I wished it so.

The time for shaking our heads at negative news is passed. The time to appreciate the massive impact, for good or ill, we all have on this planet and the life upon it is at hand.

In the immortal words of Bob Marley:

‘Give a little, take a little, give a little,

One more time, yeah, yeah. ‘

See ya around.

Share This

Beautiful people are more successful. Or, at least, they have an easier time getting jobs, making contacts, and being remembered. Makes sense, right? But what came first: the beauty or the success?

Beauty is often regarding as a subjective trait. The eye of the beholder is the common reference. Yet certain studies on the topic have exposed a heavy amount of objective opinion on what is beautiful. Essentially, proportional, symmetrical facial features are more attractive.

Further investigation, as illuminated in this article, seems to imply that beauty helps determine one’s potential for career development. This also seems reasonable. In certain fields - sales, retail, film, television, fashion - the connection is obvious. In other professions the aesthetic bonus may be less pronounced but surely it can’t be ignored all together.

What the articles, and indeed the social scientists conducting the studies, ignore is that beauty and success often stem from the same origin: successful parents.

As much as we don’t like to admit it, people raised in wealthy families are more often better looking. They have the best nutrition and constant care. They can afford the finest clothes, cosmetics, exercise, and accessories. They, given an unfortunate turn of genetics, can rectify their lack of symmetrical proportions with plastic surgery.

Furthermore, people from wealthy backgrounds have, unfortunately, a much greater chance of success as they enter the workforce. They are blessed with private schools, tutors, and tuition. They have their parent’s powerful network of connections to exploit. They have the financial backing to start their own businesses.

That’s not to say that there aren’t heaps of rich, ugly, unsuccessful kids out there. The sort of kid that’ll never get daddy’s company or be invited to the press conference. The sort of kid that’ll float on their trust fund as long as they can and then beg the estate for more.

But I think my point is a valid one. The article lists several statistics linking success and beauty. Isn’t it just as possible that these people, given their familial advantages, would have been successful even if they were less handsome? One such stat, that attractive candidates did better in Finnish elections, must be attributable at least somewhat to networking and campaign dollars (or euros).

I’m not trying to discount the connection between beauty and success so much as I am trying to emphasize the connection between success and beauty. Did you get that?

I’m a massive believer in equality of opportunity. It is essential to free democracies that every child have the same potential, the same starting line. These studies only damn the poor further into the cyclical dungeon that is poverty. Yet another leg up for the haves, and another hurdle for the have-nots.

So what to do?

Subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables? Get kids exercising more in schools? Teach them, outright, that beauty is a factor? Educate parents?

Any other ideas?

Share This

Mountain Equipment Co-Op, one of Canada’s biggest retailers of outdoor equipment, has pulled it’s Nalgene brand bottles off the shelves. The move comes amidst growing concern (such as my concern) surrounding bisphenol A, a chemical that mimics estrogen in the human body.

The chemical is claimed to be benign by the plastics industry, but American government tests have linked it to various health problems.

I feel slightly vindicated, even though my voice on the issue was just one of many. Still, to see a retailer take precautionary measures - even if self-preservation was a bigger motivator than altruism - such as these is somewhat inspiring.

Perhaps this is a sign that the petrochemical plastics industry, despite it’s insistence that the chemical is safe, is about to bow out to public pressure. After all, even if the chemical isn’t as dangerous as some tests have shown it is still a negative for their PR departments.

Once again I question whether or not this is the only chemical available that can produce these types of plastics. Is it not very possible that, as this chemical is derived from the oil refining process, they need a use for it to maximize profits? If it was a dangerous waste chemical instead of a universally useful one, oil companies would lose money on the refining process (and probably end up paying more to dispose of it properly).

Call me a cynic or a conspiracy theorist, but when government and independent tests show something to be dangerous and industry tests show it to be safe, I have a hard time with trust.

Don’t you?

So what is there to do? Unfortunately this stuff is in all sorts of consumer products, many of which package things you ingest - aluminum can linings, plastic bottles (including baby bottles [!]), dental sealant, sunglasses, etc. You could do yourself a favour by taking a stainless steel bottle instead of a plastic one, and feeding the little one out of glass jars and bottles instead of cans or plastics.

As far as Canadians are concerned, our health department (Health Canada) and the province of Ontario are both conducting independent government tests on the issue, so we should have some good strong conclusions to look at. Check the story here.

Share This

It was the top story on Al Jazeera’s Americas page. It was on the front page of today’s NY Times, The Guardian (UK), the LA Times, and the Taipei Times (Taiwan), just to name a few. It was prominent on the BBC, CNN and other global news networks. Everyone is talking about it.

Which is precisely the motivation for the act in the first place.

A troubled young man who had been disowned by his family, dumped by his girlfriend and fired from his job. He had an old rifle and nothing to lose. To gain, he had global notoriety and the means to teach all who rejected him a final lesson.

And after the tragic events in a mall in Omaha, he succeeded. The mainstream media is more than happy enough to oblige his wish to “be famous.” He now is.

Congratulations, I wonder when the next rampage will occur.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t cover these stories. What’s troubling is the amount of coverage that is devoted to the life and name and photo of the murderer. How we glorify these people into dark and sinister villains who deserve our pity. Perhaps they do, perhaps not. But what they don’t deserve is to have their name launched across the world for committing such a heinous act.

Suicides are rarely covered by media sources to avoid inspiring copycats.

Why do we invite copycat murderers?

Perhaps report on the event. On the time, the place, the circumstances. Report on the victims and how they are doing, how they are feeling. But leave the murderer out of it. Drop their name, their back story, their motivation.

When a young man expressly states his intention to kill so he can get famous, and the media uses it right in the headline, I’m pretty blown away. Way to go, guys, way to go.

Share This

Thanks to high profile deaths, tasers have never been so controversial in Canada. A full scale review is under way into the design and use of these devices by law enforcement, and debate is simmering nicely.

I’d say we’re at a medium heat, for now. Like a good pot of vegetarian cashew chili.

A little background:

A Polish man was tasered to death at Vancouver’s airport. He had been there for hours with no explanation - he spoke no English and airport authorities made no attempt to find a translator. After ten hours of purgatory, he finally snapped. The video of his final moments show him angrily shifting airport furniture and moving about like an agitated caged animal. RCMP officers approached him and with no other attempt to subdue the man, proceeded to taser him into the ground. They piled on top and tasered him again. No effort to resuscitate him was made. The (very disquieting) video is here.

This is a tragic event that deserves the attention it has received. Police taser policy needs to be reviewed in a serious manner.

If we were to electrocute convicted felons in a prison, it would rightly be called torture. And yet it is acceptable to zap troublesome citizens while they walk the streets? Tasers, if they continue to be part of the police arsenal, should be used only in the last resort, right before a gun is drawn.

What troubles me on a general level is the initial police reaction to the event. The police report first claimed the man had been tasered because he was wildly agitated and could not be subdued. Only once the bystander video was released did the police change their testimony in the face of visual evidence.

It can’t help but make me wonder: What other lies have the police told us that, without evidence to the contrary, was accepted by the general public?

I’m reminded of another story involving the RCMP, Canada’s iconic Mounted Police. A twenty-two year old man was charged with drinking in a public place and, after being arrested for giving a false name, was taken into custody. He was shot dead, the bullet entering from the back of his head, while being interrogated.

The officer, a rookie, has since been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Now you may be wondering: how does a police officer go free after he shoots a young man in the back of the head during a routine interrogation in a police station?

This is something I am still asking. There were no video cameras in the room. The only other witness to the event is dead.

We’ll never know. What we do know, though, is that police corruption and lies are not confined to the third world.

Nap time is over.

Share This

One thing I’ve always despised about paying for cable is knowing that for every minute of decent television I watch, there’s seventeen oil tankers full of absolute garbage. What a waste of my money and the world’s energy.

Think about it: If you have seventy channels, probably an average amount for a North American cable or satellite provider, you have a lot of television. I’ll be generous and give television the benefit of the doubt by saying there’s about ten hours of decent TV per day. I know that sounds like way too much, but just for the sake of argument let’s go with it.

70 x 24 = 1680 hours of TV.
1680 - 10 = 1670 hours of garbage.

That means for every hour of good TV, there’s 167 hours of crap.

Now, some of you might question my math - either through my number of channels or by suggesting that not every channel broadcasts 24 hours a day. Fair enough, but I challenge you to find 10 hours of even decent programming, let alone genuinely good, entertaining stuff.

All that said, I figure there has to be some good TV out there. I mean, with all these countries pouring millions into their idiot box broadcasts, someone has to doing something right, yes?

Enter the internet.

For the past few years there has been a remarkable increase in the availability of BitTorrent download sites. Just go out and grab a client program like Azureus or BitTorrent, pop over to some torrent sharing site like isohunt or bitsoup, and start browsing. I won’t get deep into the details of why this is so much faster than using a traditional file sharing program like Limewire, but suffice it to say that instead of downloading a song by your favourite artist, you’re gonna be downloading every album they’ve ever released in one go. Brilliant.

Television programs were much the same. I could go out and grab the entire first season of The Office and watch it, commercial free, at my leisure. But now even this seems outdated - after all, who wants to wait the day or two for it to download?

Thanks to streaming sites such as TV Links, a whole new world has been opened up to us. On a streaming site one can simply click the name of the episode or movie they want to watch, and the program will download as you watch it, meaning the program is essentially on demand. Unfortunately, TV Links has since been shut down and its operator arrested. In classic internet fashion, however, dozens of new sites are stepping into the void every time a big one gets knocked down. Check ‘em out.

Finally, the newest and potentially the best option: live streaming. So now instead of waiting for the newest episode of Entourage to finish so someone can post it online, you can just watch it live (if you are on schedule) right off HBO for free.

The most useful aspect of this is, of course, sports. As watching a big match rerun is never much fun, we all now have the option of watching a favoured sporting event no matter on what channel or where in the world it’s being broadcast.

A few ideas for this are SopCast, TvAnts, and others. Want to watch English Football live, streamed? No problem. Want to catch the All Blacks? You’re set.

Why pay for cable? Why sit around and wait for your favourite show to start? Click on it and away you go!

**This site does not condone illegal behaviour by anyone.

Share This