Telling it like it is… for a change
Well, the conversosphere is atwitter with the fact that the U.S.A. was just downgraded from Triple-A to a mere AA+. Even though there seems to be little to separate the two, it’s more than symbolic. Certain investment instruments only allow for fixed percentages of ratings levels for its investments. So, this will have an effect of things. But more important–to my mind at least–is it forces some reality to creep into our lives for a change. I don’t have much respect for the ratings agencies–insiders with tremendous amounts of conflict of interest with respect to the financial and economic systems they are supposed to rate or grade–but I have to tip my hat at S&Ps’ description of the current political-fiscal situation that the U.S. is both in and slowly cluing into:
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
The financial press was reporting of ‘persistent rumours,’ that S&P would not ‘comment upon,’ about how the ratings agency would actually downgrade the U.S. financial rating and it seemed pretty obvious that it would happen. But I was a little shocked at the frank and sober language used. Hopefully, this will force more politicians to clue into the desperate situation that the U.S. (and the West more generally) is actually in.
Peace.
.
The Great Reset… Coming to an Economy Near You
I have not posted much here in the last while, mostly due to good ol’ apathy of late. At a time when humanity should be paying attention to what is going on, we apparently seem too fixated on visiting Royals, global athletic competitions, and celebrity scandals (I say ‘apparently’ since the only way to gauge this is through the filters of the mainstream, commercial media who are themselves overly obsessed with celebrities and scandals. Today, however, I wanted to say something in response to a number of articles I came across during lunch, all of which point to what is ‘coming down the pipe’ as they say:
“Playing Chicken with America’s Future”
Neil Macdonald, CBC.ca July 11, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/10/f-vp-macdonald-debt-chicken.html
“The Head Of The World’s Biggest Hedge Fund Sees ‘Economic Collapse’ Due To Money Printing By Early 2013″
Zero Hedge, July 18, 2011
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/head-worlds-biggest-hedge-fund-sees-economic-collapse-due-money-printing-early-2013
“The impending slow motion doom for housing – can the United States thrive with another decade long decline in home values?”
Dr. Housing Bubble, July 14, 2011
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/impending-slow-motion-doom-for-housing-home-values-lost-decades-price-cost-income-ratios/
“The Link Between Peak Oil and Peak Debt – Part 1″
Gail Tverberg, The Oil Drum, July 13, 2011
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8126
To my mind, these different articles pretty much provide a summary of what is going on right now. Western economic growth has been reliant upon a underlying foundation of cheap petroleum energy. The combination of population growth, globalization, and dwindling supplies of petroleum-based energy are threatening that expectation of constant economic growth. In order to maintain the illusion of constant economic growth, we have become reliant upon finance-related sectors (including the housing market). Since finance-related sectors are little more than monopoly-money-generating Ponzi schemes (ultimately reliant upon cheap petroleum energy), they too are now failing. And, finally, because Western political systems have become little more than corrupt team sports which are themselves reliant upon corporate graft (and the underlying systems of finance and oil production), they are incapable of change. Add to all this a largely corporate-controlled media system that is itself largely incapable of facing reality and a public that is either too uninformed to care or to pre-occupied with mere survival and you pretty much have what we are faced with today.
The only thing left out is the political/military machinations that seem to always be at work.
At any rate, the bottom line is that the global system currently in place is entirely unsustainable and I think we are slowly coming to terms with the facts:
1. Western society is entirely dependent upon cheap energy and the exploitation of the labour and resources of other countries.
2. As globalization spreads, not to mention the astounding population increases, people in the developing parts of the world are expecting to attain some degree of the Western lifestyle.
3. Many of those developing nations are creating increased demand for those same dwindling resources which means that those dwindling resources are increasingly being consumed in those developing countries.
4. The Western standard of living, which the West is desperately trying to maintain and the rest are trying to attain, is ending.
I cannot comment on the predictions of when the “collapse” is going to occur. 2012 or 2013? Perhaps. Someone like Ray Dalio (the head of the largest hedge fund featured in the Zero Hedge article) is much better situated to make such predictions than I am even though everyone knows such things can only be estimations at best. I tend to think of this more like a ‘reset’ than a collapse and it might not happen all at once but is likely a more gradual process (in reality I tend to think that it has already started). That is not to say that it will not be painful. I just think that with something as large and as complex as humanity and the social and economic system we have collectively built, it is more likely that this all will unfold in fits and starts rather than in one giant collapse. (The big question is what will happen militarily and to my mind that is a completely open question.) As I said, I see this as something that is already happening. The large financial bubbles of recent decades are a part of this, as are such seemingly tangential happenings as the popular uprisings in the Middle East, the effective ending of the U.S. ‘civilian’ space program, or the fact that $90-100/barrel crude prices now seem cheap. That all being said, since Western economies are so dependent upon the monopoly-money financial sector, perhaps a large-scale reset in the bond/currency markets will be a cataclysmic event (I am sure it will appear that way to the commercial media). Even so, I don’t think any one is confident in how that might play out.
Peace.
.
Deconstructing Linux and Building a ‘Heaven & Hell’ Linux PC
Over the past few months, and on account of a failing hard drive in one machine and wanting to build a PC for my sister and brother-
in-law, I have been fiddling with different derivatives of Debian Linux (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc.) as well as experimenting with some other odd Linux distributions on older PCs I have kicking around. I tried Linux Mint 10 (Julia), using the Gnome desktop and both 32 bit and 64 bit versions. I also tried Ubuntu 10.10 64 bit (with the Gnome desktop). I really liked Ubuntu 10.10 and I am considering putting it on the PC I intend to repair and rebuild. If not, then I will use Linux Mint 10 as the main operating system (OS) for that computer.
Linux Mint Explained
Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu and focuses more on a casual user: basically meaning a user who does not want to fiddle with his/her computer. It comes with needed software to play most media and much of the administrative functions are streamlined in the form of a useful GUI, with accessible menus mostly replacing command line activities. Since Ubuntu is developed by a corporate entity 
(Canonical), it is respectful of and stays completely clear of any copyright and license concerns. Many other distributions add all kinds of functionality (like playing commercial DVDs out of the box) that at times exist in legal grey areas. This sometimes takes the form of hardware drivers and such. So, while Ubuntu is often considered as one of the most user-friendly version of Linux, it still can be daunting for casual users who plunk in a DVD thinking it just plays on any hardware. Linux Mint fills that gap while trying to provide most functionality and simplifying common but complex functions. It is so easy to use and secure that I have my mother (who is in her seventies) using a laptop running Linux Mint 9 and am building a computer for other members of my family that will be running Linux Mint 10.
It is in my estimation that the free and open source operating systems that centre around Debian and Ubuntu, and which includes all kinds of other software such as the Gnome or KDE desktops, and other versions based off of all this (such as Linux Mint) represent a branch of F/OSS operating system development that could (if it doesn’t already) compete with the major commercial, mass markets OSes out there. While I have not yet tried them, I have also heard that Mepis, PCLinuxOS, and Ultimate Edition are also friendly for newcomers to Linux.
Deconstructing Linux-based Operating Systems
A few years ago now, when I first made the decision to learn more about Linux, one of the central problems I had was wrapping my mind around what it actually is. I have used DOS and UNIX in the distant past, as well as various incarnations of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000/ME, XP, Vista and Windows 7). Likewise with Mac OS (including some of the earlier ‘System’ OSes, as well as OS 9 and OS 10.x). With Windows and Mac OS, the operating system is easily understood as there are basically discreet versions. However, with Linux, it is not so straight-forward. Firstly, there is the Kernel, the foundation for any operating system. And the Kernel is what is properly called Linux. Other software that forms the rest of the operating system is a collection of discreet but interconnected pieces of software. The user really does not directly interact with the operating system to any great extent but instead will more likely use other software packages that sit on top of the operating system such as word processing software, video editing software, etc. But that is not the end of it. Operating systems made for PCs and which use the Linux kernel come in different flavours, each made by different but interconnected communities of individuals. In the Linux world there are a few main distributions (such as Debian, Slackware, Fedora, etc.) from which many other distributions are built. So, in the case of the OSes mentioned above, Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu and Ubuntu is derived from Debian. (To get a handle on the various ‘distros’ out there, search for “Linux Distribution Timeline” (an image search might be most useful) and it could lead you to a place like this: http://futurist.se/gldt/).
With distributions like Ubuntu and Linux Mint, there are in reality specific collections of operating system software, using a Linux Kernel, and packaged with associated bits of user software packages. On top of all that, these versions might come in different flavours of desktop environments (Gnome, XFCE, KDE, Unity) which offer different functionality and levels of complexity. As you can probably tell, I am most familiar with Gnome but I intend to explore some of the other desktops out there in the future. So, for someone coming from a Windows and Mac OS experience, all of this variability can be hard to comprehend.
Building a ‘Heaven & Hell’ Linux PC
All the versions of F/OSS Linux-based OSes have taken interesting lines of development, mostly catering to specific uses/needs and/or communities of users. Some are used for PC recovery and trouble-shooting, some for home theatre PC needs, still others for use in a network attached storage device or public kiosk PCs. Then there are others that cater to specific audiences and demographics. Scientists, media artists, computer and network technicians, and casual users have distributions directed at them and there are even distributions that are meant for spiritual, ideological, and aesthetic purposes.
Seeing the variety and the endless examples of how computers are used is fascinating to me and I often spend time looking at different 
distros (at places like Distro Watch). And this led me to a fun little project for this past weekend. I decided to turn an older Dell workstation into a ‘heaven & hell’ PC. Recently, I came across two distributions based on Ubuntu but with radically different agendas: Ubuntu Christian Edition (UCE) and Ubuntu Satanic Edition (USE). Not surprisingly, UCE is built for those of the Christian faith and is themed accordingly and comes bundled with useful software such Bible software software. USE is not directed at Satan-worshippers but metal fans. It is themed accordingly and comes with open source metal music. While UCE is more serious, USE is a little more playful. As I understand it, early versions of USE were simply themed content for use with any version of Ubuntu but they ‘suggested’ that it should be installed over an installation of Ubuntu Christian Edition. At any rate, I found this to be a fascinating example of how different communities have taken the open source software world and build it around specific communities.
Consider some of these Linux variations:
#! (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=crunchbang): designed to be lightweight and minimalist in its design.
GParted LiveCD (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=gparted): built to be used ‘live’ and to partition hard drives.
Linux Mint (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu): based off of Ubuntu (which is based off of Debian) but designed with more built-in functionality and for any casual user.
MeeGo (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=meego): Originates from Intel and Nokia open source projects and aimed at netbooks and entry-level desktops, handheld computing and communications devices, in-vehicle infotainment devices, connected TVs, and media phones.
Puppy Linux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy): designed to be extremely lightweight, including use on older hardware.
Ubuntu (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu): based on Debian, Ubuntu has become one of the most used versions of Linux and is designed for casual users world-wide.
Vinux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=vinux): A remastered version of Ubuntu optimised for the needs of blind and visually impaired users.
Yellow Dog Linux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=yellowdog): built for PowerPC architectures and can be used specifically on the PS3 (at least, before Sony removed that functionality from the PS3).
Zencafe GNU/Linux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=zencafe): designed specifically for public Internet cafés and includes auto-recovery features, Internet café billing and management software, and other graphical system administration tools.
So, back to the ‘heaven & hell’ PC. I have an old Dell Precision 360 Workstation (circa 2002) that I use to play with (which mostly means 
I install versions of Linux on it to try them out) and decided to install both Ubuntu Christian Edition an Ubuntu Satanic Edition. Since they are installed side-by-side and I can boot into either one at start up, I now have a ‘heaven & hell’ PC. So far, I like both. However, I did install a relatively old version of Christian Edition (simply because I didn’t want to set up a torrent on the PC I was working on to get the latest version… so I just found an old version on the web somewhere). There are nice features on both but I have not really had much time to explore. Although I would consider myself an atheist, I attended the Catholic school system up until high school and still like many aspects of the New Testament. I also understand and respect the sense of community that religion can foster, especially its most humane forms (it’s the fundamentalists, of any religion, that I dislike). So, I did spend a little time with the Bible software and that was interesting (and brought back memories). The Satanic Edition was fun (even though it is slightly disrespectful to the Christian Edition… which is partly the intent for some using it no doubt). The wallpapers and 
icons were very well-crafted and if the metal/satanic themes are your kind of thing then it would represent a perfectly useful version of Ubuntu. I have yet to check out the music but that is on the list.
A word of advice to anyone wanting to try this: since I was working with a slightly older version of Christian Edition, it may have causes some hiccups with the installation and the ability to dual boot so that you can select one or the other from the menu at startup. If I was going to do this again, I would install Christian Edition first and then install Satanic Edition. That way you will get the entries for each (along with the ability to boot in safe mode with each and use the Memtest software). Doing it the other way around left the Satanic version without an entry to boot from.
Even though this is not the PC that I do any work on, I will try these for a time, particularly for web surfing. And it is a fun little project if you have a spare or old computer lying around. But it was intresting on other levels too. As an aspect of culture, both provide meaning, psycholigical comfort and aesthetic pleasure to their audience. Case in point, take a look at the ‘Loser’ wallpaper from the UCE. I know that those who are religious often feel persecuted. And while some of that is brought on themselves and some of it is more perceived than reality (not to mention that it fits in with the dominant tropes of Christianity)there is some truth to it too. The ‘Loser’ wallpaper speaks to this. On the other side, USE does something similar. A marginal form like metal is not very well represented in mainstream OSes like WIndows or MacOS and USE provides a playful and humourous OS directed at metal fans (which fans would no doubt argue is akin to a secular religion).
Finally, in the end, this just shows how free and open source software (moreso than commercial versions) can cater to individual needs and very specific tastes… which is awesome.
Peace
.
PS. No harm nor disrespect was intended for either Christians or Satanists/Metalheads with the construction of this ‘Heaven & Hell’ PC.
Thoughts on the Canadian Federal Election
Well, as I initially sat down to write this, it looked like the Conservatives are going to win a majority in Canada’s Federal election. What this tells me is that many people are scared and some are angry. They (we Canadians) rejected the Liberal Party of Canada, elected Elizabeth May, wanted to think Conservatively, and were looking to principles of social democracy via the NDP. Separatists were soundly rejected, people wanted to believe in fiscal conservatism, reject empty politics, and retain the social infrastructure. I don’t really think, as some pundits speculating, that the death of Osama bin Laden had much of an effect in and of itself. Although I suspect the U.S. government/establishment is happy since this will largely guarantee a much more militaristic Canadian government, which is crucial for the U.S., both in terms of having a willing ally and in terms of buying lots of military equipment… both of which are themselves crucial for the dying empire as it tries to retain control of its hegemonic status in the world.
Now, we have to remember that this is the election results. This certainly does not mean this is what the country will get. I certainly do not trust the Conservative Party (or the “Harper Government” as it wants to be known) to be fiscally conservative. (Squandering inherited surpluses even before the financial crisis, spending a billion on security for a weekend G# meeting, and billions in uncosted and no-bid contracts for military equipment is not being fiscally conservative.) And I really doubt that any party (including the NDP or the Greens) is going to do anything serious about the environment, either in terms of pollution or climate change simply because when push comes to shove, exploiting the environment is a necessity in order to maintain our current standard of living in North America.
For me, the most interesting thing is to see the reaction of Quebec. I live in Alberta (‘was born and raised’ as they like to say out west) but lived in Montreal during much of the 1990s and it has been interesting for me to see how similar (and different) Albertans 
and Quebecois actually are when looked at objectively. So seeing Quebecers virtually abandon the separatist party is interesting. The Separatists have a platform that is basically untenable in difficult economic times and serves more of an emotional purpose. The Separatists’ platform is basically ‘separating’ from Canada while still maintaining a system where much of the shared costs of government are forced upon the remaining provinces. Other provinces would never stand for it and the barriers that would be erected because of the formal separation of bureaucracies would hurt economically. I think everyone in Quebec knows that separation is unworkable, especially in troubled political and economic times globally. It feeds an emotional need for Quebecers (which I understand and respect), and a few politicos and power brokers use it to their advantage financially and politically, but it is an idea that makes no sense given the problems facing the world today. It made me think back to a cartoon by Brian Gable of the Globe and Mail (the G+M has good cartoonists, you can check out the April election coverage here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-april-2011/article1966026/ )
It pretty much sums up what Duceppe and separatism mean today. On the political stage federally, the Bloc was politically symbolic but also evidence of just how decadent modern politics has become. The Bloc is the Quebecois way of gaming the political system. In that, it is not unlike a lot of other ways people have found to game modern society–the financiall system is basically a Ponzi scheme–and Gable’s image of Duceppe as little more than a side-show was perfect.
To me, I don’t really see too much to worry about with the results. I am afraid of looking at the results of my local riding as the expected winner is a joke of a candidate (I have no idea what he is like as a person because as a candidate he virtually never… and I mean this literally… allowed himself to answer any questions). I am glad that there will be no election for four years. I hope politicians actually start working for the benefit of the country (and not just their parties and benefactors). And I hope some actual fiscal conservatism starts to guide government officials and the electorate. But as I said, I am neither worried nor hopeful about the election results. It is what it is.
Frankly, given the crap that is coming down the pipe financially and economically, I am not sure why anyone would want to be in power, especially with a ‘majority’ because then it is really your fault when the proverbial stuff starts hitting ceiling fans. And I say that for both Canada and the U.S., as well as many other Western countries… and a few communistic ones too.
Still, we live in interestin’ times.
,
Canada, the PM, Political Parties, and Ideological Assumptions
For some time now, I have been actively trying to challenge my own ideology. After years of studying media, propaganda, politics and the ideology of others, I have to realize that when it comes to ideology, it is also an individual’s own ideology–and the assumptions that follow–that is just as dangerous. As I teach and research in the area of media studies, I have realized the necessity of trying to remain–as much as is possible–ideologically neutral. And it has been tremendously illuminating and liberating (even though, to my friends and colleagues, I am sure it is puzzling if not unsettling as I also tend to be a very vocal individual). But it has led me to entertain the idea that we Canadians should outlaw political parties when it comes to government. In most Western democracies, political parties have become very powerful and have turned ‘government’ into ‘politics;’ little more than a game between a few teams (often only two) who fight for political power. Increasingly, this paralyzes government and allows for unelected organizations (political parties) to take control over political agendas and, to a large extent, government itself.
I am sure that in previous decades, say the 1920s (or pick any decade), political parties made sense. In eras with lower levels of education and access to information, political parties might have been useful sources of research, information, and discussion. Today, they are little more than shorthand… they allow people to pay less attention to issues and problems facing society and to focus on winning, cheering, and often meaningless ideas. Today, the political party is power and concentrates power in unelected hands that often exert tremendous control over elected MPs. Due to their proximity to power, they are often the place where other powerful forces (individuals and corporations and interest groups all along the political spectrum) seek to attach themselves. So, it became increasingly clear to me that we should just elect–as many of us do on a municipal level–worthy individuals who will travel to Ottawa and work on behalf of the entire population to run the country.
So, when I came across a post at CBC’s website attached to a story about the current Canadian election where the incumbent Prime Minister, Steven Harper, argued that without a majority he would not be able to protect Canada with regard to international relations, I thought both about ideology and assumptions.
“U.S. border deal at risk without majority: Harper”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-harper-ndp-1148.html#socialcomments
CBC News
Posted: Apr 28, 2011 11:40 AM ETAn extremely popular comment by RickAshe [a very thoughtful commentator, see: https://membercentre.cbc.ca/ViewMember.aspx?u=8170984]:
Is the coalition “legal” and does it fit within the Canadian concept of “democracy”?
Yes.
The question of who forms the Canadian “government” at any given time is a question of how the members of parliament organize themselves: it can be a majority, a minority or a coalition.
When Canadians vote in a general election, they do not vote for a Prime Minister, nor do they vote for a government. Instead, Canadians vote for a member of parliament (“MP”) to represent their riding in Ottawa. Each MP gets a “seat” in the House of Commons. In all, 308 MPs are chosen.
The Prime Minister is actually appointed by the Governor General (“GG”). The GG, as the representative of the Queen, who, technically, is Canada’s head of state (in other words, the PM is not the head of state). The Prime Minister then chooses from among the MPs to appoint the members of the Cabinet.
As noted on www.thetyee.ca:
The Constitution Act of 1867 doesn’t even mention the prime minister or political parties. MPs are everything.
How MPs organize themselves is entirely up to them. This is why two MPs are able to currently sit as independents; there could just as easily be 308 of them. Most MPs have organized themselves into groupings known as parties. This simplifies the process of forming government but doesn’t change the constitutional pre-eminence of individual MPs.
There is just one basic requirement: The government must at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
In other words, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can only remain as the “government” of Canada for as long as they have the support of a majority of the MPs.
GOOGLE: is it legal in canada to form a coalition and check out Canadian Legal FAQS
My reply:
The implications of this fact about Canadian parliament becoming more well-known are staggering.
In recent history (and not just under the current government) the Prime Minister’s Office and the political parties have concentrated and consolidated political power around them. This is made worse since often majority governments are elected with only a relatively small percentage of the overall electorate.
It is time that Canadian citizens take back power from unelected entities. I am even inclined to say we drop political parties entirely, drop the Governor General (and our Constitutional ties to Britain and its monarchy), make the PM a symbolic head (as the GG is now) and make our MPs… all of them… work as government representatives.
I am heartened by the level of interest and often by the level of discourse that is evident during this election (as well as the opportunity to participate). From a media studies perspective, it is all the product of a well-educated citizenry, who have access to tremendous amounts of information and debate (and not just through ‘social media’), who seem to be highly motivated in a very uncertain era.
Peace
.