Politics of Hatred

You know the people of whom I speak. As you’re having a conversation about an everyday topic, they suddenly bee-line towards their own brand of crusade, elaborating on their cause with an increasingly angry tone. If you’re a normal person, or simply very inept at social connections, your initial rebuttal to this person´s tirade is a hasty retreat. But why is that? Any phobias aside, most of these cases can be traced to the fact that we’ve heard it all before, and we can’t help but add a small mustache to the image of our assailant.

Historical allegories to dictators aside, the moment we hear a politician get riled up about any issue, the more cool-headed of us start wondering what his angle is, because frankly, him being duplicitous is a more likely scenario than there being a sincere conviction behind his ranting, as, once again, previous experience tells us so.

But there are exceptions to every rule, or at least so we are led to believe. The Obama campaign, for instance, has been based on a message of hope and willingness to face evil head on, and while this message may have been perceived as a bit ill-defined, it is attaining the numbers needed to actually put the man in the leading position, at least for now. Sure, many of us, including me, sometimes feel the pangs of doubt, but at the very least we are moved by Mr. Hussein´s resolve. And that’s the entire point.

A large amount of populist parties use perceived conviction of ideals to empower their party or group. All over the world, their ilk draw power from the discontent of the masses with a set problem, be it immigration, political freedom, green living or simple lack of democracy. While very few of these hold altruistic goals behind their message of doom, there is an actual use one can derive from these sometime villains: That of figuring out the issues locked in the minds of the populace.

Besides, the Internet, much like newspapers, has made it easier to take in information about subversive or controversial parties in a more collected and mild-mannered way. Simply put, once more our political movement has detracted from the violent protest and has become skewed towards anonymous message-posting on church-doors, so to speak. It may not have the same impact initially, but our new kind of world-changing exchange of words will still echo quite powerfully, if allowed to spread. At the very least, it should let incumbent leaders figure out just what they’re doing wrong, without having to listen to the locals screaming on soapboxes.

Nuclear Power: Our nightmarishly bright future.

The shrieks of panic have already swamped a number of ears attached to easily startled economists. Fossil fuel-prices have skyrocketed, oil as a result of practically every Western country gorging themselves on it, and coal due to China and India´s sudden misplaced interest in the energy source. As most anyone would know, there are no easy solutions to a power-crisis, or we would not be paying engineers the loathsome sums we do. But in this entry, I have compiled a few of the conclusions assembled from studies in regard to new strategies that might just let us continue keeping our proverbial lights on (or literal ones if you find comfort in the sharp glow of your screen as sleep becomes a prerogative).

Wind is an alternative many amateurs would point to for larger accumulative power, but there are several drawbacks to such a plan. For one, there is only so much wind you can gather before the flow of air is altered to a path of less resistance, meaning it is a finite resource that necessitates careful planning. However, there are already several working examples of small arrays or line-attached wind turbines that are both fit to supply a somewhat large amount of power to households. While this sort of idea is mostly fit for villas and manors away from city centers, it is still a good supplement of energy, and if it was used in conjunction with geothermal or solar power, a large amount of self-sufficient homes could be established, allowing for a more effective construction of the electrical distribution net.

Solar is the eventual key. There are already grand assortments of systems utilized to provide heating for both small and medium housing that work, and does so well. There is a collection of solar plants that work with very different setups than what could be called the norm, in particular I find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCGVTYtJEFk interesting. New materials and structures are constantly tested and invented, but there-in lies our catch. As there is no real standard for a proper solar-array that can mass-produce power, and as it’s a very research-intensive project to undertake the assembly of a plant of that magnitude, it’s progress into the worlds markets has been slow by comparison to other competitors.

Bio-fuel and natural gas, the only car-energizing resources I’m going to discuss here (unless you’ve already gone electric, a new and exciting market), have made a somewhat large splash unto the scene, and are seen as saviors to some drivers. Most see them as a partially broken attempt at swiftly replacing normal petroleum, for a couple of reasons. Chiefly for natural gas is that it’s just too similar to its predecessor’s, being that there is only a limited supply (mostly held in moderately unfriendly hands) and contributes fairly highly to the green-house effect (argue all you want it does not exist, but I’d imagine your head would still grow quite hot no matter how far into the sand you’ve stuck it). Biological replacements are tricky as they require large masses of farmed land otherwise used for growing proper crops, to feed the Earth’s growing populace. With prices of nutritional items already going through the roof and palm-oil being horrendously bad for the environment due to deforestation, one can expect the cost of this alternative to soon match regular oils.

Finally, we reach the gist of this article. After having ploughed through those many sources of lesser controversy, we reach an old-time favorite: Nuclear Power. Why would this extremely abundant and cheap supplier of electricity be a source for debate, you may ask? In all seriousness, the issues that surround fission are even more numerous than you might think, even if you were a fan of Homer Simpson´s escapades. The water-masses used in the power-producing process of most plants freeze over in the colder co-ordinates of our Globe during winter, halting all operation (unless sea/ocean is properly worked over, resulting in an altered environment). The plants are maintenance- and sanitation-heavy, requiring not only having to ship in staff from all over the affected country, but an oft-overlooked amount of waste (lubricant oils, cleaning equipment, and the actual used masses of radioactive materials). In addition, without top-of-the-line filters the CO2 by-product is loathsomely high, in conjunction with the hot seawater it tends to belch out into the unprepared marine-habitats. Not to mention the fact that we still have not figured out exactly what to do with the aforementioned nuclear waste.

Now that I’ve spent a long while bashing the technology, let me explain my thinking behind endorsing it. Wind and solar will in due time replace most all existing energy-production, in conjunction wave- and water-driven collectors- However the time needed to properly expand this industry from its fledgling status (IE actually building every plant we need) is much longer than the time we’ve been allotted by the former and current energy-policy of the world. 10 to 20 years of concurrently building more nuke-reactors and upgrading the existing ones seem to be the only, and quite bitter, way forward.

Hello World

Hello World
As my first entry into the blogosphere, I would like to set the tone for entries yet unwritten. The views I hold may or may not be controversial, though you could certainly feel offended by them either way. Remember then the venue I speak within, and try to restrain your ire (but in truth, I secretly relish every angry tirade my expressions bring forth).

A European Union law was recently passed regarding the telecom industry in general. What was remarkable about this had nothing to do with the original piece of legislation, but instead the secretly tacked-on additions that appeared among it's lines in the final days leading up to the voting process. Malcolm Harbour, a British Conservative Party member, was the culprit behind the stuffing of this bill, and while I'd normally be for cloak-and-dagger shenanigans that enhance the perpetrator's fortunes or standing within the lobbyist community, I have to draw a very firm line when it adversely effects me personally (a practically every Internet-user in Europe). The gist of this new decree can be summarized in the notion that if a person is found to have illegally downloaded any piece of software on a total of three separate occasions, their ISP will permanently ban and blacklist that individual's household's IP, essentially barring them access to the Internet forever.

While obviously shocking news to many, I can already hear the crowing of people who espouse their own high moral fiber. To you I say this: Not only will those of the buccaneer's persuasion suffer this injustice, but should you contract a piece of malware or similar virii, that could download and upload illicit code without your knowledge or consent, your pleas for mercy will go just as equally unheard, as if your involvement was implicit. If a visitor or wardriving fiend utilizes your connection for their own sordid purposes, you will be similarly punished.

Though the law will not gain effect till a while yet, and as such can be subject to alteration, I would still urge you all to keep a close eye on it, and also to perceive as best you can the results on both law-writing within the EU as a whole, and the changes in status bestowed upon those who stealthily rewrote that once harmless bill. And to take every precaution to keep your connection secure should the effort to restrain this atrocity fail.