2012 Doomsday?

            December 21st 2012 is the end of the world aka Doomsday! Well, not really...
            Unfortunately, for many people unfamiliar with the current front-runner in Doomsday theories, the 2012 Doomsday prediction has grown into an entity of its own. From it's humble beginnings as misinterpretations from a hack of an archaeologist, to its illogical silver screen appearances, the 2012 Doomsday prediction is now embedded in the publics consciousness (with all of its various forms).
            The origins of the 2012 prediction can more or less be tracked back to Zecharia Sitchin, a self-proclaimed archaeologist, who took it upon himself to break down ancient Sumerian text, through his own eisegesis (interpreting a text into ones own ideas - I love that word). Sitchin graduated with an economics degree, and then worked as a journal editor. Upon coming to America, he began work as an executive for a fishing company. It was during him time in America that he began teaching himself ancient Sumerian language called “cuneiform”, which was an early form of primitive writing/expression. After Sitchin believed that he was more educated than Sumerian/Mayan scholars, he decided to translate various writings, and declared that ancient Sumeriasn had predicted the end of the world, and that they were visited by beings from another planet.

            Essentially, Sitchin believes the following: the Sumerian culture is derived from the “Annunaki” alien race; they live on a large planet called “Nibiru”, which has a long elliptical orbit in our solar system (and is out 12^th planet); Nibiru makes a return to our planet every few thousand years. All of this has been debunked, yet people still buy into a large planet hurdling its way towards Earth. If this planet did exist, it would have been detectable by a telescope years ago. There’s a good chance you could have even seen it with the naked eye years ago. I’m an amateur astronomer, and I can see Saturn and Jupiter from my backyard without a telescope. That being said, many people have claimed that the government knows of Nibiru’s existence, but has yet to share it with the public…and has silenced everyone who stepped outside and looked up at the night sky….*eye roll*

            From this outlandish theory, stems many others: a pole shift, a solar flare, a shift in consciousness etc. Numerous people have hopped on the 2012 bandwagon and added their own far fetched ideas to the growing theory. Needless to say, all of these have also been debunked by a discipline that most 2012 theorists are unaware of: science. I may come across as being harsh, but I'm only being truthful. Let's look at some of the proposed scenarios:            The first is the idea of a pole shift. This can mean a magnetic pole shift, or a physical pole shift. Magnetic pole shifts happen, and do so during the course of thousands of years (that's a fact). At the moment, we may be in one, but nothing will flip/reverse instantaneously on Dec. 21st, causing disaster. We've tracked the movement of the magnetic poles before, and will continue to do so in the future.
            The physical pole shift idea comes from a large outside force altering the Earth's axis and rotation (such as planet Nibiru). Long story short, it won't happen. The amount of energy required to stop the Earth, and then start spinning it in the opposite direction is more immense than theorists can comprehend. This is excluding the fact that a collision of that magnitude would destroy Earth; even a "near miss" collision from a large object would not alter the Earth's axis or rotation.
            Now we move to solar flares. In laymen’s terms, a solar flare is basically a large mass of energy released from the sun. These flares eject "clouds of electrons, ions, and atoms through the corona of the sun into space". They usually contact Earth a few days later. No one (anywhere) can make an accurate prediction that a killer solar flare will fire at the Earth in 2012 (let alone on Dec. 21st), while the sun is at its solar maximum (an 11 year cycle). It's incredibly difficult to predict when a solar flare will launch from the sun and come into contact with Earth. One of the biggest solar flares actually hit Earth in 2003, during the suns solar minimum. That being said, we are expected to see more activity in 2012/2013, but the Earth's ionosphere is more than capable of giving us a hand in shielding us from a harmful flare. So if anyone says that they can predict a solar flare (down to the day), they're lying. It's the same as saying the exact year, month, and day you're going to pass away.
            As for a shift in consciousness....well....I don't know how to address that, aside from saying "Maybe?" That's one of the more new age/spiritual takes on 2012. It's quite unlikely though, when you consider the current state of the world.
            I hope this sheds some light on the subject, and takes peoples minds off the negative doomsday theories they've been hearing.

Please check out http://www.2012hoax.org/ for more information, as they go into far more detail than I did, and touch on more topics.

It's Been a While

          I realize I haven't posted on here recently (save for my previous post). It is in part because nothing has really jarred me to the point of blogging about it. It is also in part that I've decided to take a more "Socratic" approach to addressing these issues, by sitting down and engaging in dialogues with my friends on these subjects.
          Rest assured, I will have more blogs soon. People have a right to know what I think...right?

Earthlings: A Hidden Agenda

There has been an outstanding debate and growth in awareness when it comes to the treatment of animals (primarily before being processed for food). This really isn’t news to anyone, and sure doesn’t need to be shoved down anyone’s throat in a "snake oil salesmen" manner.

I recently watched a documentary agenda film titled “Earthlings.” I was somewhat intrigued by the description, and I wanted to see how Joaquin Phoenix did in presenting it as the narrator. Long story short, I wanted to stop watching about 10 minutes. Was it due to the fact that whole film was one interchangeable shot of animal cruelty? No. Was it due to the fact that there was a hidden, biased, and warped agenda to the film? Yes. That being said, the graphic images are unsettling at times, but we’ve seen those images before. I was disgusted at the fact that the film doesn’t use logic to address the issues needed. Essentially, the film is as follows: a 95 minute film of various shots of animal cruelty, while stating that humankind is at fault for eating meat and doing animal testing to increase our scientific knowledge. That’s it in a nutshell. I began to realize that something was up when I continued to check out the members behind the film. They are all, more or less, vegans of some kind. That’s where the hidden agenda from P.E.T.A. comes into play (Joaquin, Moby, Maggie Q etc. are all members of animal rights groups).

            The film tries to use pathos and ethos, without logos (aka logic). It tries to appeal to people on an emotional level by showing some animals being killed inhumanely for food, without showing anything positive in the film. It’s a tactic used in various marketing ploys, where you make people feel sympathetic to what you’re showing, in hopes they agree with you without seeing the real problem(s). It clearly blames the consumption of meat for all these crimes against animals, without stimulating the viewers’ rational mind to ask other questions or address other issues. It also shows scenes of some animals being treated poorly by some people in some zoos/circuses ("some" being the operative word). I was upset at the animals’ treatment, but it had nothing to do with food. It had to do with trying to hold those careless people responsible.

There are some instances where the film talks about euthanasia, and how it is done well in some locations, but cannot be done well in others (because they don’t have the money to buy proper drugs). Some businesses/locations must use alternative means from lack of money. That’s the issue. It has nothing to do with eating meat. The issue is money and the inhumane killings that need to change. On a side note, it's ironic that P.E.T.A. has killed animals, but they were not brought up in the film.

As stated above, eating meat is not the issue by any means (despite what warped P.E.T.A. may have you believe). The issue is how they are being killed. In many cases, they are killed inhumanely by bad companies or bad people. A few bad apples are spoiling the bunch here. The film ignores this. It just insists on showing animals being slaughtered (only by people, as it avoids showing animals in the wild slaughtering other animals for food).

It also makes silly claims about what the consumption of meat has done to the world. The film brings up Pfiesteria, know as “the cell from hell”. A quick synopsis tells you it causes harmful lesions among fish, and can be harmful to humans as well. The movie tells you that it is “a direct result of our mass consumptions of animals” – that is a direct quote. However, it also states earlier that it is from “gallons of raw hog feces and urine, poured into rivers and oceans”. Again, it has nothing to do with eating meat. It has to do with the disposal of waste. The film tries to trick the audience into avoiding meat by twisting words.

I give this film credit for its letting people know about the abuse of animals, but that is the only praise it will recieve. The vegan message is clear in this film, and it uses a sophists approach to get people to buy into what vegans believe. It doesn’t address the real issues with animal cruelty. It also doesn’t acknowledge that animal testing, despite the controversy, has greatly helped humans in science. For example, the VP of P.E.T.A. is a diabetic and uses insulin that we have from animal testing. She just claims “I need my life to fight for the rights of animals”. She’s a disgusting hypocrite, but I won't digress further.

The film also makes sure to never show any act of compassion by people towards animals. It only shows suffering. It’s the equivalent to watching a movie about human beings and showing nothing but war, famine, slavery, cruelty, rape, and murder, while ignoring all human acts of compassion and kindness towards others that we know exists everywhere.

The real issue is how animals are being killed for our food. It has nothing to do with eating meat - I cannot stress that enough. Money, laws and regulations are needed to dictate how animals are to be killed, whether for food or euthanasia. I love meat; however, I prefer to eat it if I know it has been killed humanely.

All I’m trying to say is that you don’t need to think about whether or not you want to eat that piece of meat in the market, however, I do think you will want to think about how that animal was killed, and if there’s anything you can do to help animals in the future. Do not let nonsensical biased films such as “Earthlings” alter your current lifestyle. Look past the sophists curtain, and pay attention to the man behind it, as he holds the questions and answers to real issues.

Bad Taste

            An observation I’ve made over the last decade has been in regards to the fashion trends witnessed in North America. I’m sure it may happen elsewhere, but I’m never at those locations, so I can only speculate. However, here in NA, I’ve begun to notice that certain attire that was once “lame”, now resurrects like the Phoenix and becomes what we call “cool”. Why?

            To be perfectly honest, I have no idea. All I know is that specific trends that were dubbed “nerdy” decades ago, are now coming back and being utilized by those “hip” kids at school or work.

            One of the most common revivals, in terms of fashion, that I have noticed are thick glasses. Whether they are sun glasses or reading glasses, the thicker they are, the better. The individuals who wear these thick rimmed reading glasses, or the cheap two dollar sunglasses with fuchsia sides, are actually considered to be “cool”. We also see this growing trend with musicians, actors, and other celebrities (and I’m sure some of this is their fault). These people are wearing the same glasses that Buddy Holly would wear. Remember these thick glasses? We used to beat those kids up in high school for wearing those. We actually had a manual in which we would determine how big of a wedgie or swirly that person got, based solely on the thickness of their glasses. Why are these so popular now?

            Another trend, similar to some of the glasses, is the vibrant colours we see on pieces of clothing. Backpacks and hats are becoming increasingly popular to have in bright blinding colours. Many of us wore these as kids, but then realized at a later age that we could dress ourselves. Some of these were considered quite cool and popular in the seventies and eighties, but then burnt out. Why are they coming back now? We also see attire such as tweed jackets, flannel shirts, and tight pants (on guys) coming back into play. When people dress like this, they are considered quite “hip” (by many people).

            The conclusion I’ve been led to, based off these observations, is that nothing ever goes out of style (derrr, that seems obvious). However, I’ve also noticed that what the “cool kids” once called “nerdy”, has now been deemed “hip” by the modern “cool kids”. A complete paradigm shift throughout generations.

           

*I never beat up kids with glasses*

Take Me to the Other Side

     Many kinds of spiritual writings or spiritual interventions have been practiced through the history of humankind. In antiquity, the Chinese used a form of spirit writing to contact the dead. This trend was also carried out in places such as Europe and India. Since the late 19^th century, the Ouija Board was being sold to the public as nothing more than a board game or a parlour trick. Single planchettes for spiritual writings were also being sold to the public. The real question is: why do people still believe they are tools to contact the dead?

     Many people remember using the Ouija Board at a party, or when you were a child hanging out with your friends on a stormy night. You would place your hands gently on the board with others, and watch the planchette move and spell words through the power of the spirits. To everyone’s amazement, the planchette would eerily move on its own. Everyone would also claim they were not the one moving it to each letter. Was this an ancient form of spiritual intervention, or simply a parlour trick explained by science?

     It is the latter. The most well known explanation of the Ouija Board is the ideomotor effect. In short, this is a characteristic of the agent who is moving an object unconsciously, and attributing it to another force; in this case, it is a supernatural force. This what many people do not know about the Ouija Board and how it functions.

     Simple tests can be done to prove the inaccuracy and falsity of the Ouija Board. One simple test is to have two people use a Ouija Board, while another watches and records the data. The trick here is to blindfold the two people using it. What happens after this test? It produces pure jibberish. The same can be done with a keyboard or a pad of paper when trying to open this inter-dimensional portal. 

     There are many other outstanding issues with the Ouija Board and its supposed function and stages of use. Why does a spirit need wood and plastic to open a spiritual doorway? Why do your eyes need to be open for it to work? Why can the spirit “possess” your body, and only spell words (as opposed to actually moving the rest of your body around, or talking)? Why can’t the spirit move the planchette itself? There are other questions that arise when scrutinizing the Ouija Board, and only add to the debunking of it.

     Ouija Boards are a simply a game. The do not act as inter-dimensional doorways. They do not use spirits to spell words. However, they do rely on humans to physically move them. Does this mean ghosts/spirits/spectres do not exist? Well, no. The evidence is stacked against them, but all this means is that the Ouija Board is a sham.

     People seem to want to believe that it contacts ghosts, or their dead relatives. Many people want to believe there is something after this life. Other people may want some form of closure after their loved ones have passed on, and this board may give them that. It may seem unfair to take that way from them, but I can only assume that knowing the truth would be better in these cases.

Hide that Poker Face

     As an avid watcher of professional sports, I tune into TSN, Sporstnet, and The Score on a daily basis. What I never expected to see on these sports networks was gambling. Why on Gaia’s green earth am I seeing gambling on these stations?

     Within the last decade or so, gambling (Texas Hold’em in particular) has seeped in through the cracks and is now littering these stations on a weekly basis with their programs. Why? I have no idea. Poker is not a sport. It never has been, and it never will be. A simple comparison of the two clearly indicates the difference between gambling and a professional sport.

     Success in professional sports takes years of training, hard work, dedication, cognitive ability, and the constant practice during the year and during the off season. These professional athletes are paid millions for their skill and devotion to the sport. Some may argue they are paid too much, but it is clear that they work through blood, sweat, and tears to play the sport, as well as keep their jobs.

     What does it take to win at gambling/poker? The ratio is about ¼ knowledge of the game, and about ¾ chance or luck (whatever you choose to call it). Gambling is all about the luck of the draw. Some may argue it does indeed take skill to judge opponents, and make faces; in a sense, this is correct. It does take some skill in using proper judgment when dealing with large sums of money, and making faces like Jim Carey to throw people off. Does this mean gambling deserves to be on sports networks, or that the gamblers deserve the money they win? No. Gambling is also not deserving of having announcers that tell the audience that the gamblers actually have control of the game, or have any say in the final outcome. These announcers insinuate that the gamblers have vast amounts of skill when it comes to a game of chance. This could not be further from the truth. In comparison, this is the same as claiming that craps and roulette actually take skill to win. That is just ludicrous.

     I can understand and tolerate seeing billiards or darts on a sports network, as these games take immense amounts of practice and skill to the get the level of these professionals. These players do indeed use skill and finesse in order to win. Gambling does not tend to use either.

     In closing, gambling is essentially a game of chance. It takes very little skill to win. When playing Texas Hold’em, you can put a ten year veteran against someone who has never played the game once (but is informed of the rules). What would the outcome be? No one knows, because it is a game of chance and could go either way. They have a fifty-fifty chance to win. That being said, if you place a ten year hockey veteran against someone who has never played hockey (but knows the rules), the outcome is quite simple; the ten year veteran takes the rookie to school.

     Gambling does not deserve any place on sports networks, or any of the praise that it receives for using vast amounts of skill to win. We can only hope that these networks see the bad hand they have, and decide to push gambling back into its humble home…the casino.

Paranormal Skills, or Cheap Childhood Thrills?

     Ever since the rise of the notorious and nefarious Blair Witch Project, paranormal films have taken a different filmmaking approach for the big screen. This technique involves the use of a pseudo-documentary take while presenting the shots on screen. One question that arises from this technique is: are these films scary by themselves, or do they rely solely on their presentation? – yes, that may seem like two questions, but it is not.

     As stated previously, the Blair Witch Project was instrumental in the construction of the technique used in some modern paranormal films. The use of a handheld camera giving a pseudo-documentary feel to the film seems to produce a more “realistic” view of the characters and the situations they are involved with. On the other hand, the use of this film technique appears to come off as a cheap scare tactic on par with what children do. That may seem a little harsh, but it is a fair observation.

     Recent films such as the Paranormal Activity franchise, The Fourth Kind, and the newly released The Devil Inside make use of this technique. These films appear to utilize this technique to frighten audiences (on some occasions); however, it is beginning to come across as more of a crutch to lean on in order to scare people. The fact that they display the films as “real” is what ends up giving it the ability to scare people. Some of the scares these films produce consist of nothing more than an individual walking around with a handheld camera, panning to the left, and having a ghostly image appear and disturb the previously silent scene. This is similar to the way you would scare people as a child. You would wait around the corner, and then pop out and say “Boo!” This just comes across as scary because it is with a handheld and appears “real”. They also rely on leaving a handheld camera behind, and watching a series of spooky events unfold while no one is around. Had someone been watching this film if it was produced the way other films were, they may not feel as frightened as they would while watching a handheld camera. Think of some of the scariest films you have seen, and ask why you thought they were so scary. Those films did not try to pretend they were real by just using a cheap scare tactic. They were able to scare you without it.

     This amateur and predictable technique is becoming very cumbersome to put up with. It has served its purpose in the past, but has now worn out its welcome. It is clear that these scripts, actors, and movies in general cannot compete with other films on a level playing field, so they need to take a different filmmaking approach. This is not by any means saying that trying new techniques is bad, however, it is just saying that these films are not up to par with other films, so they need to find workarounds to get on that level. Keep this in mind when watching these films in the future. Try not to let the pseudo-documentary approach catch you off guard and trick you into believing that what you are watching is real.