In 1973, consumer debt in the US (comprised mostly of credit card debt) totaled $193 billion dollars. By 1983, that number reached $445 billion, and attained $866 billion in 1993. Want to take a stab at how high that number rose by 2008?
$13.84 trillion.
Now, compare a couple numbers taken from a larger span of time. In 1894, the richest man in America–John D. Rockefeller–earned $1.25 million, which was approximately seven-thousand times the country’s average income. In 2006, James Simons, a typical hedge-fund manager, earned $1.7 billion. That’s thirty-eight thousand times the average income.
These figures were gleaned from Life Inc, Douglas Rushkoff’s analysis of corporatism; its history, starting with the Renaissance, and its continued influence on our daily affairs.
If you’re wondering how wealth came to be so unevenly distributed–why, for instance, “severely poor Americans”, defined as a family of four earning less than $9,903 a year, form the fastest-growing group in the US economy–Rushkoff offers an answer. He argues that, from the beginning, corporatism’s purpose was to “suppress lateral interactions between people or small companies and instead redirect any and all value they created to a select group of investors.”
He traces corporatism’s origins back hundreds of years, to the rise of the merchant class in the towns and cities that were springing up all over Europe by the 13th century. These early entrepeneurs threatened the aristocracy, who depended on fixed tracts of land guarded by expensive armies. In contrast, the new class of merchants and manufacturers could expand their businesses pretty much indefinitely.
Except, the economy was fluid, and most merchant businesses at the time were family run. Sudden disaster–like a sunk ship or a burned-down workshop–could destroy wealth as quickly as it could be created. For their part, the aristocrats longed for a way to invest in the new economy, but they didn’t want to risk their families’ long-standing reputations. Both parties required a way to invest in a business “with total discretion, anonymity, limited liability, passive participation, and little or no expertise.”
“Limited partnership” firms were born–precursors to corporations. These permitted merchants to sustain their success over longer periods, while allowing investors to divest themselves of all responsibility for a business’ actions. They needed only contribute capital.
Then, the monarchy had a flash of brilliance. Royals sanctioned “a new kind of chartered body: a corporation…not a business or a government entity, but a combination of the two.” They granted certain companies legal charters to do business, giving them monopoly control over their respective sectors. In return, the chosen companies upheld the monarchy’s authority, effectively putting its decline on pause for hundreds of years.
Image credit: deviantart user gimilkhor
But the emergence of corporations didn’t only affect merchants and royals. People who had formerly done business with each other were now required to do so through central authorities, “in a system enforced by law, controlled by currency, and perpetuated through the erosion of all other connections between people and their world.”
Consider the British East India Company, which was given monopoly power over the entire American coast. The corporation lobbied for laws that castrated any competition from the colonists, which was fairly easy, since the authorities the corporation was lobbying were also shareholders. The resulting legislation prevented the colonists from making anything from the resources they grew or mined, and also defined as smuggling the import of tea from anyone other than the East India Company.
In fact, the American Revolution was largely a revolt against the power granted to the East India Company by the British monarchy. And when the founders set out to shape a newly independent America, they were careful to put ample measures in place to keep corporations in check. For instance, corporations could only be chartered by states, not by the federal government, so that they could be regulated locally by those affected by their activities. As well, corporations had to demonstrate that they had a beneficial purpose other than making money, like building a bridge or opening a water way.
Thomas Jefferson considered “freedom from monopolies” a fundamental human right, and James Madison believed that citizens who produced what they consumed were “the most truly independent and happy”, “the best basis of public liberty”, and “the strongest bulwark of public safety.”
But corporations have a distinct advantage over human beings: they can live on indefinitely. The battle between those who argued for decentralization and those who advocated a strong federal government capable of granting corporate charters was waged throughout the 19th century. Finally, in 1886, a Supreme Court clerk incorrectly categorized the “defendant corporations” as “persons” in a decision’s headnotes, creating a precedent for corporations to claim the rights of personhood.
Image credit: neontommy.com
In the early 20th century, leading industrialists funded public schools, hiring education reformers such as Ellwood P. Cubberley, who worked to design a public school system that would produce, in Cubberley’s words, “mediocre intellects…and ensure docile citizens.” He modeled the schools after “factories, in which the raw product are to be shaped and fashioned…according to the specifications laid down.” (Cubberley’s words again.)
But it wasn’t enough to focus on education. The newfound public relations industry was gaining influence, and political candidates now required corporate funding in order to get into office.
Also, whereas people used to buy food and goods from their neighbours, with the rise of factories and trains they no longer knew where their purchases came from. Previously, human relationships were the guarantors of a good’s quality, and so the brand was developed as a substitute for these relationships. People no longer relied on the butcher or baker down the street–now they placed their trust in Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima.
Meanwhile, corporations invested increasingly in advertising. An army of psychoanalysts were employed to craft the most enticing ads. By 1968, corporations in the US were spending $2.2 billion on advertising annually. In 1984, they spent $4.2 billion. And by 2001, they were spending $230 billion on advertising per year, $40 billion of which was directed at children. Today, the average person encounters over three thousand advertising messages every day.
Perhaps most insidious is the VNR, or video news report–a “complete, prepackaged story made by a company or a cause, which is beamed to news stations around the world for them to broadcast as if it were one of their own reports. VNRs have been used by the pharmaceutical industry to sell new drugs, by the oil companies to present themselves as environment-friendly, and even by the Bush White House in its effort to change public opinion on the postwar effort in Iraq.” In other words: commercials presented as news.
Image credit: flickr user USFS Region 5
Rushkoff isn’t advocating that we abolish corporations altogether–he acknowledges we need them for certain things, like making smart phones and developing medical devices. But on the local scale, he argues that “people might actually be able to serve one another’s needs more efficiently, and in ways that encourage transaction, sustainability, and meaningful employment.”
At the end of the book, there’s a “Guide to Reclaiming the Value You Create”, which serves as a how-to for helping to invigorate your local economy. By creating value within our communities, for each other, maybe we can slow and even stop corporate exploitation of us, the economy, and the environment.
Help Kill ACTA and TPP, Secretive International Trade Agreements that Threaten Privacy and Freedom
Today is the global day of action against ACTA and TPP, secretive trade agreements that, if widely ratified, promise to infringe on the freedom, privacy and agency of internet users worldwide.
Above is a link to a powerful tool designed by Fight for the Future (the group that catalyzed the SOPA day of protest) to combat ACTA and TPP. It will automatically send the following email, which you can modify, to the appropriate officials in your country:
“I am very concerned about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement currently being negotiated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
In an internet age, changes to copyright enforcement or online commerce can have devastating effects on individual freedom and the prosperity of entire industries. The resounding defeat of SOPA & PIPA in Congress show that the public demands a say in any new policy that impacts the future of the internet.
When Congress listens to the people and rejects one-sided tech policy, it’s wrong and anti-democratic for unelected officials to move forward with similar policy in trade agreements, especially when these trade agreements are negotiated in secret, giving special access to politically-connected industries while public interest groups are locked out.
Any changes in these areas should only be made by Congress, with vigorous public debate. You should drop any changes to copyright, online commerce, or information policy from TPP immediately.
Please reply with any questions.“
Here are some reasons you might like to join in this fight, (from La Quadrature du Net):
- ACTA locks countries into obsolete copyright and patent laws. If a democracy decides on less restrictive laws that reflect the reality of the internet, ACTA will prevent that.
- ACTA criminalizes users by making noncommercial, harmless remixes into crimes if “on a commercial scale” (art 2.14.1). Many amateur works achieve a commercial scale on sites like Youtube. ACTA, like SOPA, could mean jail time for the Justin Biebers of the world.
- ACTA Criminalizes legitimate websites, making them responsible for user behavior by “aiding and abetting”. (art 2.14.4). Like SOPA, the founders of your favorite sites could be sued or (worse) thrown in jail for copyright infringement by their users.
- ACTA will let rightsholders use laughably inflated claims of damages (based on the disproven idea that every download or stream is a lost sale) to sue people. As if suing amazing artists, video makers and websites for millions wasn’t hard enough!
- ACTA Permanently bypasses democracy by giving the “ACTA Committee” the power to “propose amendments to [ACTA]” (art 6.4). In other words, voting for ACTA writes a blank check to an unelected committee. These closed-door proceedings will be a playground for SOPA-supporters like the MPAA.
- Trade agreements are a gaping loophole, a backdoor track that, even though it creates new law, is miles removed from democracy. It’s a secretive process that’s tailor-made to serve politically connected companies. And the movie studios behind SOPA? They’re experts at it. If we can’t make secretive trade agreements harder to pass than US law, our internet’s future belongs to the lobbyists behind SOPA.
This post was submitted to the United Nations World Environment Day blogging competition, sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The theme of the competition is “The Green Economy: Does it Include You?” The winner of the competition will travel to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to attend World Environment Day 2012 and to help cover the event.
“Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted.” –François de La Rouchefoucauld
“The name of the game is taking care of yourself, because you’re going to live long enough to wish you had.” –Grace Mirabella
When it comes to being self-interested, I don’t think the important question is whether you are or not. That’s because, like 17th century author François de La Rouchefoucauld, I believe that every human act is fundamentally self-interested.
Instead, I think the important question concerns which you value more: long-term self-interest or short-term self-interest. I’m convinced this is also the most important consideration when asking, “Am I a part of the green economy?”
Image credit: flickr user Sanska
When I first began to contemplate that question, the theme of this year’s World Environment Day, I was surprised to realize that my participation in the green economy is principally characterized by what I choose not to do. This came as a surprise because it’s contrary to the popular notion of what an economy is. In the West, we are taught that whether the economy prospers depends on how much we consume.
To me, the idea of living a ‘green lifestyle’ in a ‘green economy’ is largely about subtracting from the traditional economy. It’s about renting a bicycle from a bike-sharing program instead of owning a bike. It’s about growing your own food using organic practices instead of buying organic food from a multinational corporation.
It’s not about shopping online for a chair made from a recycled wine barrel–it’s about realizing you don’t need a chair made from a recycled wine barrel.
I haven’t yet made all the green lifestyle choices I’d like to make. But I aspire to, and I recognize that making them or not is almost always a decision between my short-term interests and my long-term ones. That’s true in at least three ways:
1) Green choices often save money. For instance, if I walk instead of commuting by bus or car, I save the cost of bus fare–or the cost of gas, insurance, and maintenance of a car.
2) Green choices make me happier. Since they often save money, making them allows me to reduce the time I have to spend working, and to use that time to cultivate relationships with family, friends and members of my community. Research demonstrates that’s what makes us truly happy.
3) Green choices help preserve the environment and ecological systems upon which humanity’s existence depends. It may serve my short-term gratification to consume five times my share of resources, but it doesn’t serve my long-term interest in surviving.
The traditional economy is based on neverending expansion, and it’s practically redundant to point out that’s unsustainable on a finite planet. Businesses need to look beyond the next quarterly report. And we all need to make do with much less, and what we do use, we need to reuse–over and over again. That’s the green economy.
Image credit: flickr user anitasarkeesian
I live in Canada, and here, it often seems like our government isn’t interested in including its citizens in the green economy–despite that 85% of us think we should be. In December of 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto accord, having failed to honour its commitment to limiting greenhouse emissions. Instead, Canada’s emissions have risen by around a third since 1990, and since President Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline (which would have transported carbon-dense tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico for processing), the Canadian government has vowed to “diversify and expand our [oil] markets”. My government is prioritizing short-term profit over long-term stability.
I think it’s important both for Canadians and for citizens of the world to always consider their long-term interests. And, given all the carbon that will be emitted and all the resources that will be used, I think it’s crucial that whoever wins this competition works hard to cover World Environment Day 2012 in a way that is interesting and accessible to all.
If you’d like to help increase this post’s chances of winning, Like it on Facebook or Tweet it using the hashtag #WED2012.
The Internet Is a Redress Engine
On August 21st, 2010–a Saturday–Mary Bale picked up Lola the cat by the scruff of her neck, deposited her into a trash can, and put the lid down. Lola was trapped in the dark, without anything to eat or drink, for the next 15 hours. Her owners found her on Sunday morning, “terrified and covered in her own mess.”
In another century, that probably would have been the story’s end.
But this was the 21st century, and Lola’s owners had a security camera that monitored the front of their home. After finding Lola and reviewing the recordings, they posted a video on YouTube in an effort to uncover the cat-dumper’s identity.
Image credit: Alex Antener
The video went viral, and within hours the woman responsible was identified. That is, thoroughly identified. A group of internet vigilantes, originating largely from the 4chan message boards, published her name, age, address, and workplace. They also posted the name and phone number of her boss. And Mary Bale’s life was never quite the same again.
What happened here, exactly? Well, there’s a lot to dissect, and an anthropologist could certainly build a career on justice meted out by large crowds strangers working in tandem. But fundamentally, there are two factors at play:
1) Information technology, which allowed the incident to be documented and publicized, and which also allowed the strangers to work together in identifying Bale.
2) The strangers considered the act heinous enough to invest all that effort.
Since the day Lola the cat was avenged, the combination of the above two ingredients has resulted in group efforts on a level the world has never known before–both in scale and in scope.
Image credit: flickr user Veronica Belmont
Science fiction author and activist Cory Doctorow recently changed his mind about “the internet’s role in the struggle for global justice” after hearing Ethan Zuckerman’s ‘cute cats theory’.
The article in which Doctorow describes his shift in thinking is titled “The internet is the best place for dissent to start“. The ‘cute cats’ theory he mentions suggests that even though services like Facebook and Twitter are extremely unsuited to organizing protests in “hostile revolutionary settings”–since they expose their users to punishment by oppressive governments–they are nonetheless the best places for dissent to start.
The reason for this has to do with the enormous popularity of such services. When the average citizen takes a video of police brutality, for instance, he or she isn’t likely to seek out some tailor-made activist’s tool for disseminating the video. He or she is much more likely to post it on YouTube, which everyone uses. (Specifically, they use it to post videos of cute cats, or whatever else amuses/interests them.)
Also, when an oppressive government freaks out and takes down YouTube, a lot more people will notice than would have noticed if the government had taken down a small-scale activist website instead.
A postage stamp issued by the Tunisian transitional government with Bouazizi's likeness
Zuckerman supports his theory by pointing out that the first revolution of the Arab Spring–a wave of protests and demonstrations that spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa in 2011–was touched off in Tunisia by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a produce vendor. Bouazizi had been beaten by police, who had also taken away his vegetable cart. An hour later he stood in the street and screamed, “How do you expect me to make a living?” Then he lit himself on fire.
Bouazizi’s woes were not unusual. Police brutality was common in Tunisia. And he was not the only one fed up. All of Tunisia had had enough of their oppressive government, and the urge to revolt spread not only to its borders, but beyond them.
Within a month, protests had begun in ten different countries. Many of the struggles that followed were characterized by government censorship–most notably in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak turned off the entire internet.
People noticed that. And the protests grew stronger.
So what do international protests against oppressive regimes have in common with the payback carried out against Mary Bale, the cat-trasher?
In both cases, a group of strangers considered the perpetrator’s behaviour heinous enough to seek redress–and their retribution was amplified by information technology.
Another example of this phenomenon came about earlier this month, during the fight against SOPA and PIPA, US legislation that threatened to cripple the global internet.
Once again, the response took on a scale never seen before. The internet-wide blackout constituted the largest online protest in history. And the very next day, American politicians abandoned the legislation in droves.
The Occupy movement is yet another example, which coordinates internationally but addresses issues on a local scale. Clearly, people are becoming more and more accustomed to challenging the powers that be on issues that are dear to them.
So what does this mean for the environmental movement?
At the World Future Energy Summit earlier this month, former US Energy Secretary and Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson called for “an Arab Spring for the environment“, in which youthful voices would make the case for renewable energy and environmentally-friendly practices across social media.
The pillage of the environment is well underway, and accelerating. It’s well-documented. The question is, will the most internet-savvy members of society come to see it as heinous enough to do something about?
If you’ve participated in group action to help right a wrong, tell us about it in the comments!
The following used to be posted in the ‘What Is Batshite?’ section, but I took it out. I’ve been thinking lately that it should be on the blog somewhere, and a question from @MissyBiozarre prompted me to finally repost it.
Image credit: flickr user Ndecam
The statues you see above are mo’ai. They were built by members of a society that developed on Easter Island hundreds of years ago. Their religion required that ancestors be honoured by building these giant stone figures. After they were finished, the islanders transported them to altars near the shore, which required large amounts of rope and timber.
Gradually, the construction of the mo’ai became an obsession, and by 1400 A.D. the last tree on Easter Island had been felled. Wood became a precious rarity, and within a generation it ran out. Once the last seaworthy canoe fell into disrepair there was no longer a way off the island. The warrior class took power, waging gruesome battles and burning villages. They ate all the dogs, and they ate most of the nesting birds. Eventually, they turned to cannibalism.
Earth is an island, too.
Image credit: flickr user Marc Wathieu
I’m having an ‘open source’ book launch for my novel Royal Flush, and during the process of organizing and promoting it, I’ve been thinking a lot about the value open source methodologies have to offer our society.
A lot of the tools used every day by millions of people were created and sustained using open source approaches. Wikipedia, Firefox, OpenOffice, Linux, TrueCrypt, WordPress–all of these were built around open source principles. Open source software is often superior to the propietary competition. Think Firefox vs. Internet Explorer.
Open source is a philosophy, and its benefits aren’t limited to browsing the web more reliably and securely. There are applications for many other fields, like health care. For example, the first to sequence the SARS virus was a small Canadian lab using open source technologies. That’s pretty remarkable, when you consider that SARS originated in China, making the Chinese most invested in sequencing the virus quickly. Open source won the race against China’s billions in funding and world-class scientists working around the clock.
The term ‘open source’ was first adopted by members of the free software movement upon the announcement that Netscape would release the source code for Navigator, a web browser. But the principles go back at least to Benjamin Franklin’s donation of all his inventions to the public domain, and they probably go back farther.
Image credit: flickr user criggchef
Open source advocates believe that choosing to use open source tools is tantamount to choosing freedom. In Life Inc. (a book I plan to review in a later post), Douglas Rushkoff criticizes the widespread acceptance of tools we aren’t permitted to adjust, suggesting “we would rather be consumers of unalterable technologies that dictate the parameters of our behaviors than the users of tools with less familiar limits.”
You may not think the tools we use have the capacity to shape our behaviour, but an old adage implies otherwise: “If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.” The programming underlying the tools we use has a profound effect on us. For instance, consider the biases embedded in Google’s automatically generated search suggestions. Until recently, when a user searched for a woman doing something–for example, she invented–Google would say, “Did you mean: ‘he invented’”.
Rushkoff thinks the open source philosophy has been distorted by corporate thinking:
The ‘open-source’ ethos encouraging people to work on software projects for free has been reinterpreted through the lens of corporatism as ‘crowd sourcing’–meaning just another way to get people to do work for no compensation.
But the true spirit of open source has nothing to do with exploitation. Instead, it’s about collaborating with other people who are passionate about creating something for the use of anyone who needs it or would enjoy it.
Image credit: creativecommons.org
This stands in stark contrast to the corporatist methods that dominated the 21st century. Instead of drawing on the skills of a relatively small group of people to create a product and then preventing others from improving it, the open source approach leverages the talents of anyone who’s interested in creating a resource, to be used and improved by anyone.
Environmentalists would do well to promote an open source mentality wherever possible. If we succeeded in making corporations more open about their practices, they would be reluctant to create as much waste, given the bad PR that would result. And if governments made a bigger effort to involve citizens in the decision-making process they would be more democratic, and hence more likely to heed the worldwide public desire for CO2 emissions to be curbed.
Information technology has placed powerful tools in our hands, gradually turning us from passive consumers into empowered participants. I think the open source ethos is the truest expression of this essential paradigm shift.
If you have an experience with open source practices you’d like to share, please do!
Warning: I try my best to avoid spoilers below, but minor details concerning the book’s plot are given.
Stephen King’s epic novel Under the Dome begins with a gigantic, invisible dome that materializes around the fictional town of Chester’s Mill, extending thousands of feet into both the air and ground, and cutting the town off from the outside world.
I wouldn’t consider that a spoiler, since it happens within the first four pages, and I won’t tell you the Dome’s origins. But as I read the longest book King has written, I was struck repeatedly by the notion that if our society’s mounting energy crisis ever results in major disruptions in the supply chain, the resulting social breakdown would probably look something like what happens in Chester’s Mill.
The dome descends without warning, and whether the global food chain would grind to a halt as quickly is in question. How high do fossil fuel prices have to get before stocking grocery stores with long-distance import becomes unfeasible? How low must oil reserves get?
And how much advance notice would we have? Perhaps not much. Given the tendency of oil companies, governments and even organizations like the International Energy Agency to overstate oil reserves, the prevailing public impression of our energy situation may not be altogether accurate at any given time.
Even once the Dome’s existence becomes widely known in Chester’s Mill, the citizens aren’t very proactive about it. They cope with the situation’s strangeness by descending en masse upon Sweetbriar Rose, a local cafe, and dining until well after the restaurant’s usual closing time. There is no immediate rush on the town’s grocery store, and no one starts rationing food. Most of the town goes home assuming that the whole thing will have blown over by morning.
Image credit: patheos.com
Not everyone makes that assumption, of course. Iraq war vet Dale Barbie, now a cook at the Sweetbriar Rose, discusses the restaurant’s propane situations with owner Rose Twitchell, and they determine that by being energy efficient and by closing between mealtimes, they have enough for a month at most–and that’s only because Rose ordered propane the week prior.
Meanwhile, at an emergency meeting of the town’s selectmen, Second Selectman Jim Rennie–who, through highly questionable means, effectively rules the town–authorizes the hiring of several new police officers without giving them any training. Just until “this situation works itself out.”
The consequences of the town’s utter isolation manifest quickly. A newly hired policeman throws the town drunk into the side of a truck, and shortly after, the new police officers control a crowd by shoving them, kicking them and, in one instance, punching someone in the face.
The environment quickly shows signs of deteriorating, as well. The Dome grows steadily darker as emissions from cars and oil furnaces build up, and the temperature within steadily rises–a pretty clear analogy to our treatment of the Earth’s atmosphere. As the air quality decreases inside the Dome, leaves start to hang limply from branches.
The reaction of the town’s government is highly reminiscent of those who deny that global warming is occurring. “They’ve been saying it for years, haven’t they?” Jim Rennie says at one point. “The scientists and the bleeding-heart liberals….Melting ice caps! Killer hurricanes! Global warming! Chickendirt weak-sister atheists who won’t trust in the will of a loving, caring God….Contrary to the beliefs of the secular humanists, the sky is not falling.”
Sounds a bit like the Republican presidential candidates.
Despite his trust in God, the Second Selectman does plenty to seize the reins of power. In the interest of avoiding spoilers, I won’t give any specific details about how he does this, but suffice it to say he behaves like a typical despot.
Okay, I will give one detail: he employs agent provocateurs to entice a crowd to riot, in similar style to that of certain police departments who sought to disperse last year’s Occupy protests.
Image credit: open.edu
In conversation with an army official positioned outside the Dome, Rose Twitchell describes the situation like this: “All you guys can do is watch. Like kids looking into an aquarium where the biggest fish takes all the food, then starts eating the little ones.”
Speaking on a related topic at one of several secret town meetings, Jim Rennie says, “I hate the idea of rationing–it’s un-American to the core.”
But gradually, the citizens of Chester’s Mill catch on that the town’s resources are limited. And once people make the realization that severe hunger and discomfort is on its way, they tend to get a lot less polite.
How to Give Yourself a Buzz Cut
This is something I posted in July. It has become necessary to delete it from my archives and repost it for reasons I’m not at liberty to disclose. Enjoy, again!
P.S. New, crunchy post coming soon.
Buzz cuts are good for the environment and stuff.
Instructions
1. Google “How to Give Yourself a Buzz Cut”.
WordPress-produced report on Batshite
WordPress, being an awesome blog hosting service, has compiled a report on Batshite for 2011.
The report says the total number of posts is 195, which is strange because the platform itself tells me I have 200. At any rate, it’s an encouraging review of my first year blogging.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 13,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 5 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
That’s right! This post is my 200th, and it’s been a little over a year since I started blogging.
Well, there’s not much else to say. Maybe I should link to some of my early posts? I think that’s a pretty standard 200th-post thing to do.
Origin Story – My first post, a humorous piece that likens blogging to a superpower.
“Six-hundred” – A humorous short story that got some attention on StumbleUpon.
Kenk: The World’s Most Batshite Bicycle Thief – A review of the graphic novel Kenk, about an environmentally-minded bicycle thief.
The Dangers of Progress – A review of A Short History of Progress, a book that played a significant role in inspiring me to start this blog.
Is Environmentalism Selfish? – A post that argues environmentalism has selfish motives–and rightly so.
Well, that’s all I care to post. Happy New Year! Hope to see you all in 2012.
