Why the Hydrogen Cell Car Will Never Be A Viable Alternative to the Combustion Engine

The Hydrogen Cell Car has been promoted as the most viable alternative to the combustion engine and fossil fuel based car technology. The electric car created traction after the California Air Resources Board demanded that all car manufacturers would have to produce a set quota of cars that did not have any form of exhaust, in other words: electric cars. After initial testing the electric car gained a small following, even though advertising and consumer awareness was both at a minimum. However, the electric car soon faced its death after lawsuits from major car companies such as GM and the pussyness of the California Air Board whereas their complete biased inability to stand up against financially-strong corporations provided both the hammer and the nails to close the casket for electrical cars, before it even had the chance to prosper. The most interesting part of the history of the electrical car was the purchase of the highly efficient electrical car battery, originally patented by Stanford R. Ovshinsky, by Texaco.

The development of the Hydrogen Cell Car was shortly after initiated, but even after years of development, it is still considered to be a conceptual car, hence not viable to be put out on the market within the foreseeable future. The Hydrogen Cell Car is the true scapegoat, a tool used by General Motors, in order to generate a facade that generates an appearance of social responsibility.

The fallacies of the Hydrogen Cell Car can be neatly compacted into five points, as explained by Joseph Romm who is working for the U.S. Department of Energy. These core points are:

1) The current cost of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car is $1,000,000 U.S dollars.

2) There is not enough room for hydrogen fuel in cars 3) Hydrogen fuel is expensive, many multiple times that than the price of fossil fuels

4) The infrastructure needs to support the use of such cars, with fuelling stations, in order for it to be a convenient choice.

5) The current competing technologies must not improve

(Source for List: Who Killed The Electric Car? – Documentary)

A Condensed List of Hopeful Future Factors in the Development of Zero Emission Vehicles that I am hoping to expand on at a later date (list will be expanded in the future):

- Technology developed independently from people benefiting from the fossil fuel trade.

- Th!nk cars

- Hybrid Electrical Cars

Life in Monkey Island Motion

FYI: This post has an estimated 74% chance of flying over your head.

<Use> chair

<Pick Up> laptop

<Pick Up> power plug

<Use> power plug with laptop

<Use> ‘connected’ laptop with desk

<Use> keyboard

The Secret of Monkey Island is one of the games that could have been considered lost with together with a properly functional attention span within the gaming community. Something that became especially prevalent and horribly obvious in the new revised version of The Secret of Monkey Island because of the added “hint” ability. Simply press “H” and hooray, you are able to progress where you would usually leave the game after an hour of frustration and come back somewhat recharged and amped with motivation, able to figure out the the mother flipping way to get past those killer piranha poodles in front of the Governor’s mansion. And yeah, putting the yellow flower on the stewed meat might not have seemed like the most obvious choice, and it was certainly somewhat puzzling, yet oddly rewarding, when finding out that it actually worked to put the piranha poodles to “sleep”.

I guess what these revised additions really imply about contemporary gaming is that being stuck in sometimes illogical puzzles (or too obvious ones) is a thing well kept within the minds of the nostalgic gamer, who remembers a time where the story lines wasn’t driven by the same speed of progression as one would expect from contemporary influences in big budget Hollywood films. And look, I just called it “film”. Wonder how long that word is going to be around.

<Close> mindspace

A Message To The Masses

Clapton is God.

Excessive Anti-Existential Illogical Probability of Life Philosophy

Greek symbol of eternity, cyclability

FYI: I don’t actually believe this and I am clueless about mathematical representations.

All right, the conclusion that is to be taken from the following premises and propositions is that our individual existence is unlikely, unprobable, and highly illogical; therefore there must be a system of reincarnation to cycle our life spans.

Now for the joyful debative premises

Take into consideration that we are living within infinities. In our existence there if an infinite quantity of space, mass, and time. Now, if we were to materialize all the time that has existed within an eternity into marbles we would be on the assumption that we would have an infinite amount of marbles.

Now, if we would materialize the human life span of an average of about 76 years, this amount of time would be represented by one single marble.

Our individual conciousness is occurring right now. The chances that this is actually occurring if you take into consideration our role as one single marble within an infinite number of marbles is completly unprobable. Any estimation in mathematics that would calculate the probability would be written down as something like 1 / 0.000000000000000 (infinite amount of “0″s), which would conclude that the probability for our existence is simply 0.

Now, in order for us to maintain our conciousness in this present moment in time, the logical assumption would be that there is a cycle, which enables us to maintain a constant state of conciousness. However, since we are aware of our birth and our eventual death, there must be a form of physical reincarnation, without sparing the mental attributes of humans (our could also be applied to animals).

Hence the conclusion is that our existence is too unlikely and illogical, hence rendering the most logical reason for our constant conciousness as that of our physical bodies going through a process of reincarnation.

EDIT: A thought that occurred to me later on: if we can apply the lack of probability for the existence of our current individual conciousness, we can also assume the lack of probability of humanity itself, or the Earth itself, as null, rendering part of the conclusion false.

The Neutrality of Whiteness

I have this slight feeling that its becoming more and more taboo to talk about racism…

We integrate a vast amount of racial imagery into our society. This imagery basically serves to consititute the difference amongst people. while being of a non-white “ethnic persuasion” one can expect there to be studies into the area of their social standing, mostly because of differences of social and economic factors. However, the most ignored area of studies is on that of whiteness. in our society whiteness is considered to be the “normal” ethnicity, and being white constitutes an ability to represent moral neutrality, often reflected in the domination of white people in government and administration. White is not considered to be a ethnic group, however is represented as simply “human”. Due to the social neutrality of whiteness the chosen educational paradigm in schools and institituions is that of white, hence white knowledge is passed down, because of its assumed neutrality. In class rooms situations where say black or aboriginal texts and writings are presented they are condensed and establlished as “the other” because of the deviance from normal discourse. Michael Moore makes a good point in his book “stupid white men”, whereas he points out the white history of aggression, violence and promotion of suffering, as well as their dominance in large corporations and governments putting people out of work and sending them to wars, however other ethnic groups are still targeted in the media, solely because it is no longer considered to be unnatural. It is important to keep in mind that in the U.S. American black citizens still make 60% less than an average white person does a year, which is the same percentage as they did in 1880.

Approaches to Power

I’ve always been intrigued by the concept of different ways of analyzing power. Personally, I’ve always favoured the Marxist approach of analysis, as it makes sense, especially these days, to look at society as containing to vastly contrasting polarities. That’s is not saying that the Marxist mode of analysis is the same as communism itself, but that was be described by Marx as the most viable solution; being to disperse the tools of power and ownership.

There are three major sociological approaches to the study of power. These approaches consist of liberal political thought, Marxist political thought, and the postmodern approach of Foucault. Foucault’s theories are unique and complex, and differ greatly from the liberal political and Marxist theories.

Foucault has a distinct approach to governmentality than that of liberal political thought and Marxist political thought. According to Foucault, governmentality entails a view that power is exercised in a deliberate process. Governmentality employs a multitude of procedures that attempts to deliberately produce citizens that support and integrate the desired policies and actions of the government (Brock, 2003, p.34). Foucault described governmentality as the “art of government” (Dean, 1999, p. 93), employing techniques and strategies that renders society open to governance. His postmodern approach is unique in the sense that he rejects all universal theories, such as Karl Marx’s Conflict Theory. He argues against these master theories that claim that there is a reality that can be discovered through a series of scientific practices and sufficient data gathering (Brock, 1999, p.34), a theory of the common human nature and understanding of human behaviour.

In modern liberal political thought, governance is structured so all the citizens within the country have the right to participate in politics, and more central, a right to accumulate as much property as possible, within the extent of their abilities. This is a paradox in regards to the way power becomes distributed. People who manage to acquire wealth, social status, and authority gain power. Monopolies can also be formed, and all-together it is a system that encourages competition, and those who end up victorious in such a competition gains social and political power, whilst everyone’s ability to accumulate property and wealth becomes severely restricted. As Deborah Brock (2003) states in “Making Normal” this implies; “equal opportunity for uneven rewards” (ibid, p. 30). Foucault’s theory is different as he does not see power as something that can be possessed, through either wealth accumulation or social status. He saw power as all-encompassing, and it came out from everywhere in society, not from wealth accumulation, like the liberal political thought claims, or through social control by the ruling class, as Marx claimed.

In liberal political thought, it is believed that the people make their own norms and rules through a participatory democracy (ibid, p. 30). By Marxist theory, norms and rules was something ruled by the elite groups within society, as they had the monopoly on the social control. In contrast, Foucault believed that this process of Normalization(ibid, p. 38), which allowed for an establishment of moral standards, but he saw normalization as mainly happening through discourse. happened through both discourse and social practices, and was much more fluent. He did recognize the power of law

It also differs from Marx’s belief in materialism, which claims that the material, mainly pertaining to the economy, are the main forces that drive social change and employs social understanding (ibid, p. 32). He considers the dominant forces in society as those who control the land, labour and capital. In this sense Foucault argued, in contrast to Marx, that power did not just come from those who controlled the materials, but it came from all around society, and while dominant institutions and controlling elites were a part of it, it also came from everywhere else, through discourse. Power in Foucault’s view was therefore relational, not static, like Marx saw it. Another trait of Marxist political thought was that capitalism was simply a replacement of the older feudalist system. Marx said in his famous “Communist Manifesto” that “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has established but new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx, 1948, p. 9). Foucault did not find power to be equally linear, as he saw it as both fragmented and discontinuous, and not necessarily evil.

Foucault’s found that power and knowledge was connected in a cycle. In other words, he argued that power produces knowledge, and knowledge produces power (Brock, 2003, p. 24). He saw that the exercise of power made new objects of knowledge emerge and through its emergence it had to be defined and discussed in relation to its situation. In this sense the exercise of power generates effects that need to be addressed through knowledge. This cycle of power-knowledge occurs through discourse and interaction.

Biopower was something that Foucault identified as a technology used to create a self regulating population. This would occur through the use of disciplinary power and overt control over the actual physical body. He considered it to be a political technology that focuses heavily on the protection of physical life. While this might imply a politic of directed injustice towards those who society deem as a threat, this technology manifests itself through a variety of areas, such as customs, health, family, and social customs. Foucault draws here a positive image of government, whereas Marx would emphasize on the conflict of interest of the governing body investing in protecting the physical body of the general population.

According to the article “Making Normal” Heterosexuality is considered to have a discourse that implies that its opposite, homosexuality, is a “problem” (ibid, p.27), while heterosexuality on the other hand, is simply taken as a normal, or neutral, stance that is not offensive or questioned in any way. The lack of investigation into heterosexuality is because of the dominant discourse that deems it the norm. An example of the social production of this view is the dated focus on the ability to sexually reproduce is used as rationality to make heterosexual considered “normal” and “moral”, while creating a negative and problematic discourse for homosexuals (Brock, 2008), that can be considered “scientifically” justified.  Foucault sees that popular discourse is produced through disciplinary power and social values, and as he sees that knowledge and power is a continuous cycle of each other, hence he cautions that while employment of power might appear to be neutral, they have the chance to be political (CITE). The article “The Language of Sex: The Heterosexual Questionnaire” poses an excellent dilemma, whereas if heterosexual individuals would be the subject of scrutiny to the same extent as homosexuals, then that would be considered offsetting and abnormal (Rochlin, 1995, p.105), simply because of the way that we have socially constructed our views on heterosexuality and homosexuality. In addition, if a majority of the population feels that heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is not, then a state of hegemony arises, and through a larger organization of consent, the supporters of the first predicate assume domination over the groups.

What was earlier considered the ultimate bastion of truth, Science, is the product of subjective discourse. Science generally occupies itself with the scientific facts about the world, generally concerning discovering the elements that make social life possible (Brock, 2008). However, through discourse, even science is subject to subjectivity in a power-knowledge context. Discourse can happen through language, which represent a certain system of thought and cultural accomplishments. For example, Foucault argues that science’s take on sexuality is actually a social and historical construction (Brock, 2003, p.37), instead of in nature. Scientists believed that sexuality could be explained through studying genetics and the natural drive. However, Foucault found a large array of sexualities being invented as “identities”, due to the eventual sexual categorization by the scientific community that initiated a cycle of power-knowledge. The social interpretation of sexualities within the 19^th century scientific community must therefore be considered to consist of dominant discourses.

Foucault’s study of power encompasses a complex understanding of society, and does not rely on universalizing explanations in order to describe the factors that explain Foucault’s study of power. Foucault’s theories are layered, but are largely based on social interaction and discourse.

Sociological Elitisism: The Use of Internal Discourse to Control Academic Knowledge

The following is a sketch. I realize I do not have nearly sufficient data gathered to support my thesis at its current state. I’m probably going to write a much more extensive essay on this later. Plus, if you feel like reading something light you might want to mosey along to my next blog post.

It is natural that all fields of study should contain key terms and phrases to describe things in the distinct manner that is suitable for their field of study. Early sociology, consisting of individuals like Marx and Engels, maintained a discourse that enabled easy understanding by the masses. Their sociological/historical theory on historical materialism, as presented in partly “The Communist Manifesto” presented large theoretical ideas, such as that of history being formed by a series of “class antagonisms”. However, despite this new and complex theoretical approach to the study of the history of society they still managed to present their ideas in a fashion where it was easily understandable to the average reader. As a matter of fact “The Communist Manifesto” was written in the form of a pamphlet by Engels and Marx, in order to inform the working class about their station in contemporary society. They did not generate knowledge that was to be circulated amongst the institutions of the day, that Marx and Engels deemed controlled by the ruling classes. Instead they generated knowledge and theory in order to spread their work amongst the people who would benefit from it the most.

There is a recognizable growth of language and discourse within sociology from Marx and Engels’ 19th century Europe to that of Foucault’s 20th century. Foucault, a teacher himself was amongst a new brand of sociologists that was heavy on the lingo. Foucault introduced such terms as “biopower”, “power/knowledge”, and . These subjects largely pertained to the study of power, but Foucault is definitely not an easy read, and fully understanding his theories is something left for those truly devoted few.

There is also another series of sociologists who portrayed their concepts and theories through metaphors and symbolism. C.W. Mills coined the ever-prevalent term “the sociological lens”, which is a concept that has been recycling itself all throughout my education, whilst always remaining a freshly potent concept. It illustrates the greatest sociological “tool”; the ability of the sociologist to place the individual within the context of society. This use of metaphors might not be too easy to apply to the nit-pickings of sociological studies, but it does a great deal to keep the constant educational process fresh.

The commercialization of education has also played a part in the changing discourse. While the commercialization of physical space of university campuses are being manifested through fast food restaurants and corporate monopoly on certain sold products, there is also a much deeper focus on the commercialization of university knowledge itself. At York University the new revised plans for the future funding of science departments entails main focus on commercial research, that can provide further monetary support for schools, either through government or private interests. This also entails the growing need for absolute possession of knowledge itself within the arts, and transforming knowledge into something manageable. (This is too broad a topic and will be further expanded on by its own at a later time). In other words, it is in the interest of the university to internalize knowledge in order to maintain its corporate and privatized principles that enables reciprocation in the form of capital and ownership.

This is not to say that all is bad. Sociologist Stuart Hall managed to portray his ideas through understandable concepts. On his work around the different representation amongst different ethnic and social groups in the media, he coined the phrase “politics of representation” and centered his use of language around that term, using it as a central pointer. He did not just manage to portray his ideas through this simplified discourse, but he excelled at it.

The influence that sociological research has is determined by the impact it has on the population as a whole. Knowledge as a commodity arose through the ages and is prevalent when looking at the vast distinctions in the way language is used throughout the modern history of sociology, differentiating the discourse amongst scholars in contrast to that outside the specific fields of study.

Hypocrisy on a Global Scale

The following type of a monologue is usually most suited to rooms with lava lamps and a suspicious gray smoke in the background. But for now, just consider it a political soliloquy.

For decades the IMF, WTO, and World Bank has been enforcing free trade policies on the developing nations that it lends money to. It goes under the banner of capitalism, whereas the accepted Western belief that capitalism brings with it social and economic growth is maintained. However, are we to believe that they truly believe in these econonomic principles when the USA employs protectionist policies themselves when struggling to get out of a recession. Especially in consideration the unspoken “Buy American” bias of the Free Trade Agreement. In addition, the US are pouring money (500$ billion) into the IMF and World Bank, just increasing the economic control of Western banking institutions on developing countries.

…and that’s the thought of the day.

A Critical Analysis of the Social Implications of Budweiser beer

Author Note: I had this entire idea that since Turnitin, the online plagiarism prevention program, is using all essays that it gets from various university courses, for non-academic reasons, such as market research, and it is basically taking possession of my papers when I turn them in, I might as well just post my essays online as a testament that it is I who really own my essays and have full academic control over their use. So, if they are worth posting online and the general blog audience would appreciate it, it will henceforth be posted. It is silly how online programs designed for teacher’s to catch plagiarism is actually such a corporate tool that has so many side agendas that its unfathomable. So in other words: F.T.S.

The ‘Stud Bud’: A Critical Analysis of the Social Implications of Budweiser Beer

By Magnus Mühlbradt

The purpose of this paper is to disassemble and unpack the large array of social factors that are inherent with Budweiser beer and is integrated into its existence. Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) is a beer-brewing corporation that is owned mainly by American investors (50.9% owned by American shareholders). It is brewed mainly in the United States, and is the largest brewing company on the globe. Its marketing style relies heavy on its use of provocative promotion models, affiliation with NASCAR racing cars, and the Super Bowl (Anheuser-Busch, 2009). They have also been known for the “Whassup” commercial, and a series of comedy themed shorts. In short, Budweiser has constructed a market image of it directed towards the heterosexual male, and uses themes much affiliated with the culture of masculinity.

Budweiser employs female models from college campuses and promote their presence at sporting events or college events. These girls are labelled “Bud Girls”. Robert Young (2003) saw women as being oppressed because of the male perspectives that society is seen through. He argued that society was organized in a way where the interests and perspectives of men were being constructed and maintained and where women were representing the existing male institutions, instead of themselves. In the case of Budweiser, the use of women as sex objects reinforces the existence of a world viewed through the lens of a male. The portrayal of the “Bud Girls” is that of females stripped from their knowledge and intelligence and employed into subordination and conclusively simplified into sexual beings, which in order enables the historical preconceptions of women as dominated and exploited to prevail. However, the use of “Bud Girls” is not being contested by the mainstream. This is because of the acceptance of the male heterosexuality to dominate marketing strategy. Budweiser has portrayed and constructed a marketable image that can be exclusively being viewed through a male lens. Affiliations with NASCAR and Super Bowl and other assumed “manly” activities and events enables Budweiser to produce a male perspective that considers gender stratification to be natural and normal, because of its reliance on belief systems that  considers the male view to be dominant. In the same fashion that Fainstein and Judd saw the tourist industry as being “defined, organized and commodified (Fainstein and Judd, 1999, p. 301)” tourist experiences, Budweiser’s use of female sexuality creates an industry defined, organized and commodified by the “male” experience.

The consumer does not necessarily realize the power relations that are inherent in a simple can of Budweiser beer. The customer participates in consumer fetishism by taking the beer for its monetary value, without considering the tactics and history of subordination of women that is used to generate an image of Budweiser as a wholly male consumer experience. Leah H. Cohen (1997) describes commodity fetishism as our tendency to view the price of the product as something that radiates from its purchased core. In a subjective sense, this does not heed the social relations that enabled its current place and image as a product.

Budweiser beer portrays itself through heavily male American cultural images. They are large sponsors of the two most popular sporting events in the US; the Super Bowl and NASCAR, and on their label it says “The Great American Lager”. Even though Budweiser is originally a European product, the product has managed to integrate itself into popular American culture. Stuart Hall (1997) identified culture as shared culture that is accumulated and in the end builds up the social world. Budweiser shares its meaning with its consumer by appealing to American culture, and deploys it as a successful marketing scheme.  In addition, Budweiser henceforth puts itself into the context of American traditions such as American football and NASCAR racing. Hence they successfully manage to communicate meaning through, what Hall termed, signifying practices. Budweiser also controls a large amount of commercial imagery at these events, for instance, they spent 30$ million dollars for commercial advertising at the Super Bowl, hence they have seized the power to circulate the meaning of their product. And in having the power to socially produce the meaning behind their own product they effectively communicate and integrate their corporate identity into our social world.

Budweiser had great success with the commercial “Whassup” that depicted five black actors greeting each other with an exaggerated “whassup”. It is evident that the commercial would not have been equally successful if it had depicted five white actors. Only through their “blackness” does the advertisement manage to illustrate its point of universality of a male bonding experience. This is because raced images still portray other races than white as “the other”.  Richard Dyer (2000) states that racial imagery is central to our social organization. He also states that because black is considered to be “raced”, it is able to portray ethnicity whereas whites inherently cannot do so because of their dominant and assumed neutrality within society. Therefore it becomes apparent that Budweiser plays on existing social segregation to illustrate its universality. However, through this depiction of blackness as “the other” Budweiser distils the “Whassup” commercial as a form of white exotic consumption of “the strange”, effectively enabling white people to consume black culture.

Budweiser uses an image that portrays women as sex objects. This supports existing social hierarchies where women are subordinate to men. According to Karl Marx (1948), power is the property of individuals. By turning women into social sex objects, Budweiser uses women to reinforce a hierarchal belief system that is inherently sold with the product, a product that they possess. By turning women into sex objects Budweiser manages to commodify women. In other words, with the product itself, a range of social beliefs are being sold to the customer as well. According to Marx (1948), the ruling class is also in charge of the social control. On a broader spectre the existing male institutions create opposing antagonisms where women become subordinated because of the interests of the male. Considering the extreme capital volume of Budweiser it is necessary to emphasise on the real social implications that they can have considering their capital dominance which can afford them social control through profitability and capital achievement.

In liberal democratic theory it is stated that the capitalist economic system maintains social inequalities in order to create sustainability for the system. In the case of Budweiser, social inequality is profitable, as it allows for women to market beer in a setting that encourages segregation of gender through depiction of half naked women. This is a marketing model that takes advantage of existing power relations and generates capital value out of it.

However, Michel Foucault (1980) views on power imply a different take on the marketing scheme of Budweiser. Unlike, Marx, power is not something that can be possessed. However, in relation to the excessively heterosexual imagery of women Budweiser aids power through maintaining what Foucault called “social and historical constructions (Brock, 2003, p. 35)”. In other words, the heterosexual appeal is the sustaining image of the roles of gender and sexually that we have achieved through historical and social developments. It is evident that Budweiser did not invent the marketing strategy of using half naked women, and neither is the use of imagery that appeals to heterosexual males a new social invention, however, as Foucault would had seen it; it shows the process of social and historical construction of our attitudes towards sexuality, as well as our maintenance of them.

In conclusion, it is evident that after “unpacking” and examining the social factors that is inherent with Budweiser beer it becomes apparent that Budweiser contributes to gender segregation by playing on existing social organization and historical male institutions, as well as further enhancing the role of blackness as “the other”. Through the employment of existing power theories on the subject, it becomes apparent that the male heterosexual lens that Budweiser employs in its marketing strategies contributes to skewed power relations that emphasises on males as the dominant party in our society.

Engines Stalled

Right now I am ridiculously occupied with my exams, studying the essential Romantic authors such as Baudelaire, Browning, and Lord Byron and how much they enjoy killing their lovers in order to ascertain their masculinity and social power. Yeah, grim. I’m hoping to be a bit more active when the summer break starts off for me in the beginning of June.

So hold your breaths and try not to suffocate (see what train of thought this studying has led me to?)