For those who do not know this story, I'll give you a quick abstract. Christopher Johnson McCandless was a college graduate back in 1992. He was intelligent, funny, and very driven. During his years in college along with some incidents in his home life, he became extremely disgusted with society. After his graduation, he donated 24,000 dollars (life savings) to OXFAM and started a journey west with little equipment and little food. After two years walking the earth, Chris was found dead of starvation in a abandoned bus in Denali National Park. The book "Into The Wild" was written by Jon Krakauer, which has also became a motion picture.
Now the debate since this book and film has ever came out is whether or not McCandless is a hero or an idiot who was influenced by visions of grandeur.
Chris was a smart kid. Real smart. He was not one that backed down from a debate or argument, but he was a person that was so engaging in a conversation that you would never forget him. Everyone who crossed his path in his own "Manifest Destiny" journey was truly hurt by his death only after speaking with him for a few hours.
He was also very close minded. His determination was one of the main factors that contributed to his death. Chris's mentality was if he saw a goal he would acheive it no matter who or what came in his path.
During his journey, he met many characters that helped assist him with his journey. Hunters, wanderers, fellow supertramps that would give him tips and advice on how to cook meat out in that land and basic tips on how to survive in the wild. He would take notes furiously to make sure he had every aspect of the conversation on paper to ensure his survival. Also, he took out five books on plant life in the Alaska Wildlands to know what is edible and what is not.
Chris was not a fool by anymeans for doing this. However, I personally think experience is the best factor for this sort of journey because a how to book can get you so far.
His death was untimely, but he seemed to accept it from Krakauer's writing. He knew that things were not going to end peacefully, but this was the life that Chris wanted to live and he knew that this could possibly be his fate.
Some people seem to think Chris was mentally disturbed because of his inexperience of a journey into the wild, but I disagree. Chris did not have a deathwish. If he did, he could have easily found other means to rid himself of his life. I think Chris wanted a journey that would help define his life and the readings of Jack London, Thoreau, and Tolstoy. He wanted to prove that if they could live in these conditions away from society that he could as well.
Ever since the movie came out, thousands of people have journeyed to the bus on the Stampede Trail to see his final resting place and to read his "passages" written on the bus. Hell, I did feel an urge to travel cross country and to see the sights of this great nation and to feel somewhat of a great journey that Chris did endure.
To conclude, Chris was not crazy. He just did what some people could not.
Live his life the way he wanted to live it, without anyone or anything interfering.
8:44 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Coming Crisis
Very Interesting article by Daniel L. Day of The Washington Times
For more than a decade, English petroleum geologist Colin Campbell has been sounding the warning bell about the coming of peak oil and its disturbing ramifications for the world. Since 2005 Dr. Robert Hirsch has been giving specific warnings for the United States through a series of Department of Energy-sponsored reports outlining the dangers to America if the peak finds us unprepared. And in the past year, the GAO, the National Petroleum Council, and scores of other organizations and governments around the world have reported on the severe consequences the world might incur once the peak has been achieved.
The issue is not simply a concern that we will have to pay outrageous prices for a gallon of gas. If that were the worst of it, the situation would be difficult but manageable. The reality, however, goes deeper and is much more troubling. There are multiple problems affecting the world that are having a decidedly negative net effect: a global rise in demand for crude oil, the plateau in the production of crude oil (which may indicate the peak has already been reached) and continued global population growth. Together, these three factors are serving to shove the world into a crisis that has ominous possibilities.
When there isn't enough oil to satisfy global demand, the price obviously rises. Perhaps less obvious, however, is the effect this price increase has on the world's ability to produce food. Every stage of the food production cycle is affected by petroleum and a rise in the price of a barrel of oil has compounding effects: It costs more to run the farm machinery, more to buy the fertilizer, more to take it to market and more for processing. In the United States, this results in raised eyebrows at the grocery store. In parts of the world where upwards of 75 percent of a family's income goes to buying food, it results in social unrest and riots.
The United Nations estimates that global population is growing at the rate of 78 million people a year — roughly the equivalent of adding the population of Germany to the world every year. According to Energy Information Administration data released earlier this month, global petroleum production has been on a relatively level plateau for the past 44 consecutive months.
But at the same time, the economies of China and India have continued growing, which accelerates the consumption of petroleum-related products and increases the amount and quality of food each person eats. These three facts have conspired to produce a global shortage of crude oil which has exacerbated the world's inability to feed itself. If the world cannot produce significantly more barrels of oil per day, while at the same time the developing world's appetite continues to increase and the global population continues its climb, there won't be enough oil to go around or enough food for everyone to eat.
In just the past two weeks we have been given a foretaste of what that might mean as news organizations have reported rioting and social unrest in developing countries around the world as a result of food shortages; Canadian Bank analyst Jeff Rubin predicted oil prices will "soar to $225 a barrel by 2012." Many experts expect these twin afflictions to remain for the foreseeable future.
This is not the time for more talk and half-measures. Facts on the ground demand urgent, robust and sustained action at the highest levels of government. The America public gets it, as an April 20 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that 76 percent of Americans "believe that their government should make long term plans to replace oil as a primary source of energy." With such a high percentage of the population agreeing with such a necessity, where are our national leaders on this issue? While our presidential candidates continue to be satisfied discussing such critical issues as what someone's pastor said, (who is bitter and who gets angry a lot), there has been not one substantive exchange regarding the most pressing issue facing our country.
Someone must step up and lead before a crisis of global proportions is thrust upon us and our only option is the implementation of draconian damage-control measures. Pray such a leader surfaces soon.
There Will Be Blood
For more than a decade, English petroleum geologist Colin Campbell has been sounding the warning bell about the coming of peak oil and its disturbing ramifications for the world. Since 2005 Dr. Robert Hirsch has been giving specific warnings for the United States through a series of Department of Energy-sponsored reports outlining the dangers to America if the peak finds us unprepared. And in the past year, the GAO, the National Petroleum Council, and scores of other organizations and governments around the world have reported on the severe consequences the world might incur once the peak has been achieved.
The issue is not simply a concern that we will have to pay outrageous prices for a gallon of gas. If that were the worst of it, the situation would be difficult but manageable. The reality, however, goes deeper and is much more troubling. There are multiple problems affecting the world that are having a decidedly negative net effect: a global rise in demand for crude oil, the plateau in the production of crude oil (which may indicate the peak has already been reached) and continued global population growth. Together, these three factors are serving to shove the world into a crisis that has ominous possibilities.
When there isn't enough oil to satisfy global demand, the price obviously rises. Perhaps less obvious, however, is the effect this price increase has on the world's ability to produce food. Every stage of the food production cycle is affected by petroleum and a rise in the price of a barrel of oil has compounding effects: It costs more to run the farm machinery, more to buy the fertilizer, more to take it to market and more for processing. In the United States, this results in raised eyebrows at the grocery store. In parts of the world where upwards of 75 percent of a family's income goes to buying food, it results in social unrest and riots.
The United Nations estimates that global population is growing at the rate of 78 million people a year — roughly the equivalent of adding the population of Germany to the world every year. According to Energy Information Administration data released earlier this month, global petroleum production has been on a relatively level plateau for the past 44 consecutive months.
But at the same time, the economies of China and India have continued growing, which accelerates the consumption of petroleum-related products and increases the amount and quality of food each person eats. These three facts have conspired to produce a global shortage of crude oil which has exacerbated the world's inability to feed itself. If the world cannot produce significantly more barrels of oil per day, while at the same time the developing world's appetite continues to increase and the global population continues its climb, there won't be enough oil to go around or enough food for everyone to eat.
In just the past two weeks we have been given a foretaste of what that might mean as news organizations have reported rioting and social unrest in developing countries around the world as a result of food shortages; Canadian Bank analyst Jeff Rubin predicted oil prices will "soar to $225 a barrel by 2012." Many experts expect these twin afflictions to remain for the foreseeable future.
This is not the time for more talk and half-measures. Facts on the ground demand urgent, robust and sustained action at the highest levels of government. The America public gets it, as an April 20 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that 76 percent of Americans "believe that their government should make long term plans to replace oil as a primary source of energy." With such a high percentage of the population agreeing with such a necessity, where are our national leaders on this issue? While our presidential candidates continue to be satisfied discussing such critical issues as what someone's pastor said, (who is bitter and who gets angry a lot), there has been not one substantive exchange regarding the most pressing issue facing our country.
Someone must step up and lead before a crisis of global proportions is thrust upon us and our only option is the implementation of draconian damage-control measures. Pray such a leader surfaces soon.
There Will Be Blood
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Sportsmanship
This should be what sportsmanship is all about.
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3376663&categoryId=2491548&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3376663&categoryId=2491548&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)