Archive for October, 2012

metal beetle people take heed

2012/10/19

i find that it is almost impossible to drag anybody out of it.

they only get mad, literally cannot see the wood for the trees, because it’s what they were born in, and what they are wired for.

they are, quite simply, no longer human.

how many walk barefoot in the wild?

this is all they need to know, and that is how i came to know, but how many have ever been there?

and how many shudder at the thought?

it’s like trying to explain sex to the circumcised, but unlike the foreskin, your feet will grow back.

you only have to lose the shoes.

most of you will paddle on a beach, but that is about as far as you will go, and how many of you do that more than a few times a year?

place your feet flat on the face of the mother of everything you can ever know in this life, and learn to love her.

if you cannot do this, you cannot be human – you are plastic footed space bugs in metal carapaces who quite literally do not belong on earth. go back to your cities, your urban centers, and stay there – you do not belong here, you have no rights on the earth, and you will damned well take off your shoes, if you want to walk in this temple.

i come in peace.

Advertisements

answering Bohunk – Finding Balance Between the First Nations and Western Land-Ethic

2012/10/19

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bohunk/Paper_Phil333#Objections_to_Transferability

Objections to Transferability

Objection 1

Population Density: How can indigenous environmental principles be transferred considering they were developed and practiced in smaller, more dispersed populations? If we all decided to harvest food naturally, then the natural populations of most species would be eradicated, especially in the immediate vicinity of cities.

answer – canadians prefer cities, only a limited number of us wish to live indigenously, there is more than enough land available, and on the ground that aboriginal man (or functional equivalent) is THE keystone species, we in fact have an obligation to repopulate these areas.  the current government might possibly be able to excuse it’s ignorant antecedents, but it cannot logically deny it’s responsibility now.

Objection 2

Loss of Subsistence Culture/Knowledge: Over the last 100 years, indigenous people have themselves stopped living off the land in their traditional way for various reasons. What are these reasons? If they cannot do it, what makes us think we might find any value in trying to apply these traditional principles?

answer – there are only two impediments – the first is legal – the traditional way was outlawed, and aboriginal rights are now implemented in modern replacements, and the traditional way is now interpreted as vagrancy.  the only other impediment is will – the modern way of life is not only mandated by law, it is generally desired, by most.  put it all back the way it was, before smallpox, and of course it works – but that structure has been entirely decimated, and without it, unfortunately, we have an enormous amount to cover.  but clearly it did work, and it will again, of this there can be no logical doubt.

Objection 3

Reliance on Market Economies: People in our society are not self sustaining, but maintain specialized professions. The average person can no longer hunt, fish, clothe, and provide for themselves. Furthermore, if we tried to do this as individuals, societal momentum would be against us. How can we overcome this problem

answer – the average person did not hunt, fish, clothe or provide for themselves in the past either – at least not as atomic families, let alone all-knowing individuals.  aboriginal peoples had professions also, from shaman through outcast, and just like us they depended on each other, and a viable social structure, for everything.  yes, most could hunt and gather and generally feed themselves, but most of us can do this too, with very little training.  it has been demonstrated across history that a population of about one hundred and fifty is an ideal self-sustaining society – my hand is up, are we there yet?

Objection 4

People in today’s society are desensitized from the source of their food and essentials. eg eggs come from the grocery store and milk does too. Many of us never even think about the source of our meat, and how it was obtained. If we all were to witness the killing of an amimal, we would appreciate meat more. Natives pray every time they kill something, and they were not able to engage in the excess consumption that we are capable of engaging in. This mentality is not easily reversed.

answer – nor should it be – is very important, again, to understand that the bulk of humanity, at least unless the alternatives become very seductive indeed, do not wish to live this way.  the bulk of humanity, in my estimation, is headed straight off the edge of the evolutionary cliff, in that it has proven entirely able to wantonly destroy not only itself, but the entire ecosystem it depends on.  this mentality reverses itself – the trick is to make sure it doesn’t reverse the whole planet, in the process.

Objection 5

There is ingrained economic, and political momentum to be short sighted towards making dramatic changes toward environmental sustainability. The powers to be are not ready to make dramatic changes readily.

answer – yes – this is what white south africa believed, what east germany believed, what russia believed.  dramatic changes are not made, they happen – the trick is to be prepared.  canada is very not prepared, possibly the least prepared of all.

Objection 6

Despite the growing awareness toward environmental reform and sustainability issues, First People’s do not have a mainstream voice with which to make their opinions heard. The press, and industry still hold most of the clout and power in our modern society.

answer – the press is only entertainment now, it is not a power, and industry is an employer.  the power is in the people, at least all over the rest of the world.  in canada, i think, hockey is the real power, and maybe beer, because nothing else seems to penetrate the skull, here.  therefore i say it is not about first people at all, and the common herd do not care, so it is not about them either – it is simply about real people, and there are precious few of us left.

all we have to do is join hands, count to a hundred and fifty, and step forward.

why does the MLA not answer?

2012/10/15

dear nicholas simons

when i asked you to confirm that you were not prepared to speak to or answer any of my questions, you responded “not entirely”, and then went on to explain that you could not “invent” new policy.

i then asked you to speak to and answer for the case of existing legislation – on the understanding that pedestrians have been the majority for the bulk of human history, and in the certain knowledge that as little as ten years ago, the rights i am asking you to define were still very much in active effect.

what happened since then?

and why will you not answer?

james knight – pedestrian – your constituency

still trying to talk to my MLA

2012/10/06

dear nicholas simons

there is a difference between a communication, which i would be happy to receive from a minister of my government (being they are at the top of the heap, representing millions) and a conversation, which i believe i have every right to expect of my local representative (being that you only represent thousands, at most).

you chastise me for being impolite to your office, and then you politely turn around and issue what can only be described as a communication. you do not indicate whether you are speaking for the public record or not, so i will not quote you here. suffice to say this was not a conversation, although you once again invite me to explain what i want.

again? what have i just written? am i still not explaining myself clearly enough?

i replied to your communication twice, both to answer your question, and to draw your attention to the fact that you have answered none of mine. unless i completely misunderstood your words, you asked me to continue the conversation, but then you simply vanished again.

it has been well over two years i have been waiting for this conversation, nicholas, in case you are somehow not aware of that fact, and i have pages and pages and pages of evidence to show that i have done far, far more than should be required of a single citizen, alone, in regard to providing you with all the brief i can supply.

where i come from, sir, it is customary to reply to an email in a conversation with at very least an acknowledgement of receipt, and some indication of when a reply might be expected. to do less, in an error prone half duplex medium like email, is a mistake not many of my peers would wish to make twice.

of course, like you, i have been wrong before, and if i am mistaken to feel so slighted, please be assured of my sincere apologies for calling you to task, like this.

how long, lord, how long?

james knight, pedestrian, wilson creek.

a letter in reply to my MLA

2012/10/03

(perhaps i should point out that i am using this open workspace in an attempt to create some form of ‘living’ document, in the hope that this will somehow evolve into an agreement between myself and my government – all representatives of which, to date, appear to strenuously deny having any control over, or interest in, the matters of issue to me. therefore this is, in programmer speak, essentially a Request For Comments, and as i have very little understanding of the way the government machine works, or potentially does not work, as yet, i would very much welcome any helpful advice i can get.)

dear nicholas simons,

thank you for a timely response, and for offering me yet another opportunity to document my concerns.

none of the local organisations to which your office referred me – scrd, dos – has seen fit to reply.

in the case of the scrd, i am advised by the administrator that (a) she does not wish to hear from me and (b) that she is the person through whom i must go, to approach the scrd, resulting in what to me as a programmer looks like (c) a bug in the system. she has, to date, refused to place any of my questions before the board.

in the case of the dos, i was advised by the mayor’s secretary that my letter to the mayor and council had been accepted and would be included in the agenda. this was in the spring, and to date i have been unable to confirm what, if anything, has happened since.

being that neither scrd nor dos appear willing to speak to me, and the mayor himself apparently refuses to even make eye contact, when out in public, am i mistaken to believe that the sum total of resources you are able to offer is that i write to “the hon ida chong” for advice?

am i mistaken to believe that this person lives WELL offcoast, is most likely FAR busier than your inordinately busy self, and is VERY unlikely to have the time to speak to me – let alone represent me – personally?

you say that you only represent me in matters like housing, transport, safety, etc

housing – is not an issue, i own my own shelter. the issue is where to put it, be it the bus i currently live in, or the boat i was forced to abandon because it did not count as shelter, or the nomadic campsite that my human ancestry, and this land, requires for my health, and for the health of this land.

where on this wide, largely unoccupied, and once famously fertile sunshine coast am i permitted to go?

transportation – i am PEDESTRIAN. it is important to notice that pedestrian and transport are, in reality, opposite terms. a pedestrian becomes a case for transport when s/he/it is unwilling or unable to make the journey unaided. on the sunshine coast, a pedestrian is unable to make almost all journeys unaided, or at very least unafraid, simply because no authority to date has seen fit to leave, or provide room for, any safe corridors. as in any, at all.

i also require the ability to raise my own livestock. public transport is one of the most significant vectors of viral infection, besides being one of the leading accelerants to the evolution of anti-biotic drug resistance. people working with livestock are another, and it would be madness to mix the two.

the scrd to date states clearly that the public bus is their ONLY solution to their otherwise total inability to support pedestrian traffic. the fact that pedestrian was the ONLY form of traffic, besides boats, for MOST of human history, does not seem to enter into it. they have no plan for livestock AT ALL.

my local government states clearly that it has no resources to support pedestrian traffic on the sunshine coast, and insists that it has no choice but to spend ALL resources on simply maintaining right of way for vehicles ONLY.

is this truly all that my government, in total, is mandated to provide?

food – all i require is enough space in order to collect enough sunlight and enough water to be able to grow and raise food and other resources for an open local market or other arrangement of my own choosing.

an allotment would be a good start, within my limits as a pedestrian, to begin with, but for the purpose of raising animals i must have the right to live with my stock, and the right to a space into which to move on again, in order not to outlive the benefit that natural human habitation is automatically able to provide, in return.

please do not miss my point

i can be of benefit to the earth, as well as carbon negative in my lifestyle, provided my government will please give up this insane notion that i need IT to feed ME.

all i need is enough space, and a healthy local economy – which unfortunately is precluded by a healthy local (as in pedestrian) traffic system. i say unfortunately because this is exactly what the sunshine coast does not have.

safety – routing ALL pedestrian traffic 1.5 meters either side of the ONLY highway in town is not safe, by any sane measure, and yet local government claim this is quite literally ALL they can afford to provide, period, end of discussion.

health – you didn’t mention health – pedestrian traffic relies on lungs and oxygen to burn the fuel stored in the system. the exhaust from the fuel in the traffic that my government has deliberately routed very much less than seventy five centimeters off my right elbow is many times more detrimental to my delicate living system than almost any amount of second hand tobacco smoke – an issue my government, in general, appears to consider quite irrelevant.

safety – people get angry about boundaries, and the boundary between crown and private on the coast is a very difficult line to resolve, in reality. in particular it is essential that a person on foot be able to tell, in advance, where legal boundaries intersect with natural ones.

almost all footpaths on the sunshine coast, at least within my range, lead directly into exactly such traps. an exhausted pedestrian, like a bee out of honey, is often no match for these which, unlike natural boundaries, are very often very difficult to predict from the landscape.

the dos and the scrd claim to own the public data required to solve the problem, and will not part with it.

this is PUBLIC data, are you certain this is NOT your jurisdiction?

as you may note, my problems are not housing, transportation or food – but fair use of commons (over which the scrd and dos deny all responsibility) and the basic and entirely natural (and therefore utterly undeniable) pedestrian right of way.

which is also the utterly undeniable right of the pedestrian not to have to risk life and limb on the shoulder of a highway full of metal beetle people, a significant number of whom, at any given time, probably should NOT be in control of a lethal weapon at speed.

which is also the utterly undeniable right of the pedestrian not to have to be transported like an animal in a manner arguably no different from the petroleum driven industrial food chain that is making you all so incredibly virulently ill.

no thank you, i am a human being, being human as best as i know how, and my government, to date, claims to be utterly powerless to assist, and in fact appears to be demanding i submit to the insane treatment i have outlined above, or be made criminal.

i have now, by all means, re-iterated a number of salient concerns. what i need to re-iterate most is that i do not need assistance (which would be nice) or support (ditto) – all i really need is accurate information about how the legislation actually works, in the real world.

i need you to provide me with an honest chance to sit down properly and pick your brains.

i also need to understand WHY nobody else will discuss these issues officially – and why ALL seem to consider me some sort of crank or threat – whereas i believe i am only requesting the same sort of respect that my government expects (and sometimes mandates) that other countries will provide their own citizens, simply as a condition of trade.

i was born and raised in a land that canadian politicians, amongst many others, once loved to heap slander upon, in comparison to the ways in which our respective ‘native’ populations were ‘permitted’ to live. naturalised here, at an early age, it has taken me thirty years to acclimatise myself to the bc coastline, and now that i am ready, i discover to my unfathomable horror that this government – unlike most others – appears hell bent on extinguishing all rights to anything even approaching a natural lifestyle here, irrespective a person’s ancestry – even as my natal land is rediscovering, all over again, just how ESSENTIAL those very same rights are, to the health of both the land and it’s people.

sechelt, last i saw, puts up pictures of mme bergliot on it’s council house walls, but i wonder if she has not, in real point of fact, simply been nailed there, like a trophy pelt on a wall, only because she was the last example of her kind – legally wild – on the sunshine coast?

please would you kindly re-iterate ALL the advice your office can supply

and/or

confirm that in fact the hon ida chong (somewhere out there) is my only resource.

sincerely, in search of respect,

james knight, pedestrian, wilson creek.