Breaking what is taboo for some, the Natural History Museum in Oslo is currently showing an exhibition on homosexuality in the animal kingdom which organisers say is the first of its kind in the world.
"As homosexual people are often confronted with the argument that their way of living is against the principles of nature, we thought that ... as a scientific institution, we could at least show that this is not true," said exhibition organiser Geir Soeli.
"You can think whatever you want about homosexuals but you cannot use that argument because it is very natural, it's very common in animal kingdom," Soeli added.
Oh yes and marriage is a property relationship it isn't 'sacred' either.
Of course the Christian Conservatives loved their favorite family film; March of the Penquins. They thought it great that Emperor Penquins mated for life proving family values are natural. But as it turns out the Emperor Penguins are also homosexual as well.
Of course as a fallback the Christian Conservatives raise the fear of Islam....Conservative activist Mike Baker said, "Nevermind Christian condemnation. This exhibit won't endear the museum with many Muslims."
Of course all patriarchical religions and sects fear homosexuality as they do women. And poor Mike Baker is confusing Norway with Denmark.
animal species practice homosexuality From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
Biological Exuberance: Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name - Homosexuality in animals... (gay animals and a strange bat)
See:
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
The report released this week noted that the world's forests are disappearing at a rate of five percent a decade as woodland is cleared for timber and production of in-demand commodities like beef, coffee and soybeans.
But the land would have far more value if developing countries were paid to preserve their forests on global carbon markets, the report said. Such markets are an offshoot of the Kyoto agreement, and allow countries that struggle to meet targets for industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to pay other countries that keep their emissions down.
Global push to cut greenhouse emissionsThe drive to tackle climate change gathered pace on Thursday as Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, announced a $3bn plan to invest in the carbon trading market amid mounting evidence that some US states are growing more sympathetic to international action.
The moves come just days before a UK government report is expected to propose a huge expansion of the global market in trading permits for carbon dioxide emissions. It will also propose extending existing mechanisms for western companies to benefit from promoting cleaner energy in poor countries.
A bigger market could offer substantial business opportunities. One recent calculation suggests that global expenditure on curbing the effects of climate change could be worth about $1,000bn (£529bn) within five years of action being agreed.
He threw his support behind public-private partnerships as way for Ontario to dig its way out of an infrastructure crunch.
''There is evidence from other countries that public-private partnerships can both increase the efficiency of investments and support their financing,'' Dodge said.
''Now is the right time to encourage partnerships between the government of Ontario and private providers, given the climate of low nominal interest rates and the presence of large pension funds that searching for these kinds of investment opportunities.''
As I have said here before the liquidity of institutional pension funds, such as the Canada Pension Plan, Ontario Teachers Fund, the largest such source of capital in Canada, and OMERS, as well as the building trades pension funds are not private but actually another form of public funding. In otherwords Public Private is a misnomer, it should be called Public Pension Partnerships. The working class again funds itself, through low wages, taxes and then finally with our pensions.
Private capital on the other hand wants to make its profits faster so it will not invest in infrastructure. Instead it turns to creating tax shelters such as Income Trusts. So the State turns to social capital for its financing instead, as do businesses that are in need of restructuring but want to avoid a hedge fund takeover, which inevitabley ends when they are cannibalized and sold off.
Pension funds that currently are complaining that they have no shareholder say in companies they invest in turn deny their own investors, you and me, any say in their internal affairs and investment policies. Pot, kettle, black.CPP to assume active role with $5-billion fund
The relationship portfolio will eventually consist of about a half-dozen companies and be part of the $57-billion in stocks run by Donald Raymond, CPP's senior vice-president for public market investments. Mr. Raymond is a former Canadian air force pilot who joined the money manager in 2001 from Goldman Sachs & Co. The new head of relationship investing is expected to receive a pay package similar to the $864,000 that Mr. Raymond was awarded last year.
The move to activism — CPP executives prefer to call it “pro-active engagement” — takes the CPP fund down a path blazed by many U.S. public sector funds and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. The $96-billion Teachers fund has been making such investments for the past 15 years, using in-house expertise to earn superior long-term returns.
Teachers now has between $3-billion and $4-billion of its money committed to this area, said Brian Gibson, a senior vice-president at the pension fund.
Value investors typically target companies they feel are undervalued, and wait for the price to appreciate. Activist investors target much the same companies, but once they understand what they believe to be reason for the underperformance, they work on a plan to correct it.
The powerful Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is asking Goldcorp Inc. to give shareholders a vote on its $6.7-billion (U.S.) takeover of Glamis Gold Ltd., giving credence to a court challenge by the company's founder and largest shareholder.As Robert McEwen's request for a court order imposing a Goldcorp shareholder vote was being heard in Ontario Superior Court, Teachers executives were meeting with the company's chief executive officer, Ian Telfer, just a few blocks away.
The pension plan, which owned about 2.3 million Goldcorp shares or about half a per cent of the company's outstanding float at year end, said the transaction's significant share dilution is well beyond the level where shareholder input should be sought. “It's hard to imagine how you can issue 67 per cent of your shares and say nothing has changed,” said Teachers senior vice-president, Brian Gibson, in an interview. “That's pretty significant and we believe shareholders should be consulted,” he added.What we need is a socail policy on public pensions that allows those of us who are the investors and owners of these funds to have a say in how and where they invest.
Capital and Social Europe
Robin Blackburn, NLR 34, July-August 2005, pp. 87-112
The social funds would also be as much about producing wealth as distributing it. In a continent where stock exchanges are already of greatly increased importance, the social funds could help to protect productive enterprises from ‘financialization’, promote socially responsible business objectives and assert a degree of popular control over the accumulation process. The network of pension funds would have significant power in corporate affairs, both because of its shares and its investment policies. The fund network could develop its own cadre of financial specialists and would have reason to assist the tax authorities in monitoring and enforcing fiscal regulations.
See:
Social Insecurity The Phony Pension Crisis
Pension Plunder
Is Delphi the Oracle of things to come?
Labour Is Capital
Pension Free China
Kids Are Commodities
Workers vs Worker
Air Canada Profits From Bankruptcy
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
David, Dodge, Bank, of, Canada, Pensions, P3, public-private-partnerships, OMERS, CPP, Ontario-Teachers-Fund, OTF, Canada, investment, infrastructure, Ontario, shareholders
Forget BMD, move over George Lucas, here comes the real Star Wars; The United States of Space.
A Dangerous Step toward Space Warfare
The release of the U.S. National Space Policy (NSP) on October 6 has worried many experts, who say the policy marks a strategic shift toward a more military-oriented, unilateral approach to space for the United States. They fear that the policy, if followed, could begin an arms race leading to catastrophic space warfare.
The NSP reads, in part, "The United States considers space capabilities… vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;
See:But the main thing that sets the modern poor apart from the industrial age pauper is a sheer lack of interest in education. Today's proletariat has little education and no interest in obtaining more. Back in the early days of industrialization, the poor joined worker associations that often doubled as educational associations. The modern member of the underclass, by contrast, has completely shunned personal betterment.
He likewise makes little effort to open the door to the future for his own children. Their language skills are as bad as their ability to concentrate. The rising rate of illiteracy is matched by the shrinking opportunities to integrate the under class. The Americans, not ones to mince words, call them "white trash."
Another strategical disagreement dividing Marx and Bakunin centered around the question of who would lead the revolution. Both agreed that the proletariat would play a key role, but for Marx the proletariat was the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent while Bakunin entertained the possibility that the peasants and even the lumpenproletariat (the unemployed, common criminals, etc.) could rise to the occasion. Bakunin argued, for example, that the peasants were a revolutionary class for three reasons: (1) They have retained “the simple, robust temperament and the energy germane to the folk nature.” (2) They work with their hands and despise privilege. And (3) as toilers they have common interests with workers
In other words, being close to nature, the peasants are less alienated from their true, natural essence since they have suffered less corruption by the evils of society. Bakunin adopted a similar argument in relation to the lumpenproletariat:
“By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal ‘meat’, ... that great rabble of the people (underdogs, ‘dregs of society’) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations ... all the seeds of the socialism of the future....”
In both cases, Bakunin’s conclusions flow directly from his conviction that inherent in humanity is a natural essence which can be suppressed but never entirely extinguished. Those in society who are more distant from the State apparatus (the peasants are scattered throughout the countryside, the lumpenproletariat simply refuses to obey the laws) are accordingly natural leaders.
In contrast, Marx consistently argued that the proletariat alone was the revolutionary agent: “Of all classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.”Here again their different philosophical frameworks led these revolutionaries in opposed directions. Because Marx believed human nature was shaped by the economy, he analyzed the possible revolutionary agents by analyzing how the economy would influence their development. And economic considerations led him to conclude that the peasants could not play a leading revolutionary role. For example, they do not constitute a cohesive class. Some are large landowners and hire other peasants to work for them while the latter are often landless and destitute. Moreover, the desire for land by a majority of the peasants could serve as an anchor, holding them back from a truly revolutionary perspective. Rather than rallying for a thoroughgoing, socialist revolution where private ownership of land is abolished, they often veer in the direction of seeking to augment their own modest, private property land holdings at the expense of the large landowners. But aside from these economic considerations, Marx also believed that the situation of the peasants, not only prohibited them from attaining class consciousness, but from becoming a truly revolutionary class:
“The small holding peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse.... Their field of production, the small holding, admits of no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science and, therefore, no diversity of development, no variety of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient; it itself directly produces the major part of its consumption and thus acquires its means of life more through exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, a peasant and his family; alongside them another small holding, another peasant and another family.... In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. In so far as there is a merely local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class.”
Marx was even less enthusiastic about the lumpenproletariat because it was not directly related to the production process at all, being comprised of the permanently unemployed, criminals, etc.
