So, I was informed in person that people were curious about my comments about how I go about avoiding Shell. Well, it's simple. It's something I care about and something I pay attention to, and that's really all you have to do.
Since you were curious I'm going to assume that you care about this issue, next, you have to pay attention. I buy from Shell as little as possible, because to be honest, I just don't like them. mostly due to them price gouging.
So first, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell
yeah, it's wiki, deal with it. it's good information on Shell as a whole.
reading this, you need to pay attention to every line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Oil_Company#Subsidiaries
"Aera Energy LLC is a joint venture with Mobil Oil operating in California." is at the bottom of the page, Mobil, a part of the famous Exxon-Mobil, is partnered with Shell, well gee, there's two of the biggest oil companies working together. Still not a monopoly....Though the page even has a section about Shabazi, small world eh?
If you wanna know who owns what, a google search along the lines of "*station name* owned by" usually comes up with answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor
here, you'll find a listing of the "supermajor" oil corporations. Curiously enough, the number matches up to the number of media corporations.
Shell doesn't explicitly own Texaco, but has something like a 56% investment in it, which IMO, is close enough.
if you go through all the links, you'll probably be depressed in finding that most of the "supermajor" oil companies own half of each other and are all working together.
oh well, we've still got our anti-trust laws right?
....right?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
accountability goes all around, or it doesn't go at all
So, this will be my last post here I suppose, because I'm tired of being held accountable by being flamed by assholes who could correct me? but no, they scream and shout and insult me instead of simply saying why and how I'm wrong. I'm OK with being told I'm wrong and being corrected, but I'm not OK with somebody being a jackass.
And since I can be held accountable for anything I post(by responding to my posts), and other people can't be held accountable(by me responding to them), there is no place for civil discussion, learning and growing in the blog world. There is apparently only room for flaming and rudeness, and quite frankly, I can get that elsewhere.
So, unless something changes, this is my last post, and in a short amount of time, this blog will no longer exist. Go hold somebody else to the wall with your double barrels of ass-hattery, I have neither the time nor the desire to entertain you.
And since I can be held accountable for anything I post(by responding to my posts), and other people can't be held accountable(by me responding to them), there is no place for civil discussion, learning and growing in the blog world. There is apparently only room for flaming and rudeness, and quite frankly, I can get that elsewhere.
So, unless something changes, this is my last post, and in a short amount of time, this blog will no longer exist. Go hold somebody else to the wall with your double barrels of ass-hattery, I have neither the time nor the desire to entertain you.
Monday, April 7, 2008
to you who can only copy paste
Well, apparently I got a rebuttal from somebody regarding the fact that there is racism towards whites. Of course, they didn't address the subject, I suppose justifying "reverse racism" because there is still racism against minorities. Well, if racism justifies racism, then I suppose it should be a free-for-all on racism!
Wait...that doesn't sound like a good solution. In any case, apparently this person lacks their own opinions as their rebuttal to me was just a copy-paste from a news article from some other site. But hey, I can work with that.
http://www2.ohchr.org./english/bodies/ratification/2.htm#reservations
This website contains a list of every country that had a provision or problem with the treaty upon signing. The list is alphabetical, and it's easy to note that the US is not the only country, looking at the list, from first to third world nations took exception to clauses in the treaty. I saw a number of them mention Article 4 or Article 22.
The US in particular notes that much of the treaty runs counter to free speech and freedom of assembly, things that, even though I'm not a minority, I enjoy greatly. And I don't take lightly to any external organization, be them an evil dictatorship or a well meaning NGO, trying to stifle my speech.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
the above is a link to the full text of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Section 4 in particular seeks to make illegal and jail any and all persons who disseminate or make "propaganda" based on the racial superiority of any one race. Offenze as these things may be, this runs counter to freedom of speech. Freely expressed opinions prevent radicals like these from feeling vindicated, and quickly allow for people who do not agree and people who know better to shoot them down.
Now, before you blindly reply to this with another copy-paste, kindly do some research on what the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination actually wants, and look at why countries take issue with it.
Also, I'm glad you retracted your words, since the "white club" you call "law enforcement" is very much populated by non whites. So, before you call me out on what you perceive as "racism", perhaps you should take a look at your own bigotry.
Wait...that doesn't sound like a good solution. In any case, apparently this person lacks their own opinions as their rebuttal to me was just a copy-paste from a news article from some other site. But hey, I can work with that.
http://www2.ohchr.org./english/bodies/ratification/2.htm#reservations
This website contains a list of every country that had a provision or problem with the treaty upon signing. The list is alphabetical, and it's easy to note that the US is not the only country, looking at the list, from first to third world nations took exception to clauses in the treaty. I saw a number of them mention Article 4 or Article 22.
The US in particular notes that much of the treaty runs counter to free speech and freedom of assembly, things that, even though I'm not a minority, I enjoy greatly. And I don't take lightly to any external organization, be them an evil dictatorship or a well meaning NGO, trying to stifle my speech.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
the above is a link to the full text of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Section 4 in particular seeks to make illegal and jail any and all persons who disseminate or make "propaganda" based on the racial superiority of any one race. Offenze as these things may be, this runs counter to freedom of speech. Freely expressed opinions prevent radicals like these from feeling vindicated, and quickly allow for people who do not agree and people who know better to shoot them down.
Now, before you blindly reply to this with another copy-paste, kindly do some research on what the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination actually wants, and look at why countries take issue with it.
Also, I'm glad you retracted your words, since the "white club" you call "law enforcement" is very much populated by non whites. So, before you call me out on what you perceive as "racism", perhaps you should take a look at your own bigotry.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Edward James Olmos
Likly due to stress, I've had a few breakouts of acne recently, and it reminded me of a comment I heard towards a person asking for help on what to do about their acne. The comment, went something along the lines of "you don't want to look like Edward James Olmos do you?" And, Edwards J Olmos being one of my favorite actors, I thought to myself: "huh, do I want to have smooth, baby-bottom skin...or look like a famous actor?"
Well, given the choice, I think I'd rather look like a famous actor. Personally, I think what's great about EJO the most is that he shows that you don't have to have pretty soft skin and look like you're 20 when you're 45. He shows that what counts is being a good actor, and he's played everything from an evil dictator to a space commander.
The interesting thing to note is, I never realized this guy was some kind of Spanish. You can't hear it in his voice, he never really looked it IMO, and his name doesn't particularly give away any sort of ancestry. He doesn't advertize it or flaunt it as far as I know. And he doesn't stick to particularly spanish/latin american films, so I dunno, thought that was kinda neat.
Well, given the choice, I think I'd rather look like a famous actor. Personally, I think what's great about EJO the most is that he shows that you don't have to have pretty soft skin and look like you're 20 when you're 45. He shows that what counts is being a good actor, and he's played everything from an evil dictator to a space commander.
The interesting thing to note is, I never realized this guy was some kind of Spanish. You can't hear it in his voice, he never really looked it IMO, and his name doesn't particularly give away any sort of ancestry. He doesn't advertize it or flaunt it as far as I know. And he doesn't stick to particularly spanish/latin american films, so I dunno, thought that was kinda neat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)