Thursday, February 24, 2011

Donald Rumsfeld comes clean (nearly) on the Daily Show

This link above will take you to Canada's "Comedy Network" page for Jon Stewart's Daily Show uncut, uncensored interview with Donald Rumsfeld.
If for some reason you are unable to view, please take the time to find your own link to watch the show.
The episode aired Feb 23, 2011

The following will be my own comments on what I feel was a remarkable interview. I love Jon Stewart, I'm not convinced he's entirely real, but he does manage to get important guests, and grill them, nearly to my satisfaction. Rummy was his usual black-eyed, stoney self. He was slightly less coy than usual. He always has a slight smile. He has every reason to. Some people in positions of power get to see the man behind the curtain, Rummy knows them all.

Rumsfeld, who has been in the whitehouse, off and on, since Nixon, is one of the star players of the new world order and we should all be particularly happy when he is capable of stating anything. Anyone who knows Rummy, or has listened to him speak, (which should be all of us,) knows him to be the King of Filibuster. So when he makes the following statements in the interview, it becomes clear why I have chosen to comment and how the interview gains its importance:

-There was very little attaching Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.
-It is fair to say that convincing Americans to go into Iraq was both a harder sell than going into Afghanistan, as well as where the bulk of the administration's efforts were focused.
-We were wrong about the intelligence that lead us to war.
-We failed. 

These sentences are paraphrazed, but you get the gist of the tone of the discussion. Jon tries so hard to be diplomatic about what he's saying, but ultimately he has to come out and ask it, "You are the authors and owners of this war and shouldn't you be held accountable?"

The thing is, Rummy doesn't disagree. I mean, he tries to disagree, and uses several diversions, but ultimately, careful semantics break him down.

Saying that the word "sell" was too strong a word to use when describing the intentionality of the Bush admin. meant only that "convince" was good enough. The first prong in Stewart's attack took some minor adjusting by the semantic deceptor, but ultimately he admits that there was purposeful momentum created for Iraq. He did not agree with Jon's definition of said authors of such momentum needing to be held accountable for such actions... He will only argue that "Saddam was bad" or that "America hasn't had an attack in ten years."

The next, quite interesting angle taken by Jon was something I was going to write up anyway, in terms of the current Libyan crisis. I was going to persue something along the lines of, "Did everybody get fucking amnesia?" Gaddafi was a crazy dictator 30 years ago, he's still there now. The only thing that has changed is our attitudes about people like him. When he has our oil, we put up with him. Hell, we'll even let him kill a jet full of people. You know what, forget even that, we'll go as far as to let you have the terrorist behind it back, a national hero. Enjoy your right to terrorize, you crazy kook, come to the G20!

Oh, sorry. Human moment....

Jon persued it with his usual diplomatic candor. I think that perhaps we all feel like, there were 19 highjackers, none of them from Iraq. Why are they not the targets of your intentions? Why didn't we move on Pakistan, Sudan, Saudia Arabia?

He even brought up the Project for a New American Century. Jon did everything he could to be blatant about the direction and desire of the administration being known by the public, admonishing it. "There is no reason at all for us to be in Iraq and we are made no safer by the war there."

Of course Rumsfeld disagrees. Yet it seems to me, he does so half heartedly. It almost feels to me as if he wants to come clean, but in his heart of hearts, actually cares about the monsters he protects.

Monday, February 14, 2011


Yes, I also write fiction.
I have recently been able to publish two of my short stories.

"Disembarkation" is based on a true story that happened to me as a teenager in Beaver Creek Yukon.

"Demarcation" is a futuristic science fiction tale, complete with conspiracy, that happens to take place in the same town.


Click here

Monday, February 7, 2011

21st Century Enlightenment and the RSA

I've only recently discovered the RSA. 
(quote from wikipedia)

"The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is a British multi-disciplinary institution, based in London. The name Royal Society of Arts is frequently used for brevity (and on the building's frieze The Royal Society of Arts - see photo). It was founded in 1754 and was granted a Royal Charter in 1847. Notable members have included Benjamin Franklin, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, William Hogarth, John Diefenbaker, Stephen Hawking and Charles Dickens.
Its founding charter expressed the purpose of the society as being to "embolden enterprise, enlarge science, refine art, improve our manufactures and extend our commerce", but also of the need to alleviate poverty and secure full employment."

Matthew Taylor, former advisor to PM Blair, long time Labour Politician, published the RSA's new tagline, (read: manifesto,) which despite having interests disparate to mine, is quite similar in its make-up. What I mean to say by this is, we agree on much of what causes the world's problems and some of how it manifests, but have very little in common in the arena of possible solutions. 

The 21st Century Enlightenment, simply put, is the realization that our status quo can be misaligned with our best interests. However, it seems that groups such that seek to examine possible future solutions to the undeniable problems humanity faces, such as the RSA or the Rockefeller Foundation, only come up with a continuance of the system that brought us to where we are. The RSA also limits itself within humanist boundaries, which of course, assignee's prerogative does not.

Despite our differences, this short, 11 minute film is brilliant and everyone should see it. 

There remains a consistant hope for our best thinking, still to come...

To read Matthew Taylor's 21st Century Enlightenment click here 

To read the Rockefeller and Global Business Report:
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development click here

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Problems with Patriotism

I live in a beautiful country, Canada.  I was born in another beautiful country, America and I have travelled to another beautiful country, Mexico. I hope to see many other beautiful countries as I travel our beautiful world. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and someone who grew up staring at a desert all their lives might find my favourite Rocky Mountain forests a little claustrophobic. For them, the desert is beautiful and rightly so.

Sometimes people refer to other people in generalizations, these things happen. I have heard from tourists and travellers, that Canadians are polite versions of Americans. This may or may not be true, but I contend that it is not our “being Canadian” that produces what politeness we have, but rather the other way around. If Canadians are polite, it is not because they are Canadian but rather because they are a product of living in Canada. Perhaps we have a slower pace, more relaxed attitude, lower populations, lower stress levels, etc. Perhaps it is these things that lead to our politeness. At any rate, we could make up some other name for a citizen of Canada, say a “Canuck,” and we could erase the border between the US and Canada. Now the US goes from Florida to Alaska and in the northern part, there's a bunch of Canucks living. Our nationhood has changed, we're still polite. If erasing the border seems too harsh, just move it further north. Now everyone south of Edmonton lives in America. Are you going to become less polite now, if you live in Vancouver?

Nationhood is not the same as culture. There are many varied cultures within the nation of Canada. Nationhood is the societal equivalent of an individual's desire to express himself, which happens within the definition of culture as well, but where culture can offer us so many things, nationhood offers us only one. Culture is the common expressions of a group. If you take an American from Washington state and a Canadian from Alberta, separated by only a few miles and introduce them to a German, he's not going to be able to tell the difference, by looks, by dress, by accent, by mannerisms, etc. Without an in-depth interview the German may never know the difference. However, if you took an American from Vermont and a Canadienne from Quebec, anyone would be able to point out differences. All of these differences would be cultural, none of them would be national. So what is nationhood? My dictionary defines it as a group having similar descent, culture and language, but this obviously doesn't work, even from within my own country. Granted, there are nations for whom this definition works better, France is full of French people, Sweden's full of Swedes... French culture and Swedish culture are quite different. However, in older countries, such as those in Europe, smaller countries with close neighbours, over the years these people have learned to get along. Of course they fought, establishing the borders they protect and cherish, but now, for the most part, there is no nation fighting any other. They remain distinct, in their cultures, they remain defined by their nations and they remain contained by their borders.

George Carlin, one of my favourite philosophers, has a bit in his comedy routine where he explains his confusion about national pride. Pride, he says, is reserved for something we have done, an achievement. One cannot feel pride for being born Irish, that was just the luck of the draw, you might have been born Scottish. Be happy to be Irish, or Scottish, or whatever. Save pride for something you had something to do with. If, like an individual, a Nation seeks to express its distinctiveness, it is welcome to, encouraged to and expected to, from within its borders. It is when that distinctiveness is disseminated outside the nation that problems can arise. Such as demonstrated by any war you care to mention as well as certain current political, economic or social philosophies actively exemplify. When the individual (or perhaps even, small group,) takes the idea and turns it into action, they express something. When a nation takes an idea and turns it into action, that nation insists on something.

Perhaps, as I am the son of two nations, with an American Mother and Canadian Father, I am particularly well suited to speak to this concern. It seems to me that nationhood matters little, if at all. It isn't national pride that turns us into soldiers or football hooligans, it is just a front for other emotions that need to be expressed, or some action for which we feel we must reciprocate. There is a mean to be achieved in this intentional sphere. An excess of “sense of nationhood, I presume, is called nationalism. For some, this is not an excess, we are to be patriotic, lest we be traitors. Nationalism, really is just Patriotism, they are the same thing because you are a patriot of a Nation. We give our countries the powers they have over us in the same way we react to the news, advertising or any other socially engineered programme. Sometimes the things that patriots brag about making their countries “great” are really the things that distinguish so-called first world and third-world nations. All this does is prove that patriots are proud of their fortune. However, if they are correct and live virtuously, they may lay claim to their nationalism as being eudaemonic. I'm not saying being patriotic is wrong, I'm saying doing anything without it being promotive is wrong. There are certainly armies full of patriots, now and in the past, running around the globe ruining peoples lives.

So why are we patriotic? Why does nationhood matter? I think if you reduce the question far enough, you can come to an answer. We must get past mere opinions about the beauty of the land, past our confusing “nationhood” with “culture.” There are too many cultures in my nation for this to be of any use in our definition, not to mention multitudes of subcultures. I can be a Muslim (culture) African (culture) raised in France (culture) living in Canada (nation and culture.) Then, if I am an eighteen year old ballet dancer, how are “ballet culture” and “youth culture” going to figure into this equation? Culture must be removed from nationalism for this to work. So if I am patriotic, if nationhood matters to me, it must be because of some general idea about the overall quality of life I experience. The possible subsets of opinions are too great to narrow down. Let us ask, what is it that all patriots share? A love of their collective identity. Well, racists share that too, again, it's a cultural thing. Is it possible to have an identity based upon the mere geographical placement on the Earth? Only if your nation and culture are synonymous, which does occur. However, when this is the case, it is culture determining those things that we are patriotic about. It is these things that matter more than the traits we share with other nations. This is a measurement of ingroup, the idea of defending it is an appeal to authority and the idea that it is right, righteous, or God given is an appeal to sanctity. These concerns were dumped by me when I reduced the number of cardinal virtues to three, Harm/Care, Justice/Fairness and Prudence. If I ask myself to consider the virtue of being a Canadian from within only these concerns and while leaving culture out of it, I am left with meaningless x and y positions on a map.

I think, in the end, nationhood, having a mean and being causally self-referential, is of little value, but I do cheer on Team Canada every four years during the winter Olympics. I think this is the domain of patriotism, on ice, as in: very slippery. You have to be careful. I love where I live, I'm happy to be here, but I'm not particularly proud to be Canadian, or American for that matter. In fact, I'm ashamed because we could be doing so much more than we are. In fact, in a lot of ways, we're the bad guys. We're greedy and spoiled. 
So, what are you proud of?

Egypt & the 21st Century Enlightenment

Many would argue that Egypt is the birthplace of civilization. We know that different civilizations have popped up at different times, in places far and wide. Yet it certainly can and should be said, that of all these other civilizations, none were born with such grandeur or majesty. The monuments and museums full of antiquities attest to the staying power of such worthy beginnings, or perhaps I should say, used to attest to. For as I write these words, the Cairo museum of antiquities burns.

I think it's is likely that the museum will survive the molotov cocktails that clashing pro and anti-Mubarak protesters toss at each other. In the next few days, maybe we will even have some sort of change occur in Egypt, there is promise of good things, for it seems that it's what the people want. (We will presume the people are correct and the story, as we are told it, corresponds with the truth.) For me, the drama unfolding is of a valid nature, as is my desire to examine it, I also have a more selfish concern. I was spurred to make this comment because of a Cairene woman quoted by a reporter on the scene, “I have a nineteen year-old son. I don't blame him for protesting. This is my generation's fault. We have let corruption rule for thirty years because to change it would cause instability.”

This human tendency is something that is addressed in Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. We suspend our moral objections, we confuse our intentions, this is the semantic deception of dialectical theses exemplifying the rampant ineptitude of modernity. The status quo trumps change if said change is deemed “difficult” to achieve. To put it another way, citizens look to their leaders to lead, but when the leaders are prone to fulfill their own, often personal and corrupt agendas, we say “Oh well, what are you gonna do?” Then we get back to slogging away at whatever it is we do to survive, continuing to provide to a system that supplies to its own demands. (Whether or not we share those demands.)

There are many questions to be asked here. My favourites are akin to the subliminal rumblings that only dare to have periscopes break the surface in the paranoid conspiratorial circles where someone as liberal as I am becomes conservative. Is this the beginning of some form of governmental accountability, as was predicted by myself, on this very site, for 2011? Is this the first domino in a new modern Enlightenment of human possibilities? Will the power of the people prevail? Is this all a trick?
Of all the possible questions, one sticks out more than others. Given the despotic nature of Mubarak's thirty year rein over Egypt, and having removed any consideration of heavy-handed methodologies, what are we left with? Simply put, a totalitarian aristocracy of military might, doing what it wants, despite the intentions of its people or its peers. How is this any different than America, Canada, Britain, Russia, China, numerous South American countries, in fact, almost any nation you'd care to mention?

There are only quasi-democracies.

The problem isn't one of government or the practice of rule. The problem is in supplying to human needs of a population. The necessary corrections are not going to be achieved by switching one leader or one party for another. We still must all work from within a system that is unfair. Power, greed and corruptibility are the hallmarks of our problems, but to think that changing the players in the game will make us winners is faulty. The game is rigged.

There are only two solutions to this problem. Change the game or stop the game.

The players are irrelevant.

Realizing this and developing solutions define the 21st Century Enlightenment.

The Zeitgeist Movement: Global Politics on Trial

I have been a quiet member of the Zeitgeist movement since it's beginning in 2008. I  say "quiet" because there are two fundamental problems with the program that must be addressed before I throw my weight behind them: 1.) The idea of a resource based economy is a fine idea, the transition is not addressed at all. (How are we going to get there?) and 2.) Much of the arguments explored in the 3 Zeitgeist movies are irrelevant to our futures. (Our past beliefs leading to directed actions are one thing, however, it is possible to believe something, yet act distinctively of this belief, knowing that beliefs aren't always based in reality.)

Now, having said all this and ignoring the more conspiratorial aspects of what the Zeitgeist movement's agenda represents, I would like to present this following post, which as a member, I received in my email. The words you about to read speak of a truth that I feel is nearly perfect. 

There is a global Enlightenment taking place. 
The Enlightenment is a realization of a broken system, broken societies, broken agendas, broken methodologies. 

The Individuals are the ones having the realization, (of something they suspected all along.)
A group of individuals having come to this conclusion make up a movement.
That movement is growing.

"In the Enlightenment we woke up from our conscious servitude. In this new Enlightenment we awake from unconscious servitude."

Below is the Zeitgeist post in it's entirety: "Global Politics on Trial."
You may also watch the video.


PDF Download:
February 4th 2011, (

Poised at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, we
continue to find the geopolitical landscape in upheaval. Wars, economic
crises and ever encroaching consolidated national and corporate power
structures are reshaping the world as we know it. In reaction to the
newest set of documents now made public, a contentious debate rages within
capitals and cafes worldwide, most prominently in the Middle East as of
January 30th 2011, the time this statement was written. WikiLeaks’
controversial release of previously classified documents reveal one
undeniable fact: the current methods of global business and public policy
are on trial.

This wave of awareness in response to our current geopolitical and economic
system is becoming apparent for the greater public as we are witnessing the
increasingly vocal response by citizens of Tunisia, Egypt and the Greater
Middle East. With the release of diplomatic cables related to growing
despotism and economic inequality a new wave of individuals are standing up
to demand their right to exist within a free and open society. Not as
Muslims or Christians, Atheists or Jews, but as independent human beings
requesting in greater numbers, their human rights to a free and independent
life. The numbers of citizens standing up for their inalienable rights are
rapidly increasing as the world is taking notice. We have seen the dire
predicament the citizens of Iran suffered through in 2009 as an example,
and this is happening now at a higher frequency as the global economic and
political paradigm becomes more inadequate day by day.

This response in North Africa indicates that people, when given access to
knowledge as to how their system truly operates, are given a choice; they
can either perpetuate a morally bankrupt and economically broken world; or
demand a more equitable alternative. In a world where information is
digitized and ubiquitous, it is of significance to point out that it has
now been confirmed that the entire Internet for Egypt has been temporarily
shut down, along with high bandwidth (3G) wireless networks. If nations
fundamentally operate for the benefit of the people as a primary motivating
factor for public policy, what then would need to be suppressed? Civil
unrest can and will continue, as despots are replaced by slightly more
benevolent or malevolent despots depending on the collective whims of the
body public. The time has come to reappraise our current paradigm.

As previously stated, the disturbing concept of an “internet kill
switch” is not far from becoming a reality in North America or Western
Europe. Senator Lieberman, former U.S Vice Presidential candidate has
proposed such legislation and it is in the U.S congress at the time this
statement has been written. This is what happens when inefficient and
irresponsible political entities no longer operate for the benefit of their
constituents but instead operate to perpetuate the status quo regardless of
who inevitably gets trampled underfoot. Like a wounded animal, it will do
all that it can to guarantee it’s survival no matter how sick it becomes.

WikiLeaks’ supporters and detractors, in both public and private, operate
with the knowledge that information is being suppressed to justify the
status quo of the current geopolitical and economic climate. Both parties
further assert that deception is being utilized to manufacture the consent
of the world's citizens. The reports suggest that the United States has
committed acts contrary to their stated political positions and has also
blatantly disregarded international law. The United States however, is not
alone in that arena. It is now confirmed that other countries including
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and various states within the European Union
and the Greater Middle East are involved in similar contradictions of
character. Three important questions The Zeitgeist Movement would like to
ask the reader to consider: Does any government, representing the people
and acting on their behalf, have a right to operate clandestinely, and in
many cases, illegally? If such actions are condemned by the majority, what
role does the press play to keep the power structure in check? Most
importantly; isn’t this conduct and behavior an indication of the
fundamental problems within the system itself?

Global citizens of The Zeitgeist Movement realize that the tactics a nation
chooses in order to undermine another nation, and their own people’s
will, stems from economic competition and the constant battle for finite
resources within the modern economic system, as well as their own systemic
perpetuation. Such systems are now proven to be flawed, outdated and
fundamentally corrupt. The documents released thus far have proven to
define the current state of geopolitics in that regard. When interpreted
in the light of modern science and technology and the enormous benefits
they attribute to society, the word "geopolitical", provides no relevance
in regards to quality of life. Science and technology have been solely
responsible for all improvements to the standard of living in our modern
world. Understanding that important fact, The Zeitgeist Movement advocates
a systems approach utilizing science and technology for the intelligent
management of the Earth's resources and the social welfare of it’s
population. This concept in practice is known as a Resource Based Economy.

While neither supporting nor condemning the legality of publicizing
confidential information, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to address the
issues brought to light via the numerous, previously classified media
released through the WikiLeaks organization. These documents accurately
define the inner workings of our system as it exists today. We, The
Zeitgeist Movement, are entering this public conversation, in order to
discuss the relevance of these published documents in relation to the
global monetary system and the Egyptian uprising.

The undermining of a rival nation's well being was the status quo of the
last century when governments of the world had made it their top priority
to maintain centralized power structures through the use of intimidation,
violence and economic warfare. The data suggests that such systems are
being extrapolated into our present era. The Zeitgeist Movement advocates
the position that such actions are now obsolete and increasingly dangerous.
The global population is realizing that what happens to one will impact
all. We recognize that the current cultural climate has offered the people
limited access to relevant knowledge and produces negative results.
Attributes of governance such as these, undermine mature and informed
decision making. Suppression of dissent, as well as the distortion of
objective truth, can only have negative consequences, and thus, relevant
conclusions can never be achieved. One must ask their representatives: How
can undermining freedoms produce a sense of security? Can we really expect
to create different outcomes utilizing the unsuccessful approaches of the
past? Why is this planet, in one form or another, in a state of perpetual
war? For a just and reasoned society to flourish, open access to knowledge
and it’s expression thereof is essential as it exists as the cornerstone
of freedom.

The “Cablegate” controversy has offered the public an unprecedented
glimpse into the inner workings of government, military and intelligence
agencies. These groups have not met the expectations of a civil and
reasoned society by promoting leverage of the corporate and banking
structure underlying the global economic and political system. Those
aforementioned groups are producing fear and distrust among many segments
of the population. These agencies are currently operating within a
paradigm they were created to oppose. We understand that countries acting
in their self interest will go to great lengths to protect themselves from
each other and any “perceived” threats, as we have seen through the
documents that have been released. The obsession for security is proving
to be more detrimental to society than the potential risk any leak or act
of terrorism can cause. Is the risk of losing one’s liberty a worthwhile
price, and if so, what way of life is then worth defending?

The Zeitgeist Movement realizes that we the people, as one collective
voice, actively seek a mature and rational environment for public and
global discourse. The sole purpose of doing so allows those directly
affected by the outcome, a means to arrive at reasoned and valid
conclusions to solve serious issues that face the world today.

New governing mechanisms with a foundation grounded in reason, social
equality and justice, rather than consolidation of government and cooperate
interests, must be implemented as our current system is reaching the end of
its serviceable life. The documents that have been released so far have
shown us, in regards to meetings among diplomats, that there is a general
fear and mistrust amongst competing national economic systems which are
being undermined by the very institutions that put them into place. Such
policies ferment instability and chaos with a small population reaping the
benefits of a dangerous world. The problems we collectively face are the
direct result of a system that relies on fierce nationalism and protection
of the status quo to survive.

The only way for a free and open society to thrive, is by implementing a
transparent governing mechanism. These new governing mechanisms can
outgrow the dangerous and irrational world we currently live in. Without a
reliable system to counteract aberrant behaviors on all levels, the well
being of a nation’s constituent population will diminish. In the United
States, legislation outside of and within the first amendment of the U.S
Constitution, guarantees freedom of the press as well as whistle blower
protection, was put into place in order to keep government fully
accountable to the people for any actions it chose to engage in.

We have addressed in this public statement that the latest scandal,
"Cablegate" gives credence to the old axiom “The Emperor Wears No
Clothes." In other words, we all collectively understand the fundamental
flaws that exist within our governing mechanism. This current system is not
equipped to handle an ever increasingly complex and technologically
advanced world. As we are discovering, the needs of the global population
are radically different than they were centuries ago, at the birth of the
economic paradigm we live in today.

The current value system, influenced by our current socioeconomic climate,
has produced systemic corruption as well as a trend towards a diminishing
of personal freedoms. In this current system, governments and their
corporate partners are undermining both the public and themselves. It is
essential that accurate information and transparency within representative
governments becomes commonplace to advance the most essential aspects of

The current failures for reasonable governance speak for itself.
Throughout history, policy has been dictated by unverifiable and subjective
opinions. We are moving forward with the concept that to arrive at
decisions which produce the most accurate and objective results possible,
for the betterment of all humanity, includes absolute transparency. You
will come to understand, we hold no interest in supporting or opposing
entities which seek to undermine and destroy our present world, but
transcend it. The problems we have defined do not have to define us. We
invite you to look past the headlines and understand that the crimes which
WikiLeaks allegedly uncovered are merely symptoms of an underlying problem
endemic across the spectrum. We cannot legislate these problems away
because every nation will legislate to the benefit of the corporation, the
financial institutions and themselves, rather than the individual citizen.
Finally, legislation cannot effect relevant change due to the inherent
cultural behavior patterns integral to the current socio-economic paradigm,
for, the current system cannot function without said behaviors. It is time
we redefine the world around us, understand how it operates, and construct
a better alternative, using the highest levels of transparency and
technical ability.

-The Zeitgeist Movement Communications Team

The Zeitgeist Movement, which currently has roughly 500,000 members
worldwide, was founded in 2008 by film director Peter Joseph. The film
Zeitgeist Addendum and the recently released film “Zeitgeist: Moving
Forward” exists as a direct response to the documented errors prevalent
in modern society which advocates the realization that the current system
exists as continuation of historical baggage. The activist arm of The Venus
Project, which was founded in Venus Florida by Industrial Designer and
Social Engineer Jacque Fresco, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to align modern
understanding of science and technology with social design to implement
what is termed “A Resource Based Economy”. An R.B.E relies on the
concept that abundance for all people is a much more relevant motivator
than monetary incentive; with the end result being a healthy and
technologically advanced society. More information can be found at and