What will be the future earth society?

[strawdog65]

Hello Everyone!

 

This is from the Venus Project website.

Is this the future?

 

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

 

 

I would like to hear everyones thoughts in regards to these ideas for a

different kind of future. Is the society we have now really sustainable?

Is government as we have now really useful?

What about the Venus project as the next step?

 

Thoughts please....

Edited January 4, 2011 by strawdog65

[Sunya]

communism meets the 21st century. I'm idealistic so I'm open to it working, but there are problems. first, most people are too greedy to share with everybody else. there would have to be a reconditioning, and probably most effectively a whole new generation. our current society teaches from the onset of childhood that consuming, buying, is the way to happiness. another problem is motivation for work. now I'm of a humanist persuasion (see Maslow's heriarchy), so I do think that once basic needs are met people will seek self-actualization but I don't know if everybody will, even Maslow said not everyone will, but such a project would take care of the physiological and safety needs. people will have to take care of belongingness and self-esteem needs on their own. it might be an interesting project just to see what would happen.

 

Nevermind. Since this is a non-monetary system it's not communist. It's more tribal actually. I dig it.

 

The essay is well worth reading since it focuses on the main ideas

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

Edited December 28, 2010 by Sunya

[strawdog65]

communism meets the 21st century. I'm idealistic so I'm open to it working, but there are problems. first, most people are too greedy to share with everybody else. there would have to be a reconditioning, and probably most effectively a whole new generation. our current society teaches from the onset of childhood that consuming, buying, is the way to happiness. another problem is motivation for work. now I'm of a humanist persuasion (see Maslow's heriarchy), so I do think that once basic needs are met people will seek self-actualization but I don't know if everybody will, even Maslow said not everyone will, but such a project would take care of the physiological and safety needs. people will have to take care of belongingness and self-esteem needs on their own. it might be an interesting project just to see what would happen.

 

Nevermind. Since this is a non-monetary system it's not communist. It's more tribal actually. I dig it.

 

The essay is well worth reading since it focuses on the main ideas

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

 

 

Hi Sunya!

Thanks for taking the time to take a look. I thought it was very inspired,

and hopeful for the future. At least he is presenting an idea for what could

be the next form of economy that the world will try. With limited resources

worldwide, it makes sense to do what's best for everyone.

 

The Zietgeist movies feature a part on the venus project in movie #2.

 

I hope more people will show some interest.

 

 

Peace!

[strawdog65]

The Venus project videos on you tube.

I hope these links work....

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqplP-E8Dvw&feature=related

 

 

 

Such a bright vision of a possible future earth society.

[strawdog65]

Essay part 1

by: Jacque Fresco/The Venus project

 

 

 

BEYOND UTOPIA

With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today's civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics.

Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance.

We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.

The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development.

Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage.

In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society.

The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy's books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition.

The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment.

Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.

Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system.

Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification. Yet our social system and values remain largely static. An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone.

The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.

[Komako]

We will see how fiat currency functions in the 21st century. I am in school for economics now, and everybody is quite convinced that Keynesian economics is still well-functioning, but I keep an open mind. (The professors think I am a little bit crazy when I bring up RBE economics)

 

bright blessings,

 

koma

[strawdog65]

[Aaron]

I think the problem that we'll find is that we already have too many people for the earth to sustain. What will happen, in my own opinion, is that a great calamity will befall us, much like the plague. I have a firm belief that mother nature corrects imbalances and in this case, I think that's probably the most likely way it will correct it. Of course if it doesn't, then we'll all be an ancient civilization for someone to find in a couple hundred thousand years from now.

 

Honestly, the future is very bleak. Not much hope whichever way you look. I refused to have children, because I couldn't see bringing them into a world that is destined for destruction. I intend to adopt, there's no reason a child who has been brought into this world shouldn't find a loving and caring home.

 

Aaron

[strawdog65]

I think the problem that we'll find is that we already have too many people for the earth to sustain. What will happen, in my own opinion, is that a great calamity will befall us, much like the plague. I have a firm belief that mother nature corrects imbalances and in this case, I think that's probably the most likely way it will correct it. Of course if it doesn't, then we'll all be an ancient civilization for someone to find in a couple hundred thousand years from now.

 

Honestly, the future is very bleak. Not much hope whichever way you look. I refused to have children, because I couldn't see bringing them into a world that is destined for destruction. I intend to adopt, there's no reason a child who has been brought into this world shouldn't find a loving and caring home.

 

Aaron

 

 

Hi Twinner!

 

I was hoping you would respond.

Hey did you get a chance to check out the essay part of the sight?

I am posting the essay here a part at a time in the hopes of spreading

some of these ideas to a group( TTB) that I believe can appreciate

the beneficial nature of what's being proposed.

 

I agree that things often look bleak at the horizon of mankind.

But there is always hope that with calamity comes the promise

of great change. There is always darkness before the light , right?

 

I would like to hear what you think about the societal changes proposed

within the Venus project. What do you think?

 

the challenge in todays world is to see the challenges before us, and to strive

to find another way. A big part of the societal issue world wide is that people

have no hope of there being something else, or another way. And thats just

not true. There are other ways of interaction, economy, and treatment of

humans within an earth based society. If we are presented with an Idea that

is so far beyond what we have today, if this Idea can be thought, what is

left but to act upon it? We may never see any of this, but it's the thought that

it may one day come to pass that excites me.

 

Cooperation and pulling of world resources and a redefining of what it means

to be a citizen of planet earth, these will be the challenges of the coming

generations. Business as usual on planet earth is slowly but surely

coming to an end.

 

Like all change that has become permanent.... we will change because there

will be no choice. Either we change as a civilization, or we die as a failure.

 

Then it's up to whoever is next in line.......

 

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

What say you?

[strawdog65]

Part 3

By: Jacque Fresco/ The Venus Project

 

THE OBSOLETE MONETARY SYSTEM

Although skillful advertisers lead us to believe otherwise, in today's monetary-based economies, whenever new technology is introduced, the human consequences are of little concern to those introducing the technology - except, of course, as customers. In a monetary-based system, the major concerns of industry are profit, maintaining a competitive edge, and watching the bottom line, rather than the wellbeing of humanity. The social problems that arise from mass unemployment of people, who are rendered obsolete by the infusion of automation, are considered irrelevant, if they are considered at all. Any need that may be met is secondary to acquiring a profit for the business. If the profit is insufficient, the service will be withdrawn. What industry seeks to do is improve the competitive edge to increase the profit margin for their shareholders. It does not serve the interest of a monetary based society to engage in the production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as a goal. With rising public concern regarding the greenhouse effect, acid rain, polluted air and water, etc. some companies are also beginning to realize that for sustained market presence it is in their best interest to heed social and environmental concerns. While such trends are commendable, they are insufficient as a method of solving the overall problems of waste, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering.

The monetary system has been a useful, but interim tool, it came into being as a means of placing a value on scarce objects and labor. The monetary system of course replaced the barter system, which involved direct trading of objects and labor. However, just as there was no universal-bartering standard in the past, there is no global monetary system today. Individuals and groups, now as in the past, however, still need to exchange objects and labor for today's goods and services. The unequal distribution of skills, resources and materials throughout the world necessitates global trade.

Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned to a degree. The global population of three billion was not over consuming world resources and energy, global warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were only recognized by a relative few. The start of the 21st century however finds global population at an exponentially rising six billion, with resources and energy supplies dwindling, global warming a reality, and pollution evident worldwide. Planet earth is in crises and the majority of world population cannot meet their basic needs because people do not have the means to purchase increasingly expensive resources. Money is now the determinant of people's standard of living rather than the availability of resources.

In a monetary system purchasing power is not related to our capacity to produce goods and services. For example, in a recession there are CD's in store windows and automobiles in car lots, but many people do not have the purchasing power to buy them. The earth is still the same place; it is just the rules of the game that are obsolete and create strife, deprivation, and unnecessary human suffering.

In today's culture of profit, we do not produce goods based on human need. We do not build houses based on population needs. We do not grow food to feed people. Industry's major motivation is profit.

The monetary system is now an impediment to survival rather than a means of facilitating individual existence and growth. This imaginary tool has outlived its usefulness. The limitations on earth's population now caused by the monetary construct can be phased out. It is not money that people need but the access to goods and services. Since humanity requires resources to exist, the replacement system should provide those resources directly to people without the impediment of financial and political interest for their private gain at the expense of the lives and livelihood of the populous. The replacement system is therefor logically a resource-based economy. This global resource based economy would be gradually phased in while the monetary system is phased out.

All of the world's economic systems - socialism, communism, fascism, and even the vaunted free enterprise capitalist system - perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism and racism, primarily based on economic disparity. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek to maintain positions of differential advantage. If they cannot do so by means of commerce they will resort to military intervention.

War represents the supreme failure of nations to resolve their differences. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint it is the most inefficient waste of lives and resources ever conceived by any creature on the planet. This crude and violent way of attempting to resolve international differences has taken on even more ominous overtones with the advent of elaborate computerized thermonuclear delivery systems, deadly diseases and gases, and the threat of sabotage of a nation's computer networks. Despite the desire of nations to achieve peace, they usually lack the knowledge of how to arrive at peaceful solutions.

War is not the only form of violence in the developed and underdeveloped countries that is superimposed upon the populace by inadequate social arrangements. There is also hunger, poverty, and scarcity. As long as there is the use of money, the creation of debt, and economic insecurity these conditions will perpetuate crime, lawlessness, and resentment. Paper proclamations and treaties do not alter conditions of scarcity and insecurity. And nationalism only tends to help propagate the separation of nations and the world's people.

Even the signing of a peace treaty cannot avoid another war if the underlying causes are not addressed. The unworkable aspects of international law tend to freeze things as they are. All of the nations that have conquered land all over the world by force and violence would still retain their positions of territorial and resource advantage. Whether we realize it or not, such agreements only serve as temporary suspensions to conflict.

Attempting to find solutions to the monumental problems within our present society will only serve as temporary patchwork, prolonging an obsolete system.

In this world of constant change it is no longer a question of whether we choose to make the necessary changes; it is now mandatory that we take on this challenge and adopt these new requirements or face the inevitable decay of our present social and economic institution.

This is the dilemma we must face head-on, and the solutions we arrive at must fit the circumstances of the "real-world." There appears to be no other way than to update our outlook and create a newer direction by relegating the old values to past civilizations. Unfortunately, this may not be accomplished prior to the point of no return in the global economy.

 

 

 

Thoughts? Comments?

[Gerard]

Something will happen within the next 10 years. Maybe then that proyect will be a real and feasible solution to the congestion our physical plane on Earth is currently experiencing. Until that moment a global cataclism needs to occur. It sounds negative but it is not destruction is required before a fresh start. Just take a look at nature: wood...bushfire...death as a result of extreme yang and then the next element arises: earth, which is the required balance resulting from the dominance of the previous element. It's an eternal cycle with no start and no beginning. But I'm not saying anything new as you all are very aware of this.

 

No idea whether that proyect will materialise but it will certainly constitute the foundation for the future of this planet.

[Sunya]

Something will happen within the next 10 years. Maybe then that proyect will be a real and feasible solution to the congestion our physical plane on Earth is currently experiencing. Until that moment a global cataclism needs to occur. It sounds negative but it is not destruction is required before a fresh start. Just take a look at nature: wood...bushfire...death as a result of extreme yang and then the next element arises: earth, which is the required balance resulting from the dominance of the previous element. It's an eternal cycle with no start and no beginning. But I'm not saying anything new as you all are very aware of this.

 

No idea whether that proyect will materialise but it will certainly constitute the foundation for the future of this planet.

 

 

I was thinking that too. This project (proyect?) looks quite promising but doesn't seem very sustainable for a global population of 7 billion and counting. This would work in much smaller communities. Plus there's just too much at stake, and those at the top who have everything to lose don't want the status quo disrupted.

 

How do you know something will happen in the next 10 years?

[Sunya]

Wow, Zeitgeist Addendum is AWESOME. So well worth watching. I'm going to make my family and friends watch this. It really points out the inherent problems in the system, but also gives solutions and paints a really nice picture of the future of humanity in the latter half of the movie.

 

I highly recommend everyone to watch it. You can see it for free at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow, Zeitgeist Addendum is AWESOME. So well worth watching. I'm going to make my family and friends watch this. It really points out the inherent problems in the system, but also gives solutions and paints a really nice picture of the future of humanity in the latter half of the movie.

 

I highly recommend everyone to watch it. You can see it for free at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

Yes, the zeitgeist movies are very interesting. I think everyone should watch them with openness and a grain of salt, as I don't agree with all the nuances, but the general premise I think is brilliant and well informed.

[Sunya]

Yes, the zeitgeist movies are very interesting. I think everyone should watch them with openness and a grain of salt, as I don't agree with all the nuances, but the general premise I think is brilliant and well informed.

 

yes indeed!

 

What nuances are you referring to? I've yet to really let it all sink in, so I'm not sure what I disagree with. It's very very plausible that with technological innovation, labor and scarcity of resources won't be a necessity anymore, but whether or not all crime is caused by the monetary system is not something I'm sure of. I'm sure greed won't be a problem and the crimes associated with that, but I'm sure we'll still have other psychological issues to deal with. But still, this system is way better than the one we have now.

[Vajrahridaya]

yes indeed!

 

What nuances are you referring to? I've yet to really let it all sink in, so I'm not sure what I disagree with. It's very very plausible that with technological innovation, labor and scarcity of resources won't be a necessity anymore, but whether or not all crime is caused by the monetary system is not something I'm sure of. I'm sure greed won't be a problem and the crimes associated with that, but I'm sure we'll still have other psychological issues to deal with. But still, this system is way better than the one we have now.

 

I agree that it's worth a shot. As far as the nuances I don't agree with. I don't want to influence your own realization too much. I know... so strange for such an opinionated guy as I.

 

There is one part in the first one where they compare the Buddha story to Jesus. There are two stories of the Buddha, and they chose the newer one that came after Christianity tried to invade India to make their point instead of the earlier more mundane story.

 

That's actually pretty much it.

 

Other than that... fuckin' brilliant bro. Zeitgeist is something everyone should watch. Including my Mom. I'm going to recommend it right now in fact.

 

Peace

[Sunya]

I agree that it's worth a shot. As far as the nuances I don't agree with. I don't want to influence your own realization too much. I know... so strange for such an opinionated guy as I.

 

Realizations must be tested. Bring it.

 

There is one part in the first one where they compare the Buddha story to Jesus. There are two stories of the Buddha, and they chose the newer one that came after Christianity tried to invade India to make their point instead of the earlier more mundane story.

 

I don't remember them using Buddha or even mentioning him, and I just watched it today. Maybe I missed it? I do remember Krishna. Maybe that's who you meant?

[Vajrahridaya]

Realizations must be tested. Bring it.

 

 

 

I don't remember them using Buddha or even mentioning him, and I just watched it today. Maybe I missed it? I do remember Krishna. Maybe that's who you meant?

 

The Buddha is mentioned in the first movie.

 

p.s. I actually don't remember what nuances I had contention with, they were generally very minor. I haven't seen either movie for well over a year.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[joeblast]

Honestly it sounds like the progenitors of this "project" watched far too much Star Trek while growing up and somehow believe we can just pull that fictitious future into our present. We dont have workable fusion, nevermind dilitium crystals Until the energy issue is solved and the progress of a given nation isnt dependent upon how well (cheaply, robustly) it can harness energy, good old fashioned hardworking individual effort (e.g. fundamentals of capitalism) is going to reign supreme as the way to get things done, make progress, and enhance the livelihood of those surrounding the local market.

 

Of course, whenever I see global warming mentioned in the first couple major headline "issues" a given group will champion, that throws up all kinds of red flags right there that they do not seriously consider the full breadth of reality in their ventures. Good luck with that "post-money" commune idea!

[Christoph]

Hello Everyone!

 

This is from the Venus Project website.

Is this the future?

 

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

 

 

I would like to hear everyones thoughts in regards to these ideas for a

different kind of future. Is the society we have now really sustainable?

Is government as we have now really useful?

What about the Venus project as the next step?

 

Thoughts please....

 

 

[Sunya]

Honestly it sounds like the progenitors of this "project" watched far too much Star Trek while growing up and somehow believe we can just pull that fictitious future into our present. We dont have workable fusion, nevermind dilitium crystals Until the energy issue is solved and the progress of a given nation isnt dependent upon how well (cheaply, robustly) it can harness energy, good old fashioned hardworking individual effort (e.g. fundamentals of capitalism) is going to reign supreme as the way to get things done, make progress, and enhance the livelihood of those surrounding the local market.

 

Geothermal, solar, wind, tidal energy could power the world thousands of times over. The technology exists today. The idea that we don't have the technology for sustainable efficient energy is bullshit.

 

Of course, whenever I see global warming mentioned in the first couple major headline "issues" a given group will champion, that throws up all kinds of red flags right there that they do not seriously consider the full breadth of reality in their ventures. Good luck with that "post-money" commune idea!

 

The scientific community is lying about global warming?

[Sunya]

 

None of that is relevant here. Venus Project has nothing to do with a new world order.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Sunya

[joeblast]

Geothermal, solar, wind, tidal energy could power the world thousands of times over. The technology exists today. The idea that we don't have the technology for sustainable efficient energy is bullshit.

 

 

 

The scientific community is lying about global warming?

Like I said, reality. The technology is still in its childhood, is still relatively very expensive. Fusion can also power the world a thousand times over, but that isnt viable right now either. Funny when people think about "sustainability" they usually forget economic reality in that equation.

 

If by "the scientific community" you are referring to quasi-scientist alarmist cheerleaders like Michael Mann and James Hansen, then yes, they are being quite dishonest to the point of blatant lies in some instances. If you're referring to other true scientists that simply want correctness (and not political correctness) to prevail, then no, there's a ton of them that have been questioning the crusade against CO2 for quite a while now because the models dont reflect reality to a sufficient degree of accuracy that they can be relied upon.

[strawdog65]

[joeblast]

Comments? thoughts?

Ideological to the point of poppycock.

 

The social programs devised in the 30s to "aid" us out of the depression merely caused the depression to be Great whereas the rest of the world merely experienced a recession.

 

Engines are fantastically more complex because people want them to perform and you dont get that development without more complexity.

 

"Planned obsolescence" is most often a lack of maintenance or a breakdown of materials used - we cant always engineer the perfect material that will last endlessly for any application.

 

Why are some farmers paid not to produce? Look up the myriad deleterious effects of oversubsidization.

 

Why is the average amount of unemployment so large? They keep freakin extending how long one can receive benefits.

 

Reality looks harshly upon dreamland all too often - this entire idea, while nice and compassionate, good hearted, is but a work of fantasy - sufficiently removed from reality so as to be all but completely unattainable. You're simply not going to get enough of a percentage of the population to go along with stuff like this no matter how good it would work in its own little microcosm of a lab setting, or the hallucinatory realms of the author's mind.

 

The buddha realms are called that for a reason

Edited December 29, 2010 by joeblast