UNCOMMON SENSE

Happy Giftmas...

2011-12-22T11:15:00.001-05:00

Giftmas is a term that has been used to take the Christ out of Christmas as it were. It's been derided as the ultimate commercialization of the holy Christmas holiday season and as such, a distasteful greedy expression of the worst capitalism has ever stood for.

But for me the commercialization of Christmas is the reason to celebrate...

Think about it.

We spend our lives working, trying as hard as we can to achieve something. Whether that achievement is some measure of fame, fortune or some other expression of our happiness, our life, our purpose.
The commercialization of Christmas is a yearly expression of our success, of our achievement throughout the rest of the year, of our happiness. We spend our money and our precious time buying things for our loved ones, and enjoying their company, feasting and partying and making merry.

The products we buy are the product of the labour and creation of all those people around us. They are in effect the essence and cause of our neighbours, friends and coworkers celebrations as well as our own. The arguable platitude that "tis better to give than to receive" is not so altruistic if you consider that we give our productive effort each and every day, but our giving is more than an expression of devotion, love or respect, it is an expression of our own pride, our own productiveness.

So don't lament the commercialization of Christmas, give, eat, drink and be merry because not only did you all earn it, you all created it.

Linda Wants US to Pay Instead...

2011-12-20T09:36:00.001-05:00

Linda McQuaig has issued a leftist diatribe lambasting the Canadian Government for its stance on Kyoto and Global warming. If you can make your way through the layers of innuendo, appeals to authority, character assassination and argument from intimidation you find yourself staring into the vacuous pit of hysteria and fear induced nonsense that makes up her “article”.

Beginning with the political McQuaig states that a full 70% of Canadians are “Harper’s (Conservative) enemies”. Well if you crunch the numbers in exactly the same fashion as dear Linda you will quickly surmise that 70% of Canadians harbor extreme antagonism toward the NDP. 81% hate Liberals, 94% loathe the Bloc and 96% would rather be dead than caught supporting Elizabeth Mae and the Greens.

Linda, get real.

For those that are paying attention, this is nothing more than the way our multi-party democracy works, but I must admit it is fun to watch the Left twist itself in knots of opposition, when they supported 38% and 40% Liberal majorities as “democratic” and “clear mandates from the Canadian people” for years. The hypocracy is astounding.

Getting to the bones of Linda’s contention we are once again sucked into the quagmire of the global warming idiocy. McQuaig claims that Cana’s withdrawal from the Kyoto accord has “wreaked havoc” with the process to stop climate change and she implies that Canada’s abandonment of the accord will directly harm the poorest of the poor in Africa. What nonsense.

One simple search on Wikipedia allowed me to compile enough factual information to decimate McQuaig’s assumptions. Canada’s carbon footprint accounts for 1.8% of the world’s total, a number easily surpassed by 3 African countries (South Africa – 1.45%, Nigeria - .32% and Morocco - .16%) none of which are bound by the accord to any Carbon limits.

But never mind these small fries, India who’s Carbon footprint is 5.78% of the world total and China (23.33%) are also not impacted in any way shape or form. Yet somehow Canada is the straw breaking this camel’s back?

Perhaps the thing wreaking havoc is the fact that none of this climate hysteria has been proven and in fact “scientists” have been caught red handed trying to suppress information or game their statistics to match their wild hypotheses (see “Climategate and Climategate 2.0”). This duplicity coupled with the simple lack of any significant actual impact makes a lie out of the assumption that the nations of the world, much less Canada NEED to do something to stop “climate change”. http://www.climategate.com/

McQuaig calls Canada a “leading nation” when she refers to our old policy with regard to sheepishly following the Kyoto cult and this confuses me. She claims leadership is supporting a point of view that is at best inaccurate, untruthful and has not even remotely been established as factual?

She touts “Compromise, coordination and consensus as if they were Made in Canada ideals for the rest of the world to follow, the problem is when we actually see such compromise it is highlighted by the UN’s refusal to declare the murder of hundreds of thousands in Darfur as genocide and consensus is recognized in the Bosnian Civil War that was nothing less than a 10 year long internationally witnessed murder spree.

Meanwhile McQuaig derides the new “aggressive Canadian posture”, the same one that has assisted in the transformation of Libya during the Arab Spring saved countless millions from a life dominated by the Taliban’s brutal theocratic dictatorship.

I know this may come as a shock, but I am one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with Linda McQuaig on this issue. I believe Canada is (finally) taking a leadership role with regard to Kyoto and some of the other foreign policy initiatives PM Harper has spearheaded, and it is about damn time. We can not afford to abdicate our national interests to a consortium of lesser nations and extra-national busybodies.

We, all Canadians, must take an active and interested role in our international affairs and that interest demands that when the reality of a situation does not correspond to the accepted norms or some international consensus that we MUST oppose it for our own sake and for our own good.

Karma

2011-12-16T22:35:00.001-05:00

Karma: cosmic principle according to which a person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation.

Absolute garbage.

There is no cosmic righting of the scales of justice. People do however reap what they sow. If you are an ass, you will be treated as such, you will be known as such, and you will have the life of such. It's not magic, its natural. There is no divine intervention, only individual's making choices regarding your acts (as an ass) and choosing in their self interest to treat you as such.

Far too long

2011-10-22T22:08:00.000-04:00

It's been far too long since I've written anything. Well that isn't entirely true, I've been ranting quite steadily on Facebook, but it isn't the same.

I'm going to start this blog up again in earnest, promise... or is it a threat?

Till then Keep the shiny side up and live your life at full throttle.

No Tribute for Layton

2011-08-23T18:50:00.000-04:00

Since his death yesterday the press and social media sites have been positively swamped with tributes to Jack Layton. So many times I have read in the last two days words to the effect that "although I don't support his politics, I respect his vision/passion/determination/tenacity...", etc.

I won't and can't say that.

Think about it, the act of being tenacious or determined or passionate is not a virtue in and of itself. It is the idea behind the drive that matters more. Would you praise Stalin or Mao for their passion? No, because their ideas were horrible perversions.

I can't even praise Layton's love of Canada, because his socialist vision of Canada would have been an aberration of individualism, a detriment to freedom and would have meant a devolution into nanny statism and a profound increase in the kind of progressive socialism that is an anathema to anyone who loves their personal freedom.

Does cancer suck? Sure, I lost a good friend to Cancer earlier this year. Is it sad when someone dies of a disease? Of course, but just as I wouldn't praise a con man for doggedly trying to deprive me of my money, I won't praise someone who's ideals and principles would mean the sure and steady destruction of my freedoms if they only had a chance.

Lies Journalists tell...

2011-06-27T19:17:00.000-04:00

For the sake of clarity, honesty and to dispel any homosexual trepidation I would like it to be known that I, a heterosexual male with a security clearance, had to provide information on my sexual preference and my partner by specifying that I was married and by providing my wife's name, the names of her parents, where she worked, where they worked etc, etc, ect.

Wake the fuck up people it's a security clearance not the pass-code to the McDonald's lounge area!

I hate this sort of journalistic deceit.

Ug...

2011-06-26T11:12:00.000-04:00

Everything that has me pleased about the new status quo in federal politics fills me with dread at the prospect of Hudaguinty and the Consliberals sitting in Queens Park.

It's too bad, that as the article states the peoples desire for change is blind to the prospect of actual change. Now if Paul McKeever and the Freedom Party were the change du jour then I'd be one happy camper.

Unfair Labour Practices Pt 2

2011-06-26T10:09:00.000-04:00

Etcetera:

I really have to agree with the tag line and the first 3 paragraphs of this article . The practical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives were few and far between, and this led to a parliament more interested (and focused) on throwing mud than really debating issues. As a result, as strange as it may seem, I am actually looking forward to this session of parliament and appreciative of this new diametric split in Canadian politics.

Having said that though, The only question the writer sees in this dispute is whether the worker has the right to withdraw his labour if he is unhappy with his employers offered wage, and in practice I agree, although not in the way the author would have me I think... You see, the last time I checked, and in my capitalism riddled mind I believe that indeed the worker does and should have that right, it is called quitting ones job. Which of course leads to the employer's corollary; the ability to terminate the employment of any worker who refuses to work for the wage offered. But that is not what the author of this article had in mind.

The Government's solution to this "job action" is an ideological about face and a warning to labour unions in this country. The conservatives have done what an employer, free of union coercion would do, basically establish a wage which he is willing to pay and allow anyone who doesn't like it, the reciprocal freedom to walk away.

Of course the real reason that this is an issue, is that government is involved in the provision of this service in the first place. Competition among independent postal services would ensure that workers and companies could only make, in wages and profits respectively, what the market would bear. There would be no way to blackmail an entire population with a cessation of the service because the people of the country would be free to take their money and their business elsewhere.

Why does the government system insist on one price to mail a simple letter anyway? It seems to me that were I to accept the idea that government should control the postal services (which I don't) that there ought to be a difference in the price of a letter depending on not only where it is going but where it is coming from.

Think about it. How much more in real terms does it cost the post office to pick up mail from or deliver it to Baffin Island than it does to pick it up from Toronto? In the city my taxes (set by government) are significantly higher than those in the country because of the services which are provided for me by the government (police, fire, garbage, water, sewage etc). If that sort of disparity is permitted by government then why should there be absolute equity when it comes to the price (set by government) of delivering a letter?

There is just so much wrong with this system and the current dispute, there is a solution though. End the monopoly, get government out of the service industry, restrict the government's mandate to the protection of individual rights and in all other aspects of our lives... laissez faire!

Unfair Labour Practices

2011-06-25T19:37:00.000-04:00

The Canadian Government's treatment of Postal workers is unfair.

Actually the fact that the Canadian Government has anything to do with these workers is unfair. That is the only reason I can think of why an unskilled labourer (mail carrier) earns $51,466 dollars a year to deliver mail and is eligible for up to 6 weeks (30 days) of paid vacation a year. Not to mention the cushy allotment of sick, and family related leave that can be taken.

Show me a single equivalent package of entitlements for an unskilled manual labourer in the private sector...

Yup the Government's treatment of the postal workers is unfair... and in the interest of fairness they should all be fired and new ones hired at a suitable and sane market rate.

Selective Reasoning and the Modern Liberal Mind

2011-06-23T11:56:00.000-04:00

The Mayor of Toronto is under fire for "skipping out" on that city's Gay Pride Parade. This article lambastes Mayor Ford for missing an opportunity to show his support of the Gay community in Toronto. The Mayor's excuse is that although the tradition of the Mayor to attend the parade during the Canada Day Weekend has gone on for 10 years, his family has one that supersedes and out dates that.

I have no problem with the Mayor's decision. He, and he alone, must decide how to best divide his time between being a public and a private individual. It's interesting to note that the people complaining about his missing the Gay Pride parade make no comment on the fact that he will also miss numerous Canada Day celebrations. Does that fact make the Mayor Anti-Canadian?

Of course it doesn't and no one is suggesting it does, but the modern liberal schism that makes certain groups in society more equal (by virtue of past injustices) than others allows them to suggest everything from wasted political opportunity to homophobia in the Mayors case.

Reflections on Death

2011-06-18T11:17:00.000-04:00

Recent events have me thinking about my own death, or more rightly about the ceremony and social norms surrounding death, and I've discovered I don't much care for them.

Watching a good friend be buried and watching the dynamic of two families each grieving in their own way and witnessing the inevitable conflict created by such raw emotions, and of contrasting traditions, ideals, beliefs and perceptions has brought me to a solitary salient point. I will not die without leaving specific and exacting instructions as to how I am to be laid to rest.

These instructions (which I will later formalize and place with my final Will and Testament) will be my final act of rational selfishness. I will design the service and procedures not only with absolute adherence to my beliefs and ideals, but also with an eye to lessening the suffering of those closest to me.

The friend we buried this week was the wife of my best friend, and I watched him go through the hell made up of our societies standard rituals of death and burial for five days. There was the viewing and the funeral, the burial and a reception, and from start to end a long procession of people showing up on his doorstep to offer their sympathies to "see how he was doing".

The entire process seemed to me to be a tortuous pouring of salt in a fresh wound. It demanded all his strength and all his attention, so that he might (perversely) stand straight and tall while people reminded him that he was hurting and that half of his life had been taken from him.

With this in mind I would save my loved ones such a drawn out process.

I would disallow any sort of visitation. I will not make my wife or children sit in the same room as my dead corpse while people wander past to do little more than convince themselves that I'm dead, or worse yet to satisfy a morbid fascination of seeing me so.

I would eliminate the funeral service. The useful parts of it will be handled during the burial and I see absolutely no reason to have someone who doesn't know me lead my friends and family in remembrances of my life.

At the funeral I will act (in absentia) as the one leading the ceremony though a chosen voice, most likely a close friend who will read my final statements. People will be asked to form a procession and say their goodbyes at this point over my grave and then the entire funeral party will retire to a selected location for a ~~reception~~ party where I, through my eulogizer would encourage everyone to really, truly and irreverently celebrate my life/what I meant to them.

They say funerals are for the living, but from what I have seen they are certainly not for the dearly departed's closest survivors, but more for those people on the periphery. A death and all that surrounds it should, in my view, be a short, sharp, shock that will bring all the emotion to the surface, yet be over and done with as soon as practical.

Epiphany

2011-04-28T13:43:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was my birthday, and it went by almost unnoticed. Not on the part of those around me, many wished me all the best, but rather on my part.

You see, I have taken to not celebrating my birthday. Seeing it as being a “little thing” I have largely ignored it for years, after all a birthday is just another day, you aren’t really a year older, just a day. I didn’t give it much thought at all. I went to work, didn’t mention it, came home and had a normal unremarkable day.

Then it hit me, spurred by a comment made by my Sister-in-Law who, when I remarked that I had received no birthday gifts and had no plan to celebrate at all, commented that she “hated that”, meaning the trivialization of such celebrations. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but this morning I realized just what I was doing.

The Strikers Oath states in its first sentence “I swear by my life, and my love of it”, well this apathy toward my own birthday was not showing my life (Me) the ‘love’ it/I deserve. Too easily we reduce our lives to indistinguishable days, each following in bored procession one after the other. This is the antithesis of the Objectivist philosophy. Objectivism teaches us that we should celebrate our lives, that it is the end of all our means and that it is worth and worthy of any and all tributes we can heap upon it.

Having had this sudden realization I began to see the other ways I had been trivializing my own existence. I had let others that I value, specifically my wife view her birthday in the same fashion. Thus I was robbing myself of an opportunity to express with complete selfish satisfaction how much I value her.

Hell the day itself does not need to be important at all. The mere act of living my life in my own way, however small, is worthy of complete mindfulness, a conscious joyful acknowledgement of life, my life and my living of it.

My birthday has come and gone, but its passing, as unremarked as it was, has left me with this thought… Today, and every day is the first day of the rest of your life. Live it, consciously, actively, viscerally, fully.

I Wish.

2011-03-14T18:28:00.005-04:00

I find it really hard to care about Canadian politics these days.

The same old parties are ranting along the same old lines about the same old things. Not a one of them offers or even wants any change to the system. Sure they gripe and moan about how "they" would do it differently, about how "they" are the only ones offering any new this or that, but the fact remains that if you look at it really hard you can see that all you need to do is change the faces, and the rants spewing forth across the house could come from any party at any time.

We don't have political parties we have pragmatic collectives who feed, vampire like off the votes of those who they dupe into their ideological lairs. Conservatives sell their souls in the hope that their particular status-quo will be maintained, Liberal voters pant and repent at the altar of progressive reform while the Dippers don the revolutionary garb and wave the red flag of socialism. All, in the end, get exactly nothing.

Our politicians word is written in water and nailing down any ideal (other than their prime directive of "thou shall get re-elected") is like nailing jello to the side of a battleship in a North Atlantic gale.

The best-worst thing is I can see an end to it, but it relies on the end of the entire system, which is to say a political or social or economic apocalypse the like of which has never been seen.

I imagine an Atlas Shrugged type collapse, a greatest depression, widespread social chaos spread across the entire planet. I see an unstoppable absolute and irretrievable end to the world as we know it and think...

I wish.

Objectivist Round Up #185

2011-01-27T07:38:00.002-05:00

The Round Up is up at Three Ring Binder. Go have yourself a rational read.

The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms #2

2011-01-23T08:51:00.003-05:00

~~Rights and Freedoms~~ Permissions in Canada.

If you are a classically liberal thinker like myself you probably believe in the notion of unalienable rights, which is to say Rights as a precondition to living ones life as a man; To me and those like me rights are an intrinsic necessity to living as opposed to merely existing in this world.

Well, the talking heads that wrote and lawyered the Charter don't believe in Rights like that. As a matter of fact I don't think they believe in Rights at all, only the power of the state.

The second sentence of the Charter is called "Rights and Freedoms in Canada" now that is a tall order, or at least you would think it would be a hard thing to cram into a single solitary sentence but the sentence really has nothing to do with Rights and freedoms and everything to do with who will allow you, and when you will be allowed to have rights and freedoms.

It states in full; "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

This is the first of many caveats in the Charter, and like all the others it is strategically placed to nullify any statement that could give the impression that Rights and Freedoms are a part of human nature as opposed to a permission granted to men at the whim of the state/government/some random constitutional lawyer.

Read that sentence. If you do so without mincing words you will immediately recognize its intent. Were you to simplify the sentence , boiling it down to its absolute meaning it would read... The Government has decided exactly what permissions you have to act and live your life and it will also decide when you will be permitted to do so.

In other words... your rights are what we say they are when we say they are.

So much for the "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms".

The Canadian Farce of Rights and Freedoms

2011-01-22T10:37:00.005-05:00

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a document that chains the people of Canada to a contradiction riddled and unapologetically statist perversion of the concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

This is the first line of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, in a document that claims to innumerate and codify the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada the first sentence contains a statement which, if examined rationally and without compromise, would lead to such a host of contradictions that the whole thing ought to have been thrown out of any 1st year law class.

Principle is defined in part as; a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:

If it is true that Canada recognizes the Supremacy of God then which God?

No, there is no scope here to quibble and claim as many progressively minded people do that the statement is a generalization regarding the spiritual nature of any and all belief in a supernatural deity or notion, because to claim that is to allow a multitude of contradictions.

Remember the word "principles"? Well religions in Canada - which are the earthy manifestation of "God" - who according to our charter is "supreme" - don't recognize or even allow the same principles to be exercised. While some sects of the Christian religion recognize in principle (and action) the right of two men or two women to marry, the Catholic God most certainly does not; and that is one of the more benign contradictions of the notion of "principle" that this fallacious statement incurs.

Who's principle wins?

What sort of principle (fundamental, primary, or general law or truth) if any is upheld?

If you claim that the sentence is merely a recognition of spirituality what principles do we hold as true and which ones are the ones our nation is actually founded upon?

If we as a society get to pick and choose which "principles" we allow our nameless, faceless, secular Deity-thing to actually count as our founding principles why do we bother even trying to shroud the first sentence of this aberration of Rights in a spiritual cloak in the first place?

As for the remainder of the sentence, I have no complaint with the principle of "the rule of Law". That is not to say that I don't have issue with the things that we have been saddled with as "Law" but I'll get into those points as I delve further into this despicable document.

Objectivist Round Up - The New Years Edition!

2010-12-29T17:37:00.008-05:00

Welcome to the New Years Edition of the Objectivist Round Up.

In this season of celebrations, parties and other festivities I'm reminded of the passage in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny talks to her Mother after her coming out party...

When Dagny turned, Mrs. Taggart saw only puzzled helplessness in her face; the face was calm, but something about it made Mrs. Taggart wish she had not wished her Daughter should discover sadness.
"Mother do they think its exactly in reverse?" she asked.
"What?" asked Mrs. Taggart, bewildered.
"The things you were talking about. The lights and the flowers. Do they expect those things to make them romantic, not the other way around?"

That sort of emotional abdication, of relying on the moment instead of what we as individuals bring to it is especially prevalent the holiday season. But as we enter a New Year we ought to remember that every day, every hour, minute and second is like that... worthless, unless we put our soul into it.

Happy New Years everyone!

Now without further ado, The Objectivist Round Up!

Kate Yoak presents Abortion: Making the choice posted at Parenting is....
Saying... "Drawing from my recent personal experience, I have decided to brave the subject of pregnancy termination and the principles in making that decision. "

Zip presents UNCOMMON SENSE: The Face of Anarchy posted at UNCOMMON SENSE.
Saying... "A post prompted by the excess of violence perpetrated by Anarchists at the G20 meetings in Toronto this summer."

Diana Hsieh presents Announcing Colorado's March MiniCon: SnowCon! posted at NoodleFood.
Saying... "Front Range Objectivism will be hosting a weekend conference in March in Colorado! Come join the fun!"

Kelly Valenzuela presents The Racist Roots of Anti-Immigration Activism Part III: Lies, Damn Lies and NumbersUSA posted at Mother of Exiles.
Saying... "Santiago Valenzuela finishes up the three part series."

Rational Jenn presents Rational Jenn: Parenting Principles posted at Rational Jenn.
Saying... "My favorite post of 2010. This post represents the culmination of years of thinking about and practicing applying Objectivism to parenting. And it's only a start, really, at outlining the premises and principles that my husband and I are raising our children by."

Kelly Valenzuela presents The Racist Roots of Anti-Immigration Activists Part I posted at Mother of Exiles.
Saying... ""Best of" post from Mother of Exiles by Santiago Valenzuela."

Kelly Valenzuela presents OCON on the Cheap posted at Rant from the Rock.
Saying... ""Best of" selection: Whether you go for the conference or to vacation and socialize with like-minded people or all three, you can do OCON on the cheap!"

Miranda Barzey presents Myers-Briggs Personality Types as a Tool for Introspection and Extrospection posted at Building Atlantis.
Saying... "How learning about Myers-Briggs personality types improved my understanding of myself and others, thus improving my relationships."

Benjamin Skipper presents Divorcing Time from Work posted at Musing Aloud.
Saying... "Have you ever thought that there isn't enough time in the day to get things done? Maybe it's because you're viewing your days in isolated chunks."

Benjamin Skipper presents Garbage Writing posted at Musing Aloud.
Saying... "A somewhat common occurrence for me is that sometimes I'll run into an article where I simply cannot do any brainstorming. Out of frustration I oftentimes go ahead and work to construct the piece anyhow, much of the time knowing I'll just destroy it immediately, and in this I have accidentally discovered the technique of writing "garbage copies.""

John Drake presents Developing habits, part 2 posted at Try Reason!.
Saying... "In this post, I detail some virtues/habits for cultivating in the new year. "

Gene Palmisano presents Sacred Cows posted at The Metaphysical Lunch.
Saying... "The place to cut government spending should start with foreign aid. This blog was written prior to the WSJ article exposing the Afghanistan government for funding the Taliban with American foreign aid dollars."

Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore present Cultivating the Virtues Podcast #2: Temperament posted at Cultivating the Virtues.
Saying... "This is one of our favorite podcasts of the year."

Noah Stahl presents Out with Denial, in with Adult Conversation? posted at The Undercurrent Blog.
Saying... "Should the government treat Americans as independent adults with the freedom that entails, or should we be treated like children and forced to support one another through taxes and debt imposed upon us by Washington?"

Jason Stotts presents Best of 2010 posted at Erosophia.
Saying... "This post contains 10 of my best essays from 2010. There were a lot of good options this year and I think these represent the best of the best. I hope you enjoy them."

Kelly Elmore presents Thoughts on the Hierarchy of Knowledge posted at Reepicheep's Coracle.
Saying... "I often hear that unschooling, free-schooling, and life-learning violate the hierarchy of knowledge. This post looks at what the hierarchy of knowledge is (according to Ayn Rand and to me) and answers these objections to child-led learning."

Ari Armstrong presents James Discusses New Mars Novel posted at Free Colorado.
Saying... "Thomas James discusses his new hard sci-fi novel about Mars, 'In the Shadow of Ares.'"

Christmas

2010-12-18T07:43:00.002-05:00

I think too many people expect "Christmas" to have some sort of profound effect on people as if the day has some sort of intrinsic spirit, when it is just another day, and the only "spirit" the day can have is a direct reflection of the spirit we give it. But having fostered completely unrealistic expectations people end up pissed off and disheartened that "everyone" is still exactly what and how and who they were throughout the year.

Here is my advice on Christmas... Use the day and the season to celebrate those people who you value. Don't worry about all of mankind... we are not all in this together. We are all individuals and as individuals we have to make rational value judgments about the people in our lives. That means the ones you deal with every day, your loved ones as well as that "idiot" that bumped into you without an apology when you were shopping.

Remember, you will have no more in common with the drug addled thief downtown on Dec 25th than you did for the rest of the year, and just because its Christmas it does not mean that his evil actions deserve to be forgiven, nor conversely do they become more evil because of the season.

It's Christmas. Buy something nice for someone nice, spend time with the people you love. Be good to yourself.

You want to know the best part about that idea? If everyone did it, if everyone rationally and selfishly chose to celebrate the people and things in their own lives that made life worth living (every day and all year) then there really would be peace on earth, and we'd get it without anyone telling us the way we got it was wrong or evil.

"Hey Buddy... Wanna buy a procedure?"

2010-11-28T17:51:00.004-05:00

Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Take any good or service, regulate or prohibit it* and you will end up with the "criminal" element providing, for a price, that which the government can not or will not. From alcohol prohibition to prostitution, marijuana and soon MRI's...

When you think of it though, what this woman has done is not so far removed from what has been going on for years. Those with the money have been skirting the system by travelling to other countries for treatment, its the new millennium's version of crossing the border for a drink. Now they have just found an easier way, good old-fashioned bribery.

How perverted and absurd is it that supposedly free people have to resort to breaking the law in order to have the possibility of saving their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones?

What this country needs is free (unregulated) health care.

* In the case of medical services in Canada they have done both - it is regulated in the sense that the government controls nearly all aspects of our actual physical health care and it is prohibited because anyone providing health care outside of the system is breaking the law.

Destroyer.

2010-11-20T10:43:00.002-05:00

I haven't been writing much lately, and although the new job has something to do with that I'm beginning to recognize the other main contributing factor, and that is what I'm focusing on today.

Basically I'm feeling politically disenfranchised, which is to say that the harder I look at society, the accepted system of morality and state of government the more it upsets, disgusts and alienates me.

As much as I believe that a properly constrained government is achievable, I am more sure each and every day that such a thing can not be created within or upon the current framework of any western democratic state. The Keynesian economic morass, corrupt political principles, moral bankruptcy and culture of entitlement both within these governments and within the general population makes the dream of building a laissez faire "purse" out of this "sows ear" a practical impossibility.

The whole mess needs to be destroyed, wholly and utterly destroyed. But more than the real and actual act of destruction is required, it must all be tied explicitly to the flawed premises that predicate the need for destruction.

In economics the boom and bust of our Keynesian economies must be explicitly tied to the idiocy of fiat currency and deficit spending, while at the same time the strength and self-correcting nature of a free market must be championed. The lunacy of handing economic control to elected but clueless officials or government bureaucrats should be writ large in the blood and sweat of the failures of that system. The businessman should take his rightful spot as the champion of the economic world and the politician and the bureaucrat should be relegated to purely political issues.

In politics we must kill the idea that government is an institution responsible for providing anything except a framework within which our individual rights (life, liberty and property) are protected from the initiation of force. It can not accomplish that goal by promising to serve any but the interest of the singular individual. No man, no group and no interest, however seemingly noble can ever be championed over the individual. There can be no law upholding the "rights" of women, or gays or consumers or blacks, or the poor, as each and every one of these demographic groups is explicitly consumed by the term "individual" and to rule in the favour of a single group is to destroy the rights of every individual outside of that group.

Our morality needs to be tied to this world, to our lives and to our purpose. This world is where we need our morality and what we need our morality for is living, not some absurd promise of an afterlife, or as some cosmic balancing act. Once that simple principle is recognized it is quite easy to see that the moral object of our lives is in the living, and that living with joy, and purpose is the good. All moral acts are those that serve us individually in the true achievement of our own happiness and our own goals and our own purpose.

Morality is not a floating abstraction that can be summarized in a few simplistic edicts. We exist as thinking rational individuals and as a result our morality must be based on the situations we find ourselves in. To declare "thou shall not kill" as a moral imperative, is an abuse of thought that demands that every moral man submit and become subservient to any immoral brute.

Perhaps the cornerstone of all of this is the need to recognize that the mere act of mortal existence, which is to say, drawing a breath as a human being entitles us to nothing. Even the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property must be secured somehow. Nature does not grant the right to live, only the ability to seek to live, nature will not give us liberty, only the ability to create liberty and nature will not bestow upon us property of any sort, only the will to create it in our own name for our own use.

The world as it is, as we have made it (thus far) is one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with reason, nature and the facts of reality. Our current societies (all of them) are a perversion of misguided morality, incorrect economic theory, corrupt politics and undeserved rewards. It all needs to be destroyed. It must be destroyed, before it can be replaced with;

a moral code based on mans life and the living of it,
an economic system based on and working in coordination with markets and market forces,
politics based on and in service to individual rights and only individual rights and,
the rational and selfish rejection of entitlement in favour of self-reliance and productive effort in all aspects of our individual lives, whatever our ability.

Objectivist Round Up # 173

2010-11-05T21:47:00.003-04:00

The new job is keeping me quite busy so I've not been blogging (or much of anything else this week), however, my friends have been and this weeks Round Up is having a ball over at The Playful Spirit... Give it a whirl!

Objectivist Round Up #172

2010-10-28T18:50:00.001-04:00

This weeks Objectivist Round Up is punched and filed over at 3 Ring Binder.

Check it out!

Objectivist Round Up #171.

2010-10-22T09:41:00.003-04:00

This weeks Objectivist Round Up is at Reepicheep's Coracle. Check it out!

Hope? Nope.

2010-10-22T08:00:00.003-04:00

Though I would hope that Op/Ed's like this would become more and more prevalent in the face of the petty tyranny governments today are subjecting citizens to, I'm pessimistically certain that they will not.

Only By Permission #9

2010-10-19T08:59:00.003-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where soap bubbles breaking on the skin of a police officer constitutes assault.

There is a legal right in this country to demonstrate, it's nothing less than a hallmark of a modern liberal democracy. I personally disagree with the reason for the G20 demonstrations I believe that most of the people doing so are on par with loony conspiracy theorists. The right to peaceful protest aside, I absolutely believe that anyone destroying property or actually and physically assaulting a police officer (or anyone else) in the course of any demonstration ought to be thrown in jail. Full stop.

But... assault by soap bubble?

And now there is this... The Officer in question has launched lawsuits aimed at people who commented on the YouTube video for defamation of his character, something he ought to realize he did all on his own with his ridiculous overreaction.

Let's Forget.

2010-10-15T12:50:00.003-04:00

With the news that the Afghanistan Government is in secret talks with the Taliban to end almost 10 years of war it seems like it is time to find out what went wrong.

Could it be (as I’m sure some are going to claim) that our failure in Afghanistan is the karmic result of the “fact” that our presence there was not predicated on any reason, moral right or principle at all?

Let’s examine that idea.

Let us disregard for a moment the reason we went there in the first place, forget that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever occurred, that almost three thousand innocents died, certainly that is no reason to go to war.

Forget that once we found ourselves in that medieval throwback of a nation, that we tried to give them the benefit of every advancement in social theory from the time of the Protestant Reformation to The Women’s Rights movement. On what principle do we call for a separation of church and state? What ideal underscores the equality of men and women? Surely there is none at all, and this sort of trifling issue could never be worth the blood that has been shed.

Let’s overlook that once committed to the task, that we wanted Afghanistan to evolve from the politics of the feudal state to a modern liberal democratic republic. Surely there is nothing they need to learn from us. Look at the ideas forwarded by the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, Charters and Bills of Rights, certainly none of this is worth fighting for!

Yes, let’s ignore all this and examine for a moment the possibility that our failure is some sort of mystical retribution for the arrogance of assuming that our culture, or the rights we enjoy, or our form of government or our secular laws were ever worthy of protection or of being spread.

Objectivist Round Up #169

2010-10-08T12:43:00.002-04:00

The Objectivist Round Up is over at Sacred Ego.

I am sure you will enjoy it.
I think it's going to be great.
I will go and check it out!

Only by permission #8

2010-10-06T09:27:00.002-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where stopping a criminal becomes a criminal act.

Objectivist Round Up

2010-10-02T10:01:00.002-04:00

The 168th Round Up is up over at Rational Jenn

Utilize your faculties and take a look!

A Tale of Two Moralities

2010-10-02T09:35:00.005-04:00

A Judge in Ontario recently struck down the laws concerning keeping a Bawdy house, and communication for the purpose of prostitution. Predictably the religious and other moral busy-bodies have come out in opposition to the ruling and are promising an appeal.

With the voices raised in "moral" opposition to the ruling calling for the reinstatement of the old laws, this article is calling for us to leave morality out of the prostitution debate... and that is wrong.

Prostitution is a degrading, dangerous and often demeaning profession. I can’t for the life of me think of one single reason why any person who has the least bit of intelligence, self respect or personal integrity would want to be a prostitute. In my opinion, the person who seeks sex for hire is a lonely, miserable creature seeking to ameliorate some personal psychological defect, and the person supplying it is most likely equally as damaged.

But that moral judgment on the physical and psychological act of prostitution is an issue separate from the meta-ethical assessment of prostitution as a profession. By meta-ethical in this instance I mean how we support or defend our ethical judgments.

Ayn Rand said “Morality ends where a gun begins”. Not only does this mean that one can not be commanded to act “morally” (as one would in normal circumstances) when confronted with the choice of life or death through force but also, and more importantly, that the initiation of force is itself immoral.

For me the question of meta-ethics rests on one thing the initiation of force (or fraud). It is the initiation of force against a human being that is immoral. So meta-ethically speaking something which does not initiate force is not immoral. Since prostitution, (the exchange of money for sex) as defined does not involve the initiation of force it is not immoral meta-ethically, and for this reason morality must remain a part of our current debate about prostitution.

While anyone and everyone has the right to pronounce moral judgments on the nature of the world’s oldest profession these are personal judgments only, and can not be ripped out of our minds to be used as an ideal which we then impose upon all people. This is true no matter how many (or few) of us may believe in that ideal.

The only meta-ethical reason for the prohibition of prostitution or any other act is the initiation of force against another human being. As defined, prostitution is a contractual agreement and is fundamentally no different than the purchase of any other tradesman’s labour and skill.

What we need with regard to this issue (and morality in general) is not to forget about it, but to discover it, and to differentiate between its personal and meta-ethical applications in our lives and in our governance.

Only By Permission #7

2010-09-28T00:33:00.001-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where you have freedom of speech, as long as you say things we want to hear.

Only by Permision #6

2010-09-26T14:06:00.002-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where appreciation of industrial design leads to "Your papers please."

Two Wolves and a Sheep

2010-09-24T07:39:00.002-04:00

In parliament this week a long overdue bid to scrap Canada's long gun registry failed. This failure highlights the flaws in rational thinking on the part of Canadians just as much as the inherent abuses possible in a democratic system.

The greatest threat and failure of Democracy is the ability of 51% to vote away the rights of the other 49%. J.S. Mill and other heavy thinkers called this the tyranny of the majority. With the final vote on the registry tallied at 153 to 151, 50.3% of parliamentarians have indeed managed to dominate the other 49.7%.

The vote also shows the duplicity of politicians and the undue power political parties have in our system. MP's like NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) who promised to oppose the registry in accordance with his constituents wishes but who devolved into a partisan jellyfish at the threat of party disapproval. Then there are the countless Liberal MP's who were under orders from their leader Michael Ignatieff to vote the party line. It is hard to know how many of them voted in favour of their party and against their constituents but Ignatieff's praise of party unity ought to send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone who is interested in the preservation of political freedom and liberty in this country.

This isn't only a political failure though, it's a failure in critical thinking on the part of a lot of people.

Cast a critical eye at the original article. The inclusion of Elaine Lumley's story about her son Aidan's death is designed to pull at the heartstrings, but look at the facts. Aidan Lumley was shot and killed by an unknown assailant using a pistol in downtown Montreal. Pistols in this country have been restricted and registered weapons since 1935. This registry is for long guns only, the kinds of guns found predominately in the hands of law abiding farmers and hunters.

The Governments own statistics demonstrate just how wasteful this program has been. In 2009 all the murders committed in Canada in that year accounted for just 0.025% of crimes committed, and of that number only 1/3 were committed with a firearm. Due to the statistical information it is impossible to know how many were from long guns as opposed to pistols but I am willing to bet it was less than 1/3 of that total, so a little quick math has the homicide rate by long gun approximately at 0.0027 % of all crime in this country.

Even with the statistics above showing the almost infinitesimal percentage of crime committed with long guns the most salient point is that no crime has ever been prevented by demanding that the weapon used be registered. What do people think, that a criminal will say to himself... "Well I was going to kill the guy, but then I realized that my gun was registered so I thought I'd better not..." ridiculous!

Although rather tongue in cheek, this is something one should think of too...

Objectivist Round Up

2010-09-23T18:05:00.002-04:00

Kelly has the 167th Objectivist Round Up under way at Reepicheep's Coracle. Are you a man or a mouse... Check it out!

Objectivist Round Up

2010-09-16T14:56:00.001-04:00

The 166th Round Up is live over at Erosophia, and it is dead sexy!

Check it out!

Tolerance

2010-09-15T11:57:00.003-04:00

This article led to a conversation about tolerance. The person I was talking to claimed that she would "hate to have to tell my children I lost my job/car/house because I had no tolerance for another's belief and burned their holy book."

Tolerance is an anti-concept. It is designed to imply that something (like religion, social norms or traditions) just because of their nature, are deserving of a free ride, literally of being tolerated... Tolerance is defined as "to allow the ...existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance" or "to endure without repugnance; put up with"

Now that concept might be applicable to a boisterous child running slightly amok in the kitchen but do you think we really ought to tolerate an ideology that demands homosexuals to be hanged, women to be stoned to death for the crime of being rapped, where it is written that a man can take a child as his bride, where it demands the death of every single living person who doesn't believe what is written in some megalomaniac's piece of delirious, misogynistic hateful homophobic fiction?

Is this really what we want to tolerate?

No.

Only by Permission #5

2010-09-13T17:42:00.004-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where the scientific method is observable, empirical, measurable and political.

NB - This is a direct result of abdicating scientific research to government. As anyone with half a clue realizes, if you can control the money you can control the message, the information, and ultimately (for a while) the truth.

Funding for science is not a proper role for a liberal western government precisely because supporting or censoring ideas is an indicator of demagoguery not freedom.

Only by Permission #4

2010-09-09T13:44:00.004-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where the only business permitted is business as usual.

Objectivist Round Up

2010-09-09T11:04:00.002-04:00

Jenn has the 165th edition of the round up over at Rational Jenn.

It would be silly to not take a look!

Only By Permission #3

2010-09-08T16:56:00.004-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

Where watching what your kids eat is something the state does for you...

NOTE TO FILE

The United States has long been one of, if not the freest country in the world.

Now I'm not measuring or basing that opinion on some UN inspired leftist notion of equality of outcomes or so called social equity. No my yardstick is much simpler, it is ones right to life, liberty and property. You know, real individual rights, not the wet dreams of some social engineer or cloistered communist academic.

But I can't help but notice that the Americans - largely unaided by their current government - are leading the charge toward the ultimate inversion. From Home Owners Associations restricting everything from the colour of doors to flag flying with fascist zeal, to the passing of plebiscites restricting this or that based on the campaigns of vocal minorities, Americans are legislating themselves (and their neighbours) into servitude with startling precision and regularity.

Am I completely mistaken in thinking that the American "live and let live" attitude has been replaced by "Do as I do...or else."?

Guest Blogging

2010-09-06T20:09:00.002-04:00

My first ever guest blogger post "The Atheist Conclusion" is up over at Atheist Evolution. Check it out.

Thanks again Jay for the opportunity.

The Objectivist Ethics

2010-09-06T15:21:00.003-04:00

Over and over again as an Objectivist you hear people say things like "How can selfishness lead to moral action?" or "How can you be moral if your morals are made up, if they don't come from God or the community, or society?"

I would respond in kind and ask how one can act morally without being selfish, or without coming to moral principles on one's own through thought and introspection.

Learn how & why... The Objectivist Ethics

Only By Permission #2

2010-08-27T21:30:00.004-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

I'm thinking this might turn out to be a regular feature highlighting the ridiculous inversion of rights and the stupid shit bureaucracies at all levels come up with to justify their existence and the decimation of our unalienable rights.

Where standing on your porch is resisting arrest...

Objectivist Round Up

2010-08-27T10:57:00.002-04:00

The Ego Blog is proud to host the 163rd Objectivist Round Up.

Assert yourself, and check it out!

Muslim Terrorists and Moderates in Ottawa

2010-08-26T14:47:00.005-04:00

The story broke yesterday with the arrest of two men, carefully unidentified, so carefuly in fact that simple information such as their ethnicity (information routinely given out in other arrests) was withheld - but that is perhaps a point for a future post.

Then today what was suspected by all, was proven to be true. The men accused are all of middle eastern descent and Muslim.

But again, for me, that fact is unimportant.

What is important is that one of the largest and most powerful Muslim organizations in this country the Muslim Canadian Congress is sounding out. However, the protestations of this group have not been in outrage at the RCMP or to claim racism or bigotry as has so often happened before in other places. Instead they have voiced their outrage against the ideology of Jihad. They have called for Muslims in Canada to stem this evil and to address this "serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth".

"Salma Siddiqui, the Muslim Canadian Congress vice-president said in a telephone interview that she was “livid and frustrated” that young Muslim men were still being seduced by the idea of fighting a holy war in the name of Islam.
“It has to stop,” she said."

Raheel Raza, also of the Muslim Canadian Congress went even further in this article when she admitted that...

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise . . . we have a problem,"

To add to the credibility of this group, to show that they are indeed the moderate western face of modern Islam in Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress has condemned the Ground Zero Mosque on the front page of their website saying...

“Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

For those that claim there are no moderate Muslims the words of Salma Siddiqui, Raheel Raza, and the Muslim Canadian Congress would seem to make a lie of that claim.

I should point out, that I do believe that Islamic fascism is a real and continuing problem. But regardless of that, as a rational individual I know that it is individuals that set their own beliefs, guide their own destinies and run their own lives. That simple knowledge will not allow me reasonably to condemn all Muslims as dangerous terrorists or Islamofascists any more than it is reasonable and proper to believe that every German, alive in the world between 1931 and 1945 was a Nazi.

Objectivist Round Up #162

2010-08-20T17:12:00.002-04:00

The Crucible is feeling the heat of this weeks Objectivist Round Up.

Only By Permission

2010-08-19T15:12:00.004-04:00

"A right is the sanction of independent action.
Only a slave acts on permission."
Ayn Rand

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."
Ayn Rand, The Virtue Of Selfishness (The Nature of Government)

In a totalitarian state the government monitors and controls all actions. No citizen may do anything unless permission has been granted, unless the action has first been proscribed as legal by the state.

We living in Canada and"the west" are truly and rightfully horrified at the prospect of this kind of control. But are we just evading our own reality?

No, we may not be subject to jack-booted special police or the watchful eye of shadowy men in trench-coats on the street corner, but more and more we are subject to the petty tyrannies of a multitude of bureaucracies.

From the grand machinations of our Federal government which acts more and more like an elected tyranny once the required votes have been secured, to the perfidious tentacles of the Canada Revenue Agency. From Provincial politicians pushing their "father knows best" agenda's at the expense of individual choice and freedom, to municipal councils passing ridiculous by-laws and forcing compliance for compliance sake.

This is what Ayn Rand meant by the ultimate inversion. Freedom isn't a permission granted by "societies" to individuals, when and if they feel like it. It is an unalienable right, possessed only by individuals, and that right extends to absolutes, to the extremes of taste, action, and speech.

The limit to our freedom is force. Our right to do anything is absolute so long as it does involve the initiation of force or fraud against another person.

Just as it is no indication of the right to freedom of speech when the speech itself is banal, it is no indication of property rights when your "rights" are limited to certain "approved" activities on your own property.

More and more in this country and others we, the individuals are restricted. More and more we act only by permission, and as benevolent or humane as that insipid control may be it is still tyranny, it is still evil.

PS
Two examples from this week...
Liberty Seminar Shut down
Toronto Bans Kite Flying

Objectivist Round Up #161

2010-08-12T14:16:00.001-04:00

Amy has this weeks enormous Round Up over at The Little Things.

Objectivist Round Up #160

2010-08-06T08:06:00.002-04:00

Reepicheep's Coracle is where you will find this week's round up.

Get it while it's hot!

In Other News...

2010-08-04T12:42:00.004-04:00

Rain falls, Dogs bark and alcohol is addictive and bad for your liver.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Alcohol should be banned any more than I would suggest dogs be surgically prevented from barking. The point is that the inconsistent and incomprehensible application of prohibitions in law create more problems than they solve.

Let each and every man decide what it is that he wishes to do with his own body and mind. So long as there is no initiation of force or fraud the government ought to have as much say about what I eat, drink, smoke, snort or inject as it does over how often I have a good bowel movement.

Communism

2010-08-01T21:40:00.004-04:00

This is it folks. It's not a "good theory" maligned by practise... It's an evil theory that creates evil in practise.

Don't be so naive!

Behind a Veil of Hypocrisy

2010-08-01T13:06:00.003-04:00

There has been a lot of noise lately about banning burkas, and it is all wrong.

Most of the articles cite security concerns, or the fact that the burka is a medieval form of misogynistic discrimination. Or the claim is made that there is nothing in the Islamic religion that demands the burka to be worn, and that is used as a justification for prohibition.

All of these “reasons” are ridiculous, counterproductive and contrary to individual rights.

The security issue as presented is only an issue if the appropriate security agency does not validate that the person under the veil is in fact who they say they are. Most airports have private rooms where a female security agent can take the individual in question so that their identity can be confirmed against their passport photo.

In the event that the person under the burka refuses to be so identified then it is up to the security agent to stand by its reasonable request (and against the inevitable knee-jerk of political correctness and possible threats of violence) and deny that individual the privilege of boarding the aircraft, or gaining access into the country, whichever is the case.

Such a policy applied uniformly to any and all passengers or entrants, would soon become known and accepted by all. It is the unequal application of a weak policy or selective screening that exasperates and perpetuates the problem.

The complaint that the burka is discriminatory is a moot point. Although as a rights respecting society we should watch out for rights violations - the initiation of force or fraud - against anyone it is completely and utterly impossible to make a claim of it without proof.

If a woman in a burka were to complain to a police officer that she was being forced under threat of violence to wear a burka then in that case there would be something that could be done, using existing laws and procedures. With help she could remove herself from that abusive relationship and the person who is threatening her with harm could be charged. But without that sort of proof we must operate on the presumption that her actions are her own, and she has chosen to wear the burka. To do otherwise, and ban the garment, regardless of the good intentions or the misgivings of the majority (or even a vocal minority) would be idiotic, illiberal and heavy handed.

The third complaint is really not a reason at all but a fuzzy headed kind of logic to which predominately religious and conservative opponents cling when all their other arguments have been ignored. It is nothing less than the cry of the closeted racist… “But they don’t have to wear it so why don’t they just dress like normal people… They should have to.”

It isn’t the burka. The burka doesn’t make a woman a terrorist, its not a sign of oppression or abuse, and it doesn’t matter that it is not a necessity of the religion.

If you can not grasp these simple concepts imagine outlawing baggy pants because they made every kid a gang-banger, or jeans and a halter top because they signify abuse and degradation or imagine if crucifixes were prohibited just because there was nothing in the bible that said they aught to be worn…

Religion of Perverts.

2010-07-29T13:20:00.003-04:00

Is this religion of misogynistic, paedophiles and perverts the same one people say we shouldn't criticize out of respect for a culture that is "different" than our own?

Why?

Objectivist Round Up #159

2010-07-29T12:49:00.001-04:00

Benpercent is this weeks host over at Musing Aloud. Get it while it's hot!!!

Your Body, Their Choice.

2010-07-29T09:01:00.004-04:00

Whether Dr. Zamboni is a snake oil salesman or not. Whether his procedure is a real treatment or a fake, tested and proven or unproven and untested, the fact remains that the government ought not to be in the business of prohibiting or condoning what rational people in the maturity of their faculties do with their own bodies.

Being Dog Walked to the Ultimate Inversion

2010-07-27T07:59:00.004-04:00

This is disgusting.

We have already determined the legal ages of certain aspects of our society, and this is reasonable. Although one might argue about the arbitrary establishment of a certain age for certain privileges, the need to have an appropriate level of maturity is not in question in most cases.

The reason that we have set 16 as the age limit for driving is because the majority believe that at that age most teens are mature enough to be given the responsibility. McGuinty decided that that was not good enough and instituted the graduated licencing system citing facts which listed young drivers as being more liable to be involved in an accident. Now he's extending the reach of the nanny state even more. Changing the rules again, shifting the goal posts away from personal responsibility. More control for the state, less responsibility for individuals. Death by a thousand cuts along the long road to the ultimate inversion.

Paternal is too timid a term for this school marm turned political hand holder.

Look at this legislation closely and you will see that the driving force behind this, and the graduated licence system is a deep distrust of the ability of individuals to act reasonably and rationally. It also incorporates the deep seated belief that the job of government extends far past protecting the rights of citizens to the belief that government ~~needs to~~ must protect its citizens from themselves.

That kind of forced benevolence is one shackle short of a set of manacles. McGuinty and all those who think like him would have us behave like dogs on a chain, with the great hand of government holding the other end, ready to haul us up short should we happen to stray off their preferred path. Actually, in McGuinty's case it is worse. Having already told us to "heel" he feels the need to constantly pull the chain tighter till we are choking in obedience.

The thing a statist like McGuinty will never understand is that individual liberty and freedom not only means that you can do all that is legal but it also allows that you as an individual have the ability to make a mistake, regardless of the consequences. Indeed, consequences that are understood and known beforehand are a mark of a free society. Not allowing an individual to make a mistake is a sign of totalitarianism.

This guy has to go.

Arguement

2010-07-23T22:33:00.004-04:00

If you disagree with me tell me how. Attempt to show me where I have gone wrong. Explain to me your reasoning and your reason.

If you can not convince me don't resort to calling me names. Do not assume that I am "dogmatic", "pig headed", "brainwashed" or "stupid" for I will always use reason and reality to form my opinions. I will not resort to emotion, fiction, fantasy or faith.

If you can assure me of the same then perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle of our individual beliefs and we will both be proven wrong by a better argument still to come.

If you can not assure me of the same, then you have no business trying to convince me in the first place.

Judge...

2010-07-23T07:18:00.000-04:00

Right and wrong are simple concepts, easily divisible, easily discernible. Applied with the proper principal it is quite simple and quite correct to say…

“I’m right. You’re wrong.”

Applying Equity, Equally

2010-07-23T06:36:00.009-04:00

When I read this article, I thought, like most Canadians, that the issue at hand was about equality. With that in mind I indignantly criticized the policy for trying to correct discrimination by discriminating.

But it's not about equality its about equity, a word with a much more, shall we say, fuzzy (and therefore politically useful) definition. The equity in question is specifically Canada's version of affirmative action called employment equity.

To quote from the act itself:

"The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."

Whoa!

Tell me, which of these is true? Is the act designed to achieve equality so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability? Or is it to correct conditions of disadvantage through special measures and the accommodation of differences?

Pick one, have your cake or eat it. You can not do both. The two stated goals are incompatible, they are contradictory and therefore can not and will not be mutually satisfied. You can have equality based on merit or you can ignore merit and satisfy physical, gender or racially based criteria. But you can not consistently claim to do both.

Yes, it may very well be that the best person for the job also happens to be one of the preferred class (a woman, or disabled or a minority or aboriginal) but it will happen only by chance.

Sara Landriault commented;

“I do not wish to take anyone’s job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination.”

She is correct. It is discrimination, but what is more is that she is only appealing to the very principle for which this act was apparently created to address, she is only trying to appeal to the equality part of the act, to have an equal chance based on merit to get the job. The response built into this flawed, discriminatory and racist act is predictable. Your merit does not matter, sorry you don't meet the (in this instance) racial criteria.

So I was thinking, since it is clear that the Employment Equity Act is really not about equality of any sort, only equity, and since the population of Canada consists of people, 88.79% of whom are designated as part of the "Non Visible Minority Population" (read the majority); by my calculations in order to apply this equitable policy equally, those identifying as "Visible Minorities" ought only to be permitted to apply for 11.21% of all jobs in Canada.

That is truly an equitable solution. What is more it applies the principle which denied Mrs. Landriault the opportunity to apply for the job to all Canadians as equally as possible. So lets do it that way instead!

I'm joking of course.

The idea is as ridiculous as it is distasteful to any reasonable rational person, we all know it and we all recognize it. So what makes the very same idea reasonable to seemingly rational people when applied unequally based on the same criteria of race, gender, handicap and ethnicity?

Objectivist Round Up #158

2010-07-22T14:50:00.002-04:00

LB has this weeks Round Up neatly filed away in her 3 Ring Binder. Check it out!

Peace at any Cost

2010-07-20T19:28:00.003-04:00

"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."

Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.

Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.

Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?

The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?

What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?

When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?

Nothing.

Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.

Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.

Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...

There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.

Objectivist Round Up #157.

2010-07-15T14:41:00.003-04:00

Rachel has the Round Up this week at The Playful Spirit. It's the 3 year anniversary!

A Veiled Threat?

2010-07-13T11:21:00.001-04:00

Well the French Parliament has decided to ban the Veil.

With all the problems that country has with a growing Muslim population accompanied by growing extremism, that is the French solution?

Gee, If they'd only been this pro-active in 1939... They could have stopped the Germans cold by outlawing Lederhosen.

Attempting to Have His Cake and Eat it Too

2010-07-10T07:29:00.004-04:00

"When Jeremy Dyer was selected to represent his province because of his human rights art, he had no idea he'd find himself in line to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hand.

The notion was an affront to Dyer, an activist who vehemently disagrees with many of Harper's policies."

Well, isn't that special.

To put this in perspective...

This young a--, activist was chosen to take a trip covering almost 3000km on the government's dime. He was put up in a hotel, at taxpayer expense and fed at government expense for the chance to get national exposure (read free publicity) for his artwork and his cause in a National (Government run) museum and when the Prime Minister shows up for the money shot - the handshake - this ungrateful little snot is rude enough to refuse to, to turn a phrase - dance with the one what brought him?

Perhaps if young Jeremy was so opposed to the government's policies he should have discovered the backbone to stand for his principles before he became the governments artistic whore, not after.

Later, talking with reporters about being asked to remove himself from the reception line, which he did, Mrs. Dyer's little boy commented that “That was the breaking point — when I was suppressed for my beliefs.”

Suppressed?! This mooching scab of an "artist" was suppressed? How? Was it the free flight, food and accommodation? The national exposure? The support of the cause of human rights as demonstrated by the PM and the government he is so quick to disrespect?

I hope that Jeremy Dyer learns a lesson from this which is best summed up by another marvellous saying, one about laying down with dogs.

Oh, I also hope that the government is paying attention. Its lesson is that Jeremy Dyer is a capricious, churlish, child and should never be given an opportunity like that ever again.

Objectivist Round up # 156

2010-07-09T08:27:00.001-04:00

Sandi Trixx is hosting this weeks round up. Check it out!

O Canada CON?

2010-07-08T07:59:00.003-04:00

While I'm not sure how many Canadian Objectivists there are, or how many even visit this site I though I would ask if anyone would be interested in a Canadian version of the OCON event going on now south of the border.

Now I'm not suggesting that it would involve anything as extravagant as renting a floor in the Chateau Laurier (though given time it might be able to grow into that), hell I'd be happy with (and was actually thinking of) a weekend of camping by a nice lake somewhere shooting the philosophical breeze with like minded people...

As for events, perhaps Paul McKeever could be convinced to host a lecture or something, and I'm sure there are passionate Canadian O'ists out there who could be convinced to give a short talk followed by a collaborative bull session on subjects near and dear to them.

Couple that with good food, beautiful scenery and stimulating people, or any combination thereof, and I'd say you have the makings of a really good time.

Let me know if your interested...

P.S. Our Objectivist friends wherever they may be from would be most welcome of course.

Cheers,
Zip

Objectivist Round Up #155

2010-07-01T11:33:00.002-04:00

Lots of Good Stuff...

Jen's our Hostess with the Mostess over at Rational Jenn

Blamestorming and Guiltmongering

2010-07-01T09:25:00.005-04:00

In 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Head Tax, a levee charged against Chinese immigrants to Canada. This tax is rightly considered to be among the most racist laws ever passed in Canada, and the apology was the right thing to do, regardless of how long ago this injustice took place. It was also proper to compensate those who had paid the tax.

For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.

So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”

Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...

"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."

Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.

That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.

That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.

I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.

But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?

No.

It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.

Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.

Don't Just Let Them Speak, Let Them be Heard...

2010-06-29T19:53:00.004-04:00

Canada and Canadians have missed a huge opportunity by banning Dr. Zakir Naik from speaking in person in Toronto at "The Journey of Faith Conference".

We should have let him come, more than that we should have put someone inside that conference to video the entire thing, every speech and every speaker.

Because maybe if Joe and Jill six-pack heard one of these people claim that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," or that it's okay to beat your wife - without leaving a physical mark of course (how very moderate of him) they would realize that this is an ideology of hate and fear and that every single person in that conference is a supporter implicitly or explicitly of the destruction of our way of life.

For those that would call me intolerant I say thank you. I have no desire to develop a tolerance for evil, or the cattle that follow it.

The Face of Anarchy

2010-06-28T18:54:00.004-04:00

There seem to be a lot of young people who sing the praises of anarchy. Anarchism advocates;

“a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.”
*

The Anarchist will tell you that it is the state or capitalism or the world bank, or some conspiracy of rich and powerful that is responsible for the woes of modern society. They will tell you that if we were all just free to act as individuals without the confines of state or multinational corporations with their laws and force, money and power we would all be better off.

Right.

Last weekend Toronto got to see what anarchy really breeds. It’s not peace, it’s not freedom, it is brutal, mindless violence and destruction. It is the law of the pack, and as an individual you are one with the pack or you are its prey.

Now I do not hold a Hobbesian view of man. I do not believe that a man must completely subordinate himself to a “sovereign” (state or king) or face a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”, but I do believe that there is a proper place for the state as a protector of unalienable rights and those rights alone can make individuals sovereign.

The Anarchist dismisses the role of the state, and while they lay claim to some notion of rights they rely on the individual alone to assert his own individual sovereignty, they call for each man to be his own law. The result of course is that if one man's “law” is stronger than another's, by hook or by crook, with no one to counter their will or force, then the brute will win, and the weaker man will loose.

Now the Anarchists involved with the G20 protests would probably tell you that they only vandalized the apparatus of the state - police cars and the like - or the establishment - multinational corporations and banks. What is more they would claim that this vandalism is in keeping with their view of sovereign individuals, but those attacks are a dire warning to any real individual.

The small businessman ought not to heave a sigh of relief at being spared this weekend but he and everyone else ought to consider that under anarchy, the moment the mob recognizes you or your life’s work as established (and by definition, of the establishment) then you are doomed. Any right to property or person that you may have had while the mob’s focus was elsewhere is gone, suddenly you are not a person; you are not of the mob. You don’t matter.

Dog eat Dog is a euphemism often used in conjunction with capitalism and capitalists but I’ve yet to see a businessman operate with the sheer animal violence of the Anarchists. So when you watch TV tonight and you see the businessman cleaning his ruined storefront and when the news flashes the images of black clad hoodlums smashing burning and destroying bear in mind that you are seeing both the true face of capitalism (productive effort) and Anarchism (mindless destruction).

Values

2010-06-27T08:05:00.003-04:00

They claim that money can’t buy happiness, and they mean that material possessions can’t make a person happy which is true.

But it isn't true for the reason that modern moralists want us to believe. It’s not because money or possessions are evil, or that they poisons us “spiritually” making it easier for “a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, nor is it because they somehow create inequality, or oppresses the guy that doesn’t have quite as much.

No, the actual reason is that money, or any other possession for that matter, is not the requisite end, though it can be a means to the end (happiness) if used properly. If one treats money (or any similar good) as the end product of their life they are missing the point of that life.

If you buy a Harley Davidson for the prestige and believe that it will bring you the attention and the adoration of a certain crowd or group and therefore it will make you happy, your happiness will be a ghost; gone as soon as you step off the machine. If on the other hand you buy the Harley because you desire to ride and enjoy the particular feel of the scooter, that your value is in the quality of its craftsmanship its originality and of course the riding itself, then every time you ride you will be happy, and that happiness will spill over into other parts of your life.

The point is that life isn’t about the accumulation of physical wealth or goods. He who dies with the most toys may or may not be a winner, but it isn’t because of the toys.

The winner is the man who achieves his values, who lives by those values. But those values aren’t necessarily possessions; they are the actualization of concepts and reason, of moral and ethical choices. They are all the parts, pieces, premises and pleasures that further our lives.

Dr. Alice Mengele

2010-06-26T21:28:00.004-04:00

I find it unfathomable that this article is categorized under "Best Doctors".

Here is a woman who is basically bragging about having "rehabilitated" a cold blooded killer. A man who would kill anyone for the right amount of cash. Who shows no remorse and thinks of his murders as "another day at the office".

What'smore, reading the comments section I'm flabbergasted that the only thing that bothers the commentators on the page (presumably other doctors) is that the article claims that a psychologist prescribed meds...

This article doesn't showcase ethical action but moral apathy. It's not that this "doctor" doesn't recognize that her patient is an evil cold blooded murderer it's that her position as a Doctor has given her a free pass at having to judge the moral from the immoral. What an abject failure this woman is as a rational human being.

I will go farther. She is evil. Pure unmitigated evil. She is right up there with the guards at Dachau and Auschwitz claiming ignorance and innocence because they didn't actually drop the gas pellets into the chambers, or stuff bodies into the ovens.

"Best Doctor" eh? Well done Dr. Alice Mengele.

Objectivist Round Up

2010-06-24T15:03:00.001-04:00

The 154th Objectivist Round Up is being hosted at Trey Givens blog this week.

Visit and enjoy!

Lessons in Socialism

2010-06-21T12:12:00.003-04:00

There is a phrase that I use at work from time to time to illustrate and explain the apparent laziness of those people who seem to have the easiest of jobs but who fail, again and again to do them efficiently or correctly. Unfortunately the phrase has proven correct more often than I care to remember.

The truism? “The less people do the less they want to do.”

I’ve used it time and again but I’ve never thought of it as being applicable to an entire society or an entire social system. It is.

This is a lesson in socialism and Theodore Dalrymple has it learned well.

Let Me Get This Right...

2010-06-19T07:43:00.002-04:00

The people who actually live in the Canadian Arctic are saying that Polar Bears are not at risk because they (like all animals) are adaptable, they have adapted before and therefore ought to be able to adapt again. On the other side of this argument the "scientists" are saying that just isn't so and that the Nunavut Government, their advisors and the Inuit who live with the Polar Bears are discounting the scope of the climate change crisis and that Polar Bears can't possibly adapt for it.

Isn't that the same climate change crisis that has been completely, unequivocally, undeniably out to lunch on every single solitary prediction, model and/or forecast of doom and gloom since Al the oracle Gore spake the divine climate prophecy - assisted by one hell of a power point presentation?

Is this the same climate calamity that was so completely unscientific that "scientists" had to lie and obstruct, alter and destroy data to silence dissent?

Yeah, I thought so.

More Government Never Made Anyone Free

2010-06-18T13:01:00.006-04:00

I agree with Michael Den Tandt’s article here, when he says that Canadians aren’t buying what politicians are trying to sell in this country but, as usual I take a more extreme view of what is needed to rectify the problem and I see in Mr. Den Tandt's solutions more problems still.

He starts with the sacred cow of Canadian politics, health care and admonishes the MP’s to “increase private-sector involvement” but then he himself raises the spectre of the evil corporations taking control… Newsflash for , well, practically everyone in Canada… Businesses especially large ones have an economy of scale and a method of operation that make things more affordable and their processes more adaptive than both government and smaller operators.

Don’t believe me? Go to your local Mom and Pop shop and buy practically anything… Now find the same product at Wal Mart and tell me which is more expensive. This isn’t just a fluke it is an actual principle of business economics and a central feature of a capitalist (as opposed to socialist) system.

Next Mr. Den Tandt asks for an increase in the GST back up to the 7% that it was before the current government cut it to 5%. I want to connect this with points #5 which is to “Stop taxing artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets for their first $30,000” and #6 which adds farmers into the mix.

Now if you are going to rely on taxation as Mr. Den Tandt seems want to do, then what sense does it make to cut in one place just to gouge in another? He might also want to look at the tax rates. If he did he would see that people who make $30,000 a year are already taxed very little, in this country but the GST he wants to increase is a consumption tax and hits everyone (and cutting it helps everyone) equally. If Mr. Den Tandt really wants to help these people who are… wait for it… actually small business owners, then he would instead be calling for an elimination of corporate taxation instead on trying to game a broken system.

The third point he makes is to call for government to “Get behind renewable energy, in a serious way.” Mr. Den Tandt should check the figures. The cost of producing Wind & Solar energy is at least 5 times what it is for traditional sources. Scrap this greenista pipe dream and move toward building new and cheap (in terms of the cost of energy) nuclear power plants. Oh, and do it through private business so it will be done in a timely manner and on or under budget.

Point number 4 is to get back to “Participaction”… Seriously that is not really what we need, although exercise is good and it is good to encourage people to do it what is needed is some serious consideration of changing the Canadian diet. Paleo is the way to go in my opinion, but failing that we need to eat real food, not the processed, carb-laden, gluten-soaked crap that we have been feeding ourselves. In my opinion the Canada food guides reliance on carbohydrates over protein and healthy fats to generate energy is the single greatest cause of the obesity in our society today. But in the end there is no place for the government to tell people what they must eat or how they must live. These decisions must be based on the individuals desire and that can't be institutionalized.

Although I already touched on points #5, this time I’ll tackle it from another angle altogether. Artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets do add considerably to the cultural richness of any society but here’s the rub. In order for this contribution to be real, lasting and honest the people, individuals within the society have to support them.

I know what many of you are thinking, how does that differ from Mr Den Tandt’s point?

Well, he is asking for the force of a government gun to take tax money, to FORCE us to support them. I am saying that in order to survive the artists, musicians, actors, novelists, filmmakers and poets must produce a product that people WANT.

If any other business (and these occupations all fall into that category) were to try to demand subsidies, on the basis that no one will willingly buy their products, so we all ought to pay for them to continue to make something no one wants, the uproar would be deafening. But that is exactly what artists ask for time and again and what Mr. Den Tandt supports in this article.

Next the author calls for Canadians to “Get back to the basic values of thrift, hard work, responsibility and politeness…” in and of itself this request is not terrible but then it becomes so when he adds… “Start by passing a law that says parliamentarians must show personal respect toward each other in the House. But then extend it beyond that. Canadian children are graduating high school with great technological skills but lacking some of the basic tools of deportment.”

Pardon my lack of deportment Mr. Den Tandt but WTF do you think gives government the right to regulate manners? This is nothing short of some sort of Victorian puritan fascism. Who’s manners? Are we talking High society etiquette here or something less stringent? Do we need a Manners Czar and Behavioural Police Mr. Den Tandt? To hell with that Jack!

Next Mr. Den Tandt calls for one of the half measures that characterizes both the right and the left in this country… He wants the long gun registry cancelled. Here’s the thing, the exact same reason that the Long Gun registry is a farce and a huge waste of taxpayers money also applies to hand guns and every other prohibited weapon in the country. At its root it is an attack on property rights. Beyond that principle it is ridiculous to label a weapon as dangerous. The weapon is a tool just like any other it has no will it can not BE dangerous in and of itself.

Additionally it is a bald-faced application of the concept of a thought crime to deny any adult the ownership of a weapon because he/she might kill someone with it. Why don’t these prohibitionists come out and say what they mean…

“No, you can’t own that 357 magnum because I think you are a killer and I don’t want you to have one. Yes the rifle is okay, as long as we know, because you won’t be able to kill as many people with that”

Do you see how insulting that is? It’s like telling people they can have a computer but no internet access because they would only surf kiddie-porn if they could get on the net.

The ninth point starts off well, calling for an end to the Reserve system. Mr. Den Tandt correctly recognizes it as the reason that in a country like Canada with all its wealth and promise there are little pockets of the third world and they are the Indian reserves. I also agree with his call that the law be applied equally to all.

As for the last point it is useless window dressing. You can make people “swear” to do anything but you can’t actually MAKE them abide by that oath.

Canada has to become a place where the people coming to its shores see enough value in it to change their ways. They ought to respect the culture of the country and more than that, have come here for its freedoms (not its social programs). Being a Canadian should be their highest priority their most fervent wish. They should want to change their culture for the better. Honour killings are a crime and they should be treated as such with the full weight of the law behind their prosecution, not empty rhetoric.

On the whole I’m disappointed in this list. If this is the sort of thinking that passes for innovative and progressive in this country then we are hurting. Less government, not more is the way to develop economically, socially and culturally. Stop looking to the government to solve your problems or to implement your pet solutions. Stand up for yourself, stand up for individualism and individual rights and check your premises.

More government never made anyone free.

Objectivist Round Up

2010-06-17T11:41:00.001-04:00

The 153rd Objectivist Round Up (the first I have participated in) is being hosted by Lynne at the 3 Ring Binder.

Check it out and get your O on!

But We've Always Done it That Way

2010-06-16T10:00:00.003-04:00

Imagine if you will people arguing that women, aboriginals and other visible minorities shouldn’t have the right to vote, that blacks should ride in the back of the bus that some people are born better than the rest of us and it is just too much of a bother to change it all.

It’s ridiculous to expect any rational person to go along with that.

We’ve come so far in the last hundred plus years that these ideas are obviously backward, misogynistic, racist and just plain wrong. But that is the argument forwarded by Matthew Rowe of the Monarchist League of Canada in response to a survey that said 2/3 of Canadians believe that we should cut ties with the monarchy once Queen Elizabeth II’s reign is done.

When Mr. Rowe says that “Canada has always been a Monarchy” and that it is “part of who we are as a nation.” What he is really doing is yelling STOP! and trying to hold an entire nation hostage to a system that has been woefully out of touch with the ideals of a modern society for decades, and at odds with the facts of reality since the concept of hereditary rule was first dreamed up.

I am not arguing that the monarchy has not served a purpose within the narrow confines of the Canadian Government. Indeed the constitutional monarchy which is Canada has fared quite well for the last 143 years. Our government is stable and it works well for the most part, but Rowe and his ilk seem to claim that this is as good as it gets, that we as a country and a society ought to be satisfied with the institutions and processes that the Fathers of Confederation cobbled together in 1867.

I disagree.

A constitution is a living document and as a society evolves its constitution ought to evolve along with it. This is not to say that change ought to occur for changes sake, but that when false premises are corrected or better solutions become available, to cling to the old for the sake of rigid conservatism or expediency is a detriment to individuals and therefore to the country itself.

I would be much more willing to hear Mr. Rowe’s position if instead of complaining that we’ve always done it that way, he had merely said that the system works and has proven itself as viable as any other we might choose, but he didn’t. Instead he appeals to authority, emotion and collectivism.

Canada should separate politically from the English monarchy, what’s more is that we as Canadians should be demanding it.

There is no good reason not to. It is an anachronism and contrary to the principles of a liberal society to have an unelected head of state. A Canadian republic would be just as stable if not more so than our current constitutional monarchy. Democratic representation would be enhanced and the legitimacy of the post of Head of State (whatever we might call it) would be ensured through election.

Removing Canada’s ties to the Monarchy would necessitate significant changes in the constitution which would mean unprecedented debate on that same document, perhaps an almost complete rewriting of it.

Many within the establishment raise the fear that such a reworking would lead to the fragmentation of Canada as the Maritimes, Quebec, Central Canada and the western provinces all vie for their fair share and all seek to right perceived wrongs.

This is the boogeyman that has kept us bound to not only the Monarchy but to the best laid plans of 1867. More than tradition, more than simplicity, the fear of the dissolution of Canada has kept us Canadians from seeking our own way separate from historic institutions.

The truth is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If the singular act of choosing to evolve as a society is enough to destroy the Canadian confederation then I would argue that this nation is already dead and we might as well get it all over with now, rather than later.

Right, For all the Wrong Reasons

2010-06-13T09:37:00.004-04:00

Irvin Studin’s idea to increase immigration into Canada is a good one, but although he momentarily catches sight of why it is a good idea when he says, “The Canada of 100 million has a far larger national market and the attendant economies of scale and scope…” this is a mere afterthought for him.

To Mr. Studin, hailed as something of a public policy wonder-kid, the prime reason to open immigration and increase Canada’s population is to “build strong national institutions and structures across the vast territory of Canada -- institutions that, while today are often absent or weak, would eventually serve as a bulwark for international strategic influence. Second, a far larger talent pool to populate the strategic arms of the state -- the military, diplomatic, civil service and political branches of government, as well as business, cultural, educational and scientific sectors.”

If you read the entire article it becomes quite clear that Mr. Studin’s intent is solely focused on increasing the power of the state both within and outside of Canada.

He envisions some sort of superpower which will simultaneously see the Canadian people held from cradle to grave by the “strategic arms of the state” and witness the rise of Canada as an international military and diplomatic force, with emphasis on the force part.

This is exactly the wrong reason to increase immigration and Studin's plan which counts on immigration as a force in and of itself is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

I agree that Canada ought to open up immigration and have it limited only for national security reasons, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or to keep criminals out. But there is something else that must be done first.

First we should begin to dismantle the so called social safety net. The reason why we should do this ought to be self-evident. We want people to come to Canada to work. We want them to come here for the opportunity to succeed and thrive in a country that offers them more freedom to achieve than the one they just left.

Consider the United States in its early history. Immigrants didn’t flock to America for social services or “strong national institutions”, they came for the opportunity to be free and to make their own way in the world. As a result of that “pioneer spirit” the USA went from upstart colony to world superpower in less time than Mr. Studin could imagine in his wildest public policy wet dream.

Once we have ensured that immigrants won’t be coming to Canada to turn the “social safety net” into a hammock there is another step we must take before we can open the flood gates, and be reasonably assured that those that come will be those that want the freedom that we can offer, the freedom to prosper.

Now with immigration comes the economic benefit of all those added people. Mr. Studin continues to apply all this human power to “applied research institutions; to aid the generation of policy ideas; to create bona fide national institutions of higher culture in the musical, visual and theatrical arts; to justify national sports leagues” but he seemingly ignores the very thing that makes all of that possible… Individual economic activity.

To make this immigration plan work you can not just dump a bunch of people onto the land and expect great cities to rise, or… well you could if no one was going to get in their way… but sadly Canada is an over-regulated, politically restrictive pseudo-capitalist, bureaucratic welfare state.

So step two, before immigration can be opened up with any realistic hope of creating the wealth and its serendipitous cousin the power - that Mr. Studin so fervently desires - is to begin dismantling the bureaucracy. We would need to get the government at all levels out of the way of the people who actually make that wealth and power a possibility.

The best way to accomplish this would be to have, as Ayn Rand put it in her brilliant collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church..” . Initially, however, I think we could go a long way by eliminating superfluous regulations, business taxes and the sort of nickel and dime, money wasting red tape nightmares that make it so hard to open and run a business today.

Sure it will mean that consumers will have to be more aware of the services and goods they contract and consume, (with lessened regulation I am not so naive to think that some unscrupulous men won’t try to cheat and defraud) but that is part and parcel of being free. Besides we are not talking about eliminating the courts or police services and such frauds should be held to account by the law.

So now with the social safety net severely curtailed if not gone completely, and our bureaucracy restricted to the absolute bare minimum, Irvin Studin’s proposal for increased immigration could be implemented with reasonable chance of success.

Although this would no doubt lead to more economic, political and international clout for Canada I doubt that with the reduced scope of “strong national institutions” and the reduction or elimination of “strategic arms of the state” that Mr. Studin would recognize or appreciate the change.

You First.

2010-06-11T15:04:00.003-04:00

Well here it is, finally, spelled out without any ambiguities, with no equivocation and no weasel words.

In one concise article Mr. Singer says what a good deal of environmentalists are afraid to. Which is to say that he says what they wilfully evade, that the end result, the final solution of their Green fascism is the end of humanity.

Well I for one would like to invite them all, each and every one to do away with themselves, in whatever ecologically sound manner they wish of course.

So Mr. Singer, Mr. Benatar... This is your philosophy, and since all philosophies are constructed to show man how he ought to live, I hope you will have the intestinal fortitude and courage to live by yours.

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't. I do my very best to live my life by my philosophy (Objectivism), its just that were we both to do so, you would see that your philosophy leads you to your death and mine encourages me to live.

So lets both start...

You will go first.

Farewell

2010-06-11T08:26:00.002-04:00

For reasons of my own I have decided to go solo with this blog from here on out, so Thucydides will no longer be posting here.

I appreciate and have enjoyed his posts for Uncommon Sense and I hope that he begins a blog of his own, and lets me know so that we can all enjoy it.

Thanks again Thucydides, keep in touch.

Zip

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

2010-06-11T07:48:00.003-04:00

This sounds like a scared Liberal in a CBC suit.

Why shouldn't the right of the political spectrum in this country have what the left has enjoyed in the form of the CBC for all these years?

Of course partisanship on the left is just considered good reporting, on the right it's "drive-by attacks... misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian"

All that aside more is better in any marketplace, especially when one is dealing with information.

Gaza 2010 = Sarajevo 1914?

2010-06-08T12:36:00.005-04:00

It is ridiculous that the world seems to be standing around watching as this shapes up. To think of a parallel, the Iranians sending an aid ship to Gaza is the equivalent of the Russians sending an “aid ship” to Cuba in October of 1962.

Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.

With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?

Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.

This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.

At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?

Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.

This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..

And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.

Not out of Curiosity

2010-06-06T17:38:00.002-04:00

Michael Ignatieff is a smart guy. You have to be to teach at Harvard. The thing of it is that all the Liberals in Canada pinned their hope on this guy to be their new leader and not one of them waited to see if he could lead.

What they failed to grasp... probably because the ones making the call were also more academically minded than politically minded and the rest followed their lead... was that smart doesn't necessarily translate into either decisive or savvy. As time has gone on Ignatieff has proven himself to be a slightly more personable version of Stephane Dion.

Truth of the matter is Iggy could probably explain to you the way the country ought to be run (as a Liberal would do it) but he wouldn't be able to convince you and ten of your close friends to try and do it with him.

As a friend of mine once quipped to a particularly inept Troop Commander... "Sir, I wouldn't follow you out of curiosity."

Abbott and Costello Meet the Economy...

2010-06-04T15:41:00.001-04:00

Imagine...

2010-06-04T08:01:00.003-04:00

"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.

Read the whole thing...

Socialists Don't Understand The Nature of Work

2010-06-03T08:29:00.004-04:00

This article exemplifies the difference between those that do deserve bonuses and those that don’t. Pat Martin’s statement that; “The Bank of Canada is not a private business. It's not tied to performance or productivity outcomes, it's not a profit-making venture where you can measure a good year from a bad year ... What is the merit they are being rewarded for, coming to work on time?" is absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.

The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.

Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.

Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.

But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.

If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.

Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.

Capitalism isn't the Problem... Its the Solution

2010-06-02T15:35:00.002-04:00

This is the kind of thinking that the majority of people don't do.

Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil

2010-05-30T18:15:00.004-04:00

I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.

The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.

Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.

That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...

"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.

That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.

I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.

"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"

But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.

The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.

The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.

In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.

There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.

Then comes the next philosophical head fake...

"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "

To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?

For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.

Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.

Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.

It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.

It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*

* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.

So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.

More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.

Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."

Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.

I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.

*H/T Chris

Time to Pay Up

2010-05-29T10:26:00.004-04:00

UPDATE: Second Firm Pulls out of Greece , and the Greeks continue to evade reality...

This is the end of the road for socialized medicine.

Medicine just like bread, automobiles and bowling balls cost a certain amount to produce. That is a fact. It is not a construct of a company or a secret cabal of evil capitalists perpetrating a "brutal blackmail".

It is also not "a violation of corporate social responsibility" the company would not exist, there would be no insulin to buy, and no one to produce it if they (the company) were to ignore the realities of what it takes to produce this or any other product.

It is simply a matter of reality, things cost money, and nothing can be produced for free. Nothing can be supplied indefinitely at a loss. Yes, you might be able to supply it for a time at a loss but as less money comes in less product is produced and soon there is nothing and no company to produce it.

The decree by the Greek government that all medicine prices shall be cut by 25% (so that the government can continue to supply those medicines through the health care system) is a command divorced of reality.

There is a simple solution. Return the portion of taxes that each Greek pays into the health care scheme and allow then to pay for their own medicine at the market rate.

The Greek Government is not the only one to blame for this though. The Greeks have themselves as individuals to blame. Every time they demanded that their government give them more for less, every time they allowed another government program to supply for them something that they should have bought themselves. Every time they asked for more pay and less work, every demand to feather their social safety net led to this.

Reality can not be ignored forever, you may survive for a time while evading it but sooner or later its time to pay up.

Greece's bill is due.

McGuinty Plans Surgical Castration

2010-05-28T10:45:00.005-04:00

ARTICLE
“The Ontario government is warning doctors that it plans to radically overhaul how they are compensated by paying more of them salaries – the latest salvo in its efforts to rein in the biggest contributors to ballooning health-care costs.”

Sounds like the McGuinty government wants to cut Doctors wages. What does that mean for those of us on the streets. What is that “savings” going to mean at the end of the line (our health care) vice at the start line (the bloated provincial budget)? You can choose from three doors. Behind Door #1 we have fewer people decide to become doctors in Ontario because they will have no control over what they are paid. Door #2 = Doctors stop working as hard because no matter how many patients they see or how many procedures they do they get paid the same amount. Door #3 leads us to an accelerated “brain drain” as more Doctors upon finishing medical school run to the US where they can still (for now) get paid more for what they do than in Canada.

If you guess all three then you are probably correct.

“The McGuinty government has already targeted generic prescription drugs and hospitals as part of a plan to get a bigger bang for its investment in health care. Now it is zeroing in on doctors and a fee-for-service compensation system that has been in place for more than four decades.”

Whoa! Wait a second… “fee-for-service compensation system”? What a ham-fisted attempt to drop the context of the entire issue here. It’s called PAY! Compensation makes it sound like some sort of government run welfare system not a persons honest work and effort.

Would you expect the mechanic at your local garage to fix 10 cars in a day and only charge for 5 of them? Would you trust your car to a mechanic that has been told (forced) that he will fix your car for a certain $value regardless of what is wrong with it?

“I think we’ve got some work to do when it comes to appropriately compensating physicians and others in health care for that matter,” Health Minister Deb Matthews told reporters on Thursday."

No. Government intervention and arbitrary establishment of pay based on political and budgetary concerns rather than value, skill and complexity is about as far removed from “appropriate compensation” as one can get.

“The majority of Ontario’s approximately 24,000 doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, meaning they bill the provincial health plan for each service they provide to a patient. But in recent years, some hospitals, particularly those in smaller, rural communities, have switched to a salary system for doctors in their emergency departments. As well, the 1,900 doctors who work in clinics as part of family health teams created by the McGuinty government are also paid a salary.”

Fee for service means if the Doctor works harder he is paid more.
What will the alternative mean?
No incentive.

Ha! These people are actually holding up rural Canada as a model that they are trying to emulate? Didn’t I hear something about a shortage of Doctors in Rural Ontario/ the rest of the country? Yes, yes I did.

“Ms. Matthews said she would like to see that compensation model expanded to include more doctors. She was responding to a report released this week by Toronto-Dominion Bank, which made eight proposals to wring more efficiencies out of the health-care system, including moving doctors away from the fee-for-service compensation model.

In a system where doctors are paid for each service, the report says, there is no incentive for them to measure the cost-effectiveness of their treatment decisions against the potential benefits.”

$5.00 for anyone who can make rational sense out of the last sentence. Are they really trying to tell us that a set wage will make Doctors think about the cost effectiveness of their work? Or is it that they are saying that Doctors will ration their services more? Pick and choose who gets their limited services from their limited pay.

“Robert Bell, chief executive officer of University Health Network, Ontario’s largest hospital, said the government has to examine the rapid rise in doctors’ compensation, which has far outstripped the increase in hospital budgets.”

Finally a sentence that gets (in an off hand way) to the root of the problem. It’s not that Doctors aren’t worth the money they are paid. Just ask anyone who has undergone a life saving operation. It is the arbitrary allotment of funds by a government who is trying to nickel and dime a system that has never worked properly.

There is no personal incentive in a government run system to innovate or to reduce costs. If hospitals were privately run each would be competing for customers and each would be trying to innovate to reduce costs and take more customers from the other hospitals. Yes, they might even reduce the amount they are willing to pay Doctors, but then the Doctors would be free at least to search for better pay.

Compensation divorced of effort, skill and quantity is a good way to castrate a system that is already suffering from financial erectile dysfunction.

Why?

2010-05-23T21:00:00.003-04:00

Why is it always a chore to get our government to do the right thing? Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street from Toronto to Tuktoyaktuk knows what the right thing is and what should be done but our elected officials don't?

From Letting the Auditor General see MP's expenses to the Afghan Detainee "scandal" how come these people are so damn obtuse?

Are these "issues" some sort of political version of a head-fake? While we are getting the run around on a simple matter of transparency what else is happening?

We need a new way of doing politics in this country, and fast.

Fire. Them. All.

Forget the Colour of the Collar

2010-05-22T09:34:00.002-04:00

Here is a question for you. What is the difference in principal between an embezzler and an unarmed bank robber?

What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?

The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?

Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.

The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?

It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.

By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.

Buried Chest High...

2010-05-22T08:44:00.001-04:00

Come on Ladies

2010-05-20T08:12:00.003-04:00

This article by The Globe And Mail spends a lot of effort telling us that the government is sorry that no women won grants to become Canada Excellence Research Chairs under the governments attempt to attract academic talent with the 20 million dollar program. But what really do they have to be sorry about?

The G&M themselves finds "No deliberate attempt to shut out women, but concludes the tight deadlines for the competition, the areas picked for research and a competition where candidates on the short list had only a 50 per cent chance of winning probably all worked against female candidates."

With the government falling over itself to make amends for the lack of women in what has been ruled as a fair competition, it has elicited the help of three prominent women academics...

Their recommendations include;

1.To include a rising stars category - this is apparently to offset the male domination in some fields... but if it is proven talent that the government is trying to attract then to throw money at potential ability is contrary to the point.

2. another suggested the inclusion of an "established leaders" category - hold on, If the complaint being addressed by point #1 is that there aren't enough women in some of these fields do they really mean that they want an "established women leaders" category?

There is a nebulous complaint directed at an academic old boys club and this is connected once again to male domination, not any specific misogyny. But the specific complaint seems to be that women were unwilling to try, and that is the real tragedy here.

As the article states;

"Senior women also may be more reluctant than their male colleagues to move for personal reasons or to enter a competition where the odds of success were 2 to 1, the report says, citing U.S. studies."

The question that ought to be asked is why are women unwilling to extend themselves to compete for an opportunity like this? There has been a human rights challenge to the fact that 19 male winners were selected and not one woman but is this a symptom of the problem? Do women in our oh so politically correct society expect some sort of gender based distribution regardless of merit, regardless of effort even?

Come on Ladies, you can do better than that!

Why all the Fear?

2010-05-19T21:25:00.002-04:00

The more they talk, the more I want to see, the more I think we need to see...

Why all the fear folks?

You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.

It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...

Why all the fear?

Big Brother's Mascots

2010-05-19T17:17:00.004-04:00

Well, what else would you expect from the worlds most surveilled society but Mascots that bear a striking resemblance to giant eyes perched atop disembodied eye stalks.

On a brighter note...

It's good news for the Vancover Olympic Committee. They won't go down in history as the games with the lamest mascots after all.

Push and We Push Back...

2010-05-19T15:56:00.004-04:00

I wasn't going to get involved with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"on the 20th as advertised here, and elsewhere... That is until I saw this.

So here he is.

Although, as of yet no one has tried to do the same here I have no doubt that Islamofascists would try if they thought they could get away with it.

Regardless, here is a little bit of advice for any would be Islamic fanatics out there. If you try to push your nonsense onto our way of life, if you try for the sake of stupid superstition to limit our freedoms, if you threaten and if you cajole... we will push back. And you will loose.

By the way... my response is the same to Christian fanatics that want to force their particular brand of stupidity down our throats.

Believe what you want, that is your right but your right ends where my right begins.

Ponzi Statism

2010-05-18T15:41:00.003-04:00

According to Wikipedia...

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."

If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...

A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.

No Escape Hatch

2010-05-15T08:20:00.002-04:00

This kind of forthright honesty ought not to be a rarity in politics. The fact that it is indicates how much more effort modern politicians put into maintaining their place at the government trough than anything else. Their desire to hold on to power wins out over principle, over conscience, over law and even over ideology.

Congratulations to Governor Christie for being in the 1 percentile.