When is progress bad?

I came across a Facebook post last night about a "Belo Monte" Hydro dam proposed for Brazil, which went like this;

"THIS IMAGE SHOULD BE SEEN BY THE WHOLE WORLD

While magazines and TV chains report about the lives and love affairs of movie actors and actresses, football players and other celebrities, the Chief of the Kayapo tribe heard the worst news of his entire life:

Mrs. Dilma, the president of Brazil, has given her approval for the construction of an enormous hydroelectric central (the world’s third largest one).

This means the death sentence for ALL the tribes living at the shores of the river because the barrage will flood more or less 988,421 acres of the forest. More than 40 000 natives will have to find other living surroundings where they will be able to survive. The destruction of the natural habitat, the deforestation and the disappearance of several species of plants and animals will be a fait accompli.

We know that a simple image is the equivalent of a thousand words, it shows the price to be paid for the “quality of life” of our so-called “modern comforts.” There is no space in the world anymore for those who live differently. Everything has to be smoothed away, that everyone, in the name of globalization must lose his and her identity and way of living.

If this enrages you, I urge and implore you to "SHARE" this message to all your friends, relatives and acquaintances.

Thank you in the name of life, nature and biodiversity."


Here's the thing, isn't hydro power actually a clean, renewable, effective source of power? Wouldn't that be preferable to the cheap fossil fuels that usually encourage industrial growth? 
And then there is the "Support Indigenous Peoples" initiative... Here's where I think to myself "Okay here are people that already enjoy the benefits of industrialization, trying to denying people who may not understand the benefits the same comforts."  I mean let's ask any Canadian Aboriginal if they would go back to strictly hunter gathering as it was done 150 years ago, while the rest of us continue on with the way life is now, would you? Or have you seen the benefits of the industrialization that was brought from Europe? Would you live without all the modern conveniences accessibility to electricity provides you? So why are the Brazil "elite" trying to deny what they have to more people?
Granted I don't know how strict or thorough the environmental process there is, but we aren't talking about a third world country. 

I understand the need to preserve local customs, culture, and heritage, but I am proud to know some awesome First Nations people that have found the balance of celebrating all these things, as well as enjoying the conveniences that an industrialized nation has to offer. It doesn't have to be "Either/Or."

Morals or feelings?

The last few days it has been running through my head how Progressives look to control you, while Conservatives expect you to control yourself.

A good example of this was presented when CNN seemed to be sympathetic to the criminals, and how their lives were ruined, rather than the fact that they forever scarred a young girl. This is an example of progressive values, where the criminal becomes a faux victim and has a more "worthy" of a story than the actual victim.

It's a slippery slope, but as a society that is teaching kids that "feelings" are more important than a moral code, and at every turn children are confronted with sexuality, then how do we turn around and condemn rapists for acting on what society has been teaching them? (In my opinion we send them to jail for a very long time.)

Twitter was abuzz with things like "Men need to be taught not to rape", but the problem I see here is that it is impossible to teach men "not to rape" without instilling in them a moral code which they can use to fall back on should ever have that inclination. Our behaviours are choices, choices are made by the morals we hold, and when morals are eroded we all suffer in many ways.

Today (March 19/2013) on John Gormley they were talking about "Where were the parents?". Really? I'm a little shocked at this, because since the 80's we have been "Latchkey kids", with most of our time spent removed from any sort of parental guidance. And they also spoke of "friends" stepping up and helping this poor girl, and again I say Really? Never seen or felt "peer pressure"?

Who do we blame? We blame those that commit the crime. However as a social society we all have a vested interest in the well being of our young people, and need to choose the best way to do that. Are "All feelings" valid and actionable, or do we build Morals which say not all feelings are right or valid?

Canada and the United Nations.

I should start by asking a simple question; When does an organized body of world nations become obsolete?  One could preface the story of the UN with that of The League of Nations, which upon completion of specific goals founding main members left it for it to pass away naturally. Now did the politicians of the time foresee that prolonging the League of Nations was in fact a possible risk to individual Nation's democracy and identity?
What should our considerations be for leaving the UN, and I ask this because the UN was instituted for a purpose.  So have they achieved the goals they intended? Are they still defending that which was in need of defending as originally intended? Have UN sanctions prevented the threat of nuclear proliferation in either Iran or North Korea? If you look at the fact that the UN was implemented to prevent known threats from garnering and using especially devastating weapons, have they been successful? And then of course there is Syria, where apparently the UN actually has boots on the ground, but what are they doing?
Or have they in fact taken on a life of their own, and along with no longer being able to fulfill the role as a unifying force, are they looking to take on roles of taxation and control that falls well outside their purview?

I think in fact the latter has started to show itself to be true, and the UN is finding it harder and harder to hide it's evolving agenda of it becoming the world's governing body.

I look at the UN "Special Rapporteur" on the "right to food", and how they are sending these overpaid bureaucrats to first world Countries like Canada, instead of, oh let's say almost anywhere in Africa! It seems a little pretentious to send someone to a Country like Canada, over somewhere that has more than 5% malnutrition. (Not to minimize 5%, but if this chart from World Hunger is correct, why are they wasting time in places like Canada?) I leave you to make your own conclusions about why the UN wasted time and money sending him here, but I know it wasn't because Canada suddenly had a food crisis.

This one speaks for itself; "In Search of New Development Finance." A report on imposing Global taxes. Gotta keep the bucks flowing to, and thru, the UN so they appear to have a purpose.

This one shows how the UN has, well, completely lost it's collective mind when they elect Iran to head the UN Arms Treaty. For those not in the know, the UN, Canada, and the US (the P5+1, UNSC permanent members plus Germany) have sanctions against Iran for not cooperating with the Security Council. There seems to be a downward spiraling of logic and rationality at the UN.

Let's move on to privacy, and oh... Internet.Were you aware that the UN wants to control it?

How about initiatives that would Legitimize Terror? Or standing with terrorists like Hamas? (Who are considered a terrorist organization, and one of the Palestinian Governing body.)

I move on to Human Rights. In the Middle East there is only one state that has similar Human rights to those we have in the West, and that is Israel. Yet recently they have decided to let those who self identify as wanting to see the destruction of an entire people have an increased role at the UN. And then they have Countries that currently allow slavery to hold positions on the Human Rights council. Absurd? Most definitely. Then you have countries that try to actively block people who speak out against them, at the UN which is there FOR complaints of hostility and oppression. Or even further, they condemn the most tolerant country in the Middle East of "intolerable living conditions of Palestinian women", while horrifying atrocities are actually performed on women in Iran and Syria.

For me the UN has passed it's expiration date, and needs to be disposed of, just like the League of Nations.

What are rights?

I had an interesting conversation the other day about gun control which led to the issue of rights.  The person in favour of gun control argued that rights "evolve and change", and I explained that rights either "are", or they "are oppressed".

The argument went that there was a time in England when people couldn't own their own land, but rights "evolved" to allow private ownership.  The fact that people couldn't own land didn't mean they didn't have an inherent right to ownership, instead it meant that right had been "oppressed" by those in control like "Governments".

Today I was thinking about how violent convicted criminals are given the right to life, even after taking it from others (and in doing so should forfeit their own), but babies are killed every day having done absolutely nothing wrong.  In the case of abortion, the right to life for that child is being oppressed.

The only thing that changes is the level/quantity of oppression, not the rights themselves. Most of the time at this point the "rights evolutionist" will start to argue something like "gay marriage" as being an evolution of rights, but this is a fabricated right based on a human construct of marriage (which is not natural in itself like life, but developed and arranged by humans.)

Rights are that which all humans share. A few of these are: A right to life. A right to self defense and protection. A right to ownership. Any attempt to limit such rights is oppression.

It became clear that it is two things may cause people to try to oppress others rights:
1. Fear.
2. Arrogance.

I don't understand fear, but it is apparent that this drives the anti gun "banning" crowd. Just because they are scared of an item, they think no one should be allowed it. See: Hoplophobia  (Which explains this proposed legislation by  Feinstein.) But here's a little History lesson on Gun Control by Rick Pratt.

Arrogance I do understand. It's because they don't see a need for it, you shouldn't be allowed to have it. It's the arrogance of feeling like they know better than the person who wants to own a gun, so you shouldn't argue with them. (Can you imagine someone saying this about Alcohol? Remember prohibition? Or how about NY banning soft drinks? What comes next, coffee? I say the Government can keep their hands off my choices and rights, until such time that they infringe on someone else's.)

The thing is I have no problem if you don't want to own a gun, that's your right to choose, but when you try to oppress someone else's right because "you don't believe in it" shows the ultimate in arrogance.  Here's a little primer on "Rights". "The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." Ayn Rand

I think what is even worse is when someone tries to dismiss your argument, or right to an opinion (and that you should shut up) because it doesn't affect you.  An opinion is not affected by how it pertains to you, for that matter when someone sees what they believe to be an oppression of rights it is in everyone's best interest to have an opinion and voice it.

However you will find that those so willing to have rights taken away are the first ones that resort to both name calling and convoluting the discussion with weak or nonexistent analogies, as well as telling you you're opinion is irrelevant. They seem too weak in their personal beliefs (Albeit strong in ideology and rhetoric) to have real, open, discussion.

Disagree? That's ok because it is a human right to have different opinions, but as long as my opinion doesn't infringe upon your rights, I actually hold the moral high ground.