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.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Canada and First Nations relationship.
I've written before on the dysfunctional relationship between Canada's Native communities and the Federal Government, so hopefully I don't repeat myself too much. But I was reading an article in the Sun (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/06/20120609-101306.html) that seemed to have FN peoples contradicting themselves.
One statement said "On June 11 2008, Harper apologized for treatment... and more than a century of an assimilation policy that profoundly damaged Aboriginal communities across the country." This leads me to think two things, 1.) Aboriginals are possibly resistant to assimilation into the society in which the rest of us live, and 2.) they may think assimilation is an option.
No offense to First Nations people, but to get anywhere today, assimilation is inevitable. What this DOESN'T mean is that you have to give up learning about your culture and heritage, and practicing/celebrating it whenever you want to. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, but learning how to live and thrive in the main society you are in is both beneficial and helpful to that society. I cordially invite you to take your place within Canadian society.
The dysfunctional relationship that the First Nations have with the Federal Government in regards to financial "dependency", and how I believe this is actually hurting First Nations people rather than the intended purpose of helping them. Attiwapiskat is a prime example here, where buckets of money have been shoveled at a problem that continues to persist. Even when aided with "emergency" financial assistance, the leader said it wasn't enough and wanted $50,000/month more with no strings or accountability. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/10/attawapiskat-chief-wants-more-cash-from-ottawa
It's beneficial for everyone to learn how to stand on their own feet, and I think that we are failing our First Nations people by over funding them, and not giving them the opportunity to feel how empowering it is to succeed on their own.
UPDATE:
Dec 23, 2012.
After the "Idle No More" protests, I found this. "The time to eliminate the Indian Act is now."
Update:
Jan 6, 2013
To correct myself, it was pointed out to me that "Assimilation" was not actually what I meant in the above post, but it was "Integration". Because I'm not asking First Nations to give up their culture and heritage, on the contrary, but hoping they see a better way that the current dependent situation much find themselves in. It doesn't have to be "one way or the other", Canada is a great place with tons of opportunities for everyone.
One statement said "On June 11 2008, Harper apologized for treatment... and more than a century of an assimilation policy that profoundly damaged Aboriginal communities across the country." This leads me to think two things, 1.) Aboriginals are possibly resistant to assimilation into the society in which the rest of us live, and 2.) they may think assimilation is an option.
No offense to First Nations people, but to get anywhere today, assimilation is inevitable. What this DOESN'T mean is that you have to give up learning about your culture and heritage, and practicing/celebrating it whenever you want to. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, but learning how to live and thrive in the main society you are in is both beneficial and helpful to that society. I cordially invite you to take your place within Canadian society.
The dysfunctional relationship that the First Nations have with the Federal Government in regards to financial "dependency", and how I believe this is actually hurting First Nations people rather than the intended purpose of helping them. Attiwapiskat is a prime example here, where buckets of money have been shoveled at a problem that continues to persist. Even when aided with "emergency" financial assistance, the leader said it wasn't enough and wanted $50,000/month more with no strings or accountability. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/10/attawapiskat-chief-wants-more-cash-from-ottawa
It's beneficial for everyone to learn how to stand on their own feet, and I think that we are failing our First Nations people by over funding them, and not giving them the opportunity to feel how empowering it is to succeed on their own.
UPDATE:
Dec 23, 2012.
After the "Idle No More" protests, I found this. "The time to eliminate the Indian Act is now."
Update:
Jan 6, 2013
To correct myself, it was pointed out to me that "Assimilation" was not actually what I meant in the above post, but it was "Integration". Because I'm not asking First Nations to give up their culture and heritage, on the contrary, but hoping they see a better way that the current dependent situation much find themselves in. It doesn't have to be "one way or the other", Canada is a great place with tons of opportunities for everyone.
Monday, June 04, 2012
How safe are you?
This may come across as more personal than political, but remember we live in a society that believes it is "mostly safe" with help from civil &/or Federal law enforcement agencies. This is a dire misconception.
Last night my son and his girlfriend were mugged by a man with a knife as they were out together on a walk. Thankfully my son took the initiative and talked his way out out any harm, and in total they only lost the $10 cash they had on them. It could have been much, MUCH worse, and I am so grateful that he had the wits to handle the situation to what I consider the best possible outcome.
But here's the thing; Where were the police? Could he have called them and not have had this happen?
Look around you for a minute. When you walk down the street, how many people are walking around with you that may be the next "Vince Li"? Where were the police when Li beheaded his victim? How about "Luka Magnotta"? Sure these are extreme cases, but it goes to show that there is a need as an individual to be responsible for your own safety and well being that does not rely on Law enforcement agencies.
Don't get me wrong here, our men and women in uniform deserve both our respect and our support, but I also believe that they deserve a fair assessment of their abilities (because they can't be blamed for things that are beyond their control, like a mugging.) This is because the Police Services (as I have said before) are "reactive", and generally are only called after a situation has already occurred.
This is where I advocate personal defense; not just physical self defense (Although this cannot be left out should the need arise), but the knowledge and ability (assessment) to handle a situation completely to bring out the best outcome. Because we live in a society where there are criminal elements that prey on those of us that are either unsuspecting or perceived as vulnerable. I believe your personal safety, is your personal right and responsibility.
I'm proud of my son, he took appropriate measures to not escalate the situation, and took initiative to lead the mugger with a polite manner to accept what little cash they had between them. They walked out of it with a little less cash, but unhurt. This isn't always possible though, and I think it important that people know how to defend themselves to whatever point it is necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Update 11:23a.m. June 24;
The RCMP now have an official account on twitter now, and even they acknowledge with a tweet that individuals need to be proactive in their own safety.
Last night my son and his girlfriend were mugged by a man with a knife as they were out together on a walk. Thankfully my son took the initiative and talked his way out out any harm, and in total they only lost the $10 cash they had on them. It could have been much, MUCH worse, and I am so grateful that he had the wits to handle the situation to what I consider the best possible outcome.
But here's the thing; Where were the police? Could he have called them and not have had this happen?
Look around you for a minute. When you walk down the street, how many people are walking around with you that may be the next "Vince Li"? Where were the police when Li beheaded his victim? How about "Luka Magnotta"? Sure these are extreme cases, but it goes to show that there is a need as an individual to be responsible for your own safety and well being that does not rely on Law enforcement agencies.
Don't get me wrong here, our men and women in uniform deserve both our respect and our support, but I also believe that they deserve a fair assessment of their abilities (because they can't be blamed for things that are beyond their control, like a mugging.) This is because the Police Services (as I have said before) are "reactive", and generally are only called after a situation has already occurred.
This is where I advocate personal defense; not just physical self defense (Although this cannot be left out should the need arise), but the knowledge and ability (assessment) to handle a situation completely to bring out the best outcome. Because we live in a society where there are criminal elements that prey on those of us that are either unsuspecting or perceived as vulnerable. I believe your personal safety, is your personal right and responsibility.
I'm proud of my son, he took appropriate measures to not escalate the situation, and took initiative to lead the mugger with a polite manner to accept what little cash they had between them. They walked out of it with a little less cash, but unhurt. This isn't always possible though, and I think it important that people know how to defend themselves to whatever point it is necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Update 11:23a.m. June 24;
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The costs of civil disobedience.
Obviously I'm not an Investigative Journalist, but certain things start to make me wonder where I might get information about certain things.
Like for example:
1.) What is the costs of extended manpower in police law enforcement after 14 weeks?
2.) What is the cost of damages to businesses through vandalism?
3.) How much have businesses lost in revenue over the 14 weeks of protests/riots?
4.) What happens to the students tuition for the term the likely won't complete?
I started wondering at costs when this article from the National Post decried warnings to the Montreal Tourist Season due to protests: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/23/montreal-tourist-season-at-risk-over-tuition-protests/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
This was also brought to attention by Brian Liley, who quoted a report from the Desjardin Bank that said if Quebec were it's own country it's Debt/GDP was listed as 5th among the world, right behind the European countries that are in economical crisis. http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/category/byline/
Which means without federal transfer payments from more prosperous regions, Quebec would be force into an extreme form of fiscal austerity.
So when you break it all down, how much did this outrageous temper tantrum actually cost the taxpayers? Because you know the bill isn't being carried by the protesters/rioters, because even some of their leaders want their rent for free.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120523/quebec-student-leader-promo-120523/
http://bit.ly/Le2tN5
Like for example:
1.) What is the costs of extended manpower in police law enforcement after 14 weeks?
2.) What is the cost of damages to businesses through vandalism?
3.) How much have businesses lost in revenue over the 14 weeks of protests/riots?
4.) What happens to the students tuition for the term the likely won't complete?
I started wondering at costs when this article from the National Post decried warnings to the Montreal Tourist Season due to protests: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/23/montreal-tourist-season-at-risk-over-tuition-protests/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
This was also brought to attention by Brian Liley, who quoted a report from the Desjardin Bank that said if Quebec were it's own country it's Debt/GDP was listed as 5th among the world, right behind the European countries that are in economical crisis. http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/category/byline/
Which means without federal transfer payments from more prosperous regions, Quebec would be force into an extreme form of fiscal austerity.
So when you break it all down, how much did this outrageous temper tantrum actually cost the taxpayers? Because you know the bill isn't being carried by the protesters/rioters, because even some of their leaders want their rent for free.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120523/quebec-student-leader-promo-120523/
http://bit.ly/Le2tN5
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Beyond reason.
Have the Student protesters/rioters gone that step which breaches reason? I would have to say that the minute violence took place they gave up any credibility, and also lost the right they claim to protest (Charter of rights and freedoms 2(c) freedom of PEACEFUL assembly.)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_2
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/05/20120520-112205.html
Yet here we are, 14 weeks into a protest which I believe the student groups had no intention of mediating an end to, with progressively increasing violence and mayhem. I'm not sure what political end game some of the students may have had, but the obvious immediate tactic was to Govern without being elected through activism and mob thuggery. Policy is made by politicians, and in a civilized society if we don't like it we vote against them in the next election. What civilized people don't do is the "lord of the flies" scenario the Quebec currently sees itself in.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/11-injured-including-4-police-officers-as-quebec-student-protest-turns-violent/article2423712/
Why? I came across an article the other day where the police were lamenting the outcomes of the 2 decision they make in a riot situation: "It is frustrating because we have tried a passive approach and had it backfire, and we have tried to jump on it quickly and then be criticized."
It seems to me that of the only 2 options, you have to choose that which has the best result with the least damage. This would say take the criticism, and take control before things get out of hand. Police will always be criticized no matter what choice they make, because someone is always going to feel like they are the "victim" if they can't do what they want.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/18/police-struggling-to-cope-with-emboldened-riot-culture-in-canada/
Jean Charest no longer has any choice in the matter: if he backs down he sets the precedent for every activist group to stage ever increasingly violent protests to get the Government to capitulate to it's will. The students have pushed as hard as they can, now it's time to "grow a pair" and show them that they don't run the Province, and that you do. Newly minted laws may seem like a good idea, but with that you have to give the authorities room to take charge of the situation. I have even advocated for Martial Law, since the rioters seem to indignantly break even the most reasonable laws.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/charest-should-not-back-down/article2433870/
Time to teach these spoiled brats that they can't get anything they want by throwing a tantrum, and do what it takes to restore order to your streets.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_2
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/05/20120520-112205.html
Yet here we are, 14 weeks into a protest which I believe the student groups had no intention of mediating an end to, with progressively increasing violence and mayhem. I'm not sure what political end game some of the students may have had, but the obvious immediate tactic was to Govern without being elected through activism and mob thuggery. Policy is made by politicians, and in a civilized society if we don't like it we vote against them in the next election. What civilized people don't do is the "lord of the flies" scenario the Quebec currently sees itself in.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/11-injured-including-4-police-officers-as-quebec-student-protest-turns-violent/article2423712/
Why? I came across an article the other day where the police were lamenting the outcomes of the 2 decision they make in a riot situation: "It is frustrating because we have tried a passive approach and had it backfire, and we have tried to jump on it quickly and then be criticized."
It seems to me that of the only 2 options, you have to choose that which has the best result with the least damage. This would say take the criticism, and take control before things get out of hand. Police will always be criticized no matter what choice they make, because someone is always going to feel like they are the "victim" if they can't do what they want.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/18/police-struggling-to-cope-with-emboldened-riot-culture-in-canada/
Jean Charest no longer has any choice in the matter: if he backs down he sets the precedent for every activist group to stage ever increasingly violent protests to get the Government to capitulate to it's will. The students have pushed as hard as they can, now it's time to "grow a pair" and show them that they don't run the Province, and that you do. Newly minted laws may seem like a good idea, but with that you have to give the authorities room to take charge of the situation. I have even advocated for Martial Law, since the rioters seem to indignantly break even the most reasonable laws.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/charest-should-not-back-down/article2433870/
Time to teach these spoiled brats that they can't get anything they want by throwing a tantrum, and do what it takes to restore order to your streets.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Letter to the editor - National Post.
The National Post published this article on May 10th, about the "National March for Life" that occurred in Ottawa. "Thousands of anti-abortion protesters shut down streets near Parliament Hill":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/10/march-for-life-2012/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I was a little annoyed at the clear bias of the writer, so I fired off a quick letter to the editor. Which went like this:
-----------------
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/10/march-for-life-2012/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I was a little annoyed at the clear bias of the writer, so I fired off a quick letter to the editor. Which went like this:
-----------------
I'm not sure how this blatantly biased
article managed to end up on your site, but I would imagine that
there were more even tempered, non biased reports that you could have
chosen from. Even if you would have edited the wording to a less
inflammatory headline, not to mention the inaccuracies in "estimated"
numbers.
Right from the start I found the
writer's bias was front and foremost with the term
"Anti-Abortionists", instead of calling it by what everyone
else knew to be the "National March for Life". This was
more than a protest against abortion, and it was disingenuous of the
writer to even suggest that was merely the point.
I delve further into the article to
find an offhand "police" estimated turnout of 15000 (less
than last year), when organizers and other media come to a record
breaking number of 19,500 (so much for fact checking.)
There is even mention of a "few
dozen" Pro-choice protesters, but they are courteously given the
"socially acceptable" moniker of "Pro-choice"
rather than a more equally inflammatory title of "Pro-Abortionists".
I think it's fair to say that there
comes with reporting a certain expectation of "Journalistic
integrity", which I found sorely lacking of Terry Pedwell and
the Canadian Press. Any editor worth his salt would have toned down
the biased rhetoric, and made this article an actual piece of
Journalism.
Sincerely
Bob Klassen
--------------------
H/T Twitter friend @AlbertaGrl and @JoanneBLY for both input and prompting me to write.
About the "March for Life" rally; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-canadian-march-for-life-smashes-previous-attendance-records-19500
Here's a pro-abortion rally: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-advocates-stage-huge-protest-with-over-50-ppl-against-pro-life-mot
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Manufactured rights vs inalienable.
A few
things have topped my thoughts in the last few days, and they are:
Human rights (conscience, thought and belief), Omar Khadr (and the
Geneva convention), and gay marriage, abortion, and feminism.
Seems like
a pretty random collection of items, but when they are put under the
initial topic of Human rights, they do all fit. Fair warning this
could be a long post, which started for me at 3:38a.m. while I was
trying to sleep.
Let's
start at the beginning with Human
Rights:
Human
rights are
commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which
a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human
being." Wikipedia.
In short as I understand them a Human right must apply to
everyone equally.
This
moves us logically on to Gay marriage, and the “right”
to it. First off it should be obvious that the “Institution” of
marriage is not a right, it is a human contrivances, not something we
were born to receive but something man has put in place therefore to
be granted by those that sanction it. This is what can be considered
a “Manufactured right”, because it applies to only a specific
(and small) group of people rather than the whole. The same can be
said for the “right” to Abortion, even more so because it
violates the Human Right to LIFE that the aborted human has
(Zygote, cluster of cells, we can try to justify it by renaming it
all we want, but there is only one thing it will ever turn out to be,
and that is a human being.)
Of
course these two items bring us to a hot button issue in the current
2012 Alberta Provincial Election, Conscience
Rights.
Here we are talking about an ACTUAL Human Right, belonging to all
people, which is trying to be superseded by the manufactured rights
of gay marriage and abortion. Wilfred Laurier said “The
rights of each man (er, and woman) end precisely at the point where
they encroach upon the rights of others”.
These are called individual rights, and to have the expectation that
others will respect yours, you have the obligation to respect
theirs. Rights must apply equally to all people, institutions man has
created should, but can not be subjected to, if they violate
another’s inalienable human rights.
Both
of these manufactured rights are part of a social re-engineering
experiment taking place in our society: we are unaware of the
consequences they yet hold, but you can be sure that in time they
will bear fruit, just as Feminism
has.
Feminism
has not stopped at women's right, but has gone beyond equal rights of
men, to the need to reduce/remove men in the lives of women.
Feminism has also left a void in society that was once filled by a
compassionate caregiver who instilled in their children a sense of
identity and belonging. This has been replaced by the emotionally
(sometimes) strong, sexually free, absentee mother role model, which
has been replaced by the entertainment industry, and peers, as the
main emotional caregiver and nurturer. We are coming upon a
generation of lost ad confused kids, and we can see that the social
experiment of Feminism may be fine for those that had what today’s
kids are missing out on, but not so fine for this generation (and
potentially worse for the next.)
I
understand that today we have many more single parents, many of which
have no choice but to work to support their children (to my dismay),
but what social re-engineering took place to cause the current state?
(Look back at the 60's and 70's and you will find your answer.)
Finally
I move on to Omar
Kadhr;
This is troubling on so many levels. I keep hearing him called a
“child soldier”, yet according to the Geneva Convention rule 136
Children MUST NOT be recruited into armed forces or armed groups.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/612-136?OpenDocument
Ok so then he wasn't a soldier at the time when he admitted to
killing a US soldier, then what was he? If not a civilian based on
his actions as a combatant by throwing a grenade, and not a soldier
according to the Geneva Convention, there is only one other option, a
Terrorist. This makes me question the insistence that the left
parties in Canada have, that he should be immediately repatriated and
incarcerated here because his “Charter Rights” were violated.
Didn't this person violate someone else's HUMAN RIGHT to life?
Human
rights, if not applied equally to all people, have no value to them.
Manufactured rights are at best social re-engineering our society,
and the courts should be forced, by responsible Government, out of this
practice.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Quebec student "strike".
The ongoing saga of the Quebec student initiative to stop the minor increase ($325/annum) in tuition rates, as set to come into place by the Charest Provincial Government, is starting to come to an uncomfortable conclusion as the term wraps up.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120417/quebec-student-tuition-protests-120417/
If the students protesting the hike don't finish their assignments, and write the final exams, they may end up losing the terms credits. Some institutions are extending the term to try to help accommodate the students in their fight.
There are numerous issues I have with the situation, and none of them are with the increase:
1. The need for an increase in tuition is inevitable, to compete properly you need good teachers, equipment, and facilities, all of which have incurred cost increases.
2. The students are customers of the service provided by the institution, and in future will benefit by the knowledge they should be willing to pay for now.
3. The same students protesting at the end of this term, may lose all the money they just spent on it to make their point. I equated this on twitter today like "Holding their collective breath till they fail out", the same way children throw a temper tantrum.
4. Quebec will still have the LOWEST tuition rates in ALL of Canada, which is now being subsidized by federal transfers, in effect having the productive portions of Canada paying for their cheap costs.
5. The "Strike" has been alienating those very taxpayers that help fund low tuition within Quebec, who are suffering from loss of revenue due to obstruction and vandalism.
6. The "Strikers" have alienated the rest of Canada by showing us an unprecedented level of entitlement that could have only come from Quebec.
Just to name a few.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120417/quebec-student-tuition-protests-120417/
If the students protesting the hike don't finish their assignments, and write the final exams, they may end up losing the terms credits. Some institutions are extending the term to try to help accommodate the students in their fight.
There are numerous issues I have with the situation, and none of them are with the increase:
1. The need for an increase in tuition is inevitable, to compete properly you need good teachers, equipment, and facilities, all of which have incurred cost increases.
2. The students are customers of the service provided by the institution, and in future will benefit by the knowledge they should be willing to pay for now.
3. The same students protesting at the end of this term, may lose all the money they just spent on it to make their point. I equated this on twitter today like "Holding their collective breath till they fail out", the same way children throw a temper tantrum.
4. Quebec will still have the LOWEST tuition rates in ALL of Canada, which is now being subsidized by federal transfers, in effect having the productive portions of Canada paying for their cheap costs.
5. The "Strike" has been alienating those very taxpayers that help fund low tuition within Quebec, who are suffering from loss of revenue due to obstruction and vandalism.
6. The "Strikers" have alienated the rest of Canada by showing us an unprecedented level of entitlement that could have only come from Quebec.
Just to name a few.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Redefinition of Rights.
I'm a law and order guy, I live trying
to follow all the rules of society. I take issue however at some of
the laws/law enforcement agencies that have been infringing on one of
our inalienable Human Rights. By this I am referring to the specific
right of self preservation, or self defense. Now I see this as an
obviously inalienable right, but apparently the courts and justice
system has begun to decide that if you fight back you will be charged
with a crime. What the hell kind of nonsense crap is that?
One thing we are born with is the will
to fight to survive; no matter what outlook you take on Human
development, the one thing that stands true is that we all fight to
survive (whether physically or emotionally). It's in our DNA, the
will to survive has pushed people to do incredible things just to
remain so. Take the young hiker/rock climber Aron Ralston, who cut
off his own arm to survive after being trapped in a canyon. These
are the instincts we are born with, FIGHT TO SURVIVE. This works the
same in the case of self defense, you do what is necessary to make
the situation safe for you and yours.
Take for example the late night
firebombing of Ian Thomson's home. After the attack began Ian, who
was fortunate enough to have a firearm, took his weapon out and
scared the attackers off by discharging it without harming the people
that were trying to burn down his home with his wife and himself
STILL INSIDE! Yet the police charged HIM with “careless use of a
firearm”. He has now been tied up in court for 6 years for
appropriately using HIS INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to defend himself! I
credit Mr. Thomson for his self control, because I feel he was
justified in aiming directly at his ATTACKERS.
Let's talk about a restaurant owner
more recently, who was charged after defending himself with a
broomstick and some SPICES! After having multiple items stolen, in
multiple instances, Mr Polapady fought back when he caught a thief in
the act. However the police decided to victimize him further by
charging him with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon,
and the coup de grace “Administering a Noxious substance” (which
can have a jail term of 14 years). Let's bear in mind that his wife
and kids were just upstairs, and his thoughts were of protecting his
family and property.
So here's the question; When you are
being attacked by another person, how is it “against the law” to
fight back?
This in itself pits those that are law
abiding AGAINST the LAW, by criminalizing THE VICTIM! How does this
make any sense? How has this been allowed to happen? In a society
that is all about making new rights for everything, how the hell are
they allowing the degradation of a most basic and fundamentally
inalienable right?
It makes no sense that a society based
on the rule of law would subject victims to even more abuse by laying
charges, on top of suffering from criminal activities. The very
thought of it suggests our law enforcement are no better than the
thugs they are supposed to be there to protect us from.
I don't put that last statement out
there lightly either, because I have an enormous amount of respect
for the men and women of law enforcement that put themselves on the
front line for the safety of others. However I think they have also
forgotten that people can, will, and should protect themselves if it
is required, because waiting for the police is not always an option.
A few links for interests sake;
The Constitution act 1867: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/PRINT_E.PDF
The Constitution act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-11.html#sc:7:s_1
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/
Canadian Constitution Foundation: http://constitutionday.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Curriculum.pdf
A few links for interests sake;
The Constitution act 1867: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/PRINT_E.PDF
The Constitution act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-11.html#sc:7:s_1
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/
Canadian Constitution Foundation: http://constitutionday.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Curriculum.pdf
Saturday, April 07, 2012
The Modern protester.
Protests use to be held for "free love", and "Integration". Now they consist of "Free condoms", "Free money" (While drinking the "we are the 99% Kool-aid"), and basically "Free University"!
See the difference?
Free birth control; If you go before congress in the US and say you need $6000 a year for birth control, you might be a liberal (or a ______).
Free money; Protesting all the while in $150 nike shoes, and checking facebook on an iPhone.
And lastly Free University; Quebec has the lowest costs for tuition in the Country, yet it is the ONLY Province to have a mass student uproar over a less than $400 a year increase (over 5 years). I guess the only real culture in Quebec is one of entitlement.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Robocalls after the hype.
It appears today that The Chief Electoral Officer from Elections Canada has made a statement on the issue. Here is the letter from Him: CBC Chief Electoral Officers statement.
So it turns out that crack investigative Journalists who broke this "greatest election fraud in history" story; "Robocalls probe centres on disposable 'burner' cellphone linked to black ops in Guelph riding." May have jumped the gun.
As it turns out, The Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer said "Immediately following the 2011 general election, the Commissioner of Canada Elections deployed resources to investigate complaints of fraudulent or improper calls. Since then, over 700 Canadians from across the country have informed us of specific circumstances where they believe similar wrongdoing took place". This is a far cry from the media hyped number of 31000 which was solicited by The Globe and Mail, and Lead now's website.
Apparently even 700 calls is too many for some people like CBC's Kady O'Malley, but at the same time for others it is smack in the middle of the average.
H/T Stephen Taylor
I did a little quick math after this broke this afternoon, where I calculated the difference and the results.
31000 (Lead now is now claiming over 41000) - 700 = 30300 ROBOSPAM.
700 robocalls at lets say .05 cents (double the bulk as I couldn't find an actual cost, except for HERE. Racknine's site did not seem to have the available info HERE.) would run $35. Not 3500, just THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS. Even if it was $100 this could EASILY have been a rogue individual, who could have done it for ANY reason! As opposed to claims of the "Anonymous" source by Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher in this article; "Unlikely a Tory staffer could have acted alone in Pierre Poutine scam: source"
That's what broke today.
So it turns out that crack investigative Journalists who broke this "greatest election fraud in history" story; "Robocalls probe centres on disposable 'burner' cellphone linked to black ops in Guelph riding." May have jumped the gun.
As it turns out, The Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer said "Immediately following the 2011 general election, the Commissioner of Canada Elections deployed resources to investigate complaints of fraudulent or improper calls. Since then, over 700 Canadians from across the country have informed us of specific circumstances where they believe similar wrongdoing took place". This is a far cry from the media hyped number of 31000 which was solicited by The Globe and Mail, and Lead now's website.
Apparently even 700 calls is too many for some people like CBC's Kady O'Malley, but at the same time for others it is smack in the middle of the average.
I did a little quick math after this broke this afternoon, where I calculated the difference and the results.
31000 (Lead now is now claiming over 41000) - 700 = 30300 ROBOSPAM.
700 robocalls at lets say .05 cents (double the bulk as I couldn't find an actual cost, except for HERE. Racknine's site did not seem to have the available info HERE.) would run $35. Not 3500, just THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS. Even if it was $100 this could EASILY have been a rogue individual, who could have done it for ANY reason! As opposed to claims of the "Anonymous" source by Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher in this article; "Unlikely a Tory staffer could have acted alone in Pierre Poutine scam: source"
That's what broke today.
Democracy; What's good, is also what's bad about it.
What makes democracies so great is the ability of the will of the people to change that which is unjust. By this I mean Protests for the common good (ie: intergration.). What makes democracies bad is the perversion of protests by lobbyists and activists, who are only interested in getting their way (ie: Quebec students protest tuition increase, and Leadnow's attack to overturn a valid election.)
Taking the 2 examples I give;
1. The student's are mad that they will have to pay more for schooling. Understandable, yet at the same time the costs incurred with providing that education must be adequately covered as well. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/07/student-protest-montreal.html
2. The robocalls scandal has shown a vast separation between even the centralized Tory government and the radical nature of the Left, leading to the media acting as lobbyists/activists on their behalf. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/unlikely-a-tory-staffer-could-have-acted-alone-in-pierre-poutine-scam-source/
Now I'm not saying there aren't justifiable reasons to remove a Government from power, but to do so when that Government is actually accomplishing positive goals for a Country shows an ideological desire for power, rather than overall social well being and justice. I also agree that there are times, and ideas, where University students have change the course of countries with positive results. But that is less and less the case when you live in a Country like Canada, which has all the benefits it does to offer. Protests and activism have become about getting your way, not making life better for everyone.
The same thing that makes our democracy great, can be perverted to make it all about self.
Taking the 2 examples I give;
1. The student's are mad that they will have to pay more for schooling. Understandable, yet at the same time the costs incurred with providing that education must be adequately covered as well. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/07/student-protest-montreal.html
2. The robocalls scandal has shown a vast separation between even the centralized Tory government and the radical nature of the Left, leading to the media acting as lobbyists/activists on their behalf. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/unlikely-a-tory-staffer-could-have-acted-alone-in-pierre-poutine-scam-source/
Now I'm not saying there aren't justifiable reasons to remove a Government from power, but to do so when that Government is actually accomplishing positive goals for a Country shows an ideological desire for power, rather than overall social well being and justice. I also agree that there are times, and ideas, where University students have change the course of countries with positive results. But that is less and less the case when you live in a Country like Canada, which has all the benefits it does to offer. Protests and activism have become about getting your way, not making life better for everyone.
The same thing that makes our democracy great, can be perverted to make it all about self.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
How Robocalls play out in the HOC.
I was thinking about how the robocall affair has been playing out in the house of commons this morning. I find the narrative goes something like this:
Oppositions; "AHA GOTCHA!!"
Government; "Got us doing what, when, where?"
Oppositions; "You tell us!!"
Government; "Well we know that Frank Valeriote broke Election Canada rules, and how about Adam Carroll, will the Parliamentary hearings ever get to interview him?"
Oppositions; "BUT, BUT YOU ARE EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!
It appears though that illegal tactics are not limited to the "Evil Conservatives", as has been shown by Vikileaks, and admissions of guilt by Frank Valeriote and Bob Rae themselves about robocalls in Guelph.
Now we find out that there may be illegal activities on the part of the NDP in an ethnic riding in Toronto. The CBC tells how both Conservative and Liberal complaints have been "brushed off" by Elections Canada, who should now find themselves under investigations of impropriety. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/13/voting-scarborough.html?cmp=rss
Oppositions; "AHA GOTCHA!!"
Government; "Got us doing what, when, where?"
Oppositions; "You tell us!!"
Government; "Well we know that Frank Valeriote broke Election Canada rules, and how about Adam Carroll, will the Parliamentary hearings ever get to interview him?"
Oppositions; "BUT, BUT YOU ARE EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!
It appears though that illegal tactics are not limited to the "Evil Conservatives", as has been shown by Vikileaks, and admissions of guilt by Frank Valeriote and Bob Rae themselves about robocalls in Guelph.
Now we find out that there may be illegal activities on the part of the NDP in an ethnic riding in Toronto. The CBC tells how both Conservative and Liberal complaints have been "brushed off" by Elections Canada, who should now find themselves under investigations of impropriety. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/13/voting-scarborough.html?cmp=rss
Friday, March 09, 2012
What caught my interest:
March 9, 2012.
Here are my 3 top tweets today:
If there is pre-election complaint of voter suppression against the Tories, will EC broaden it's investigation? http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/09/tory-campaign-worker-in-guelph-tweeted-robocall-warning-two-days-before-election/
@SunNewsNetwork: DISGUSTING: Child molester fights deportation to Iraq. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/03/20120309-095101.html
Citizen's arrest is not vigilantism. Especially if Police refuse to act on your behalf. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/08/vigilante-speaks-out-about-confronting-vandals
Here are my 3 top tweets today:
If there is pre-election complaint of voter suppression against the Tories, will EC broaden it's investigation? http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/09/tory-campaign-worker-in-guelph-tweeted-robocall-warning-two-days-before-election/
Citizen's arrest is not vigilantism. Especially if Police refuse to act on your behalf. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/08/vigilante-speaks-out-about-confronting-vandals
Thursday, March 08, 2012
What caught my interest March 8, 2012.
A lot less about Robo-calls, but let's start off with the latest about Elections Canada.
Elections Canada has a fair amount to answer to, especially after reading the ATIP that was presented to start the Robo-smear. The latest buzz is how non registered voters were allowed to vote without giving an address. With the amount of Elections Canada mistakes coming to light it begs two questions; 1. If they can't manage the Electoral powers they have now, why would they even want more? 2. Why isn't there an investigation into Elections Canada in regards to all the screw ups?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/08/voting-irregularities-marred-toronto-area-vote-in-federal-election-report/
Next we head to Quebec, where University students took to the streets to protest an increase in their tuition (which currently stands alone as the lowest in Canada.) However the demonstration turned towards violence when police were targeted with snowballs, and respond with force to break up the crowd. I feel that once any object is thrown at law enforcement, they must take every step possible to disperse the crowd prior to further escalation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/08/montreal-student-protest-eye.html
More pictures and info here;
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/photos-montreal-students-clash-with-riot-police-in-tuition-protest/
On to the separatist that will live off Canada for the rest of his life, National "Teddy" winner Gilles Duceppe! I can't even comment much here, because instead of being charged with his treason, he gets a fat Canada pension.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/07/duceppe-wins-national-waste-award
Finally I move to something that bothers me more deeply than anything else. In BC a member of our armed forces was attacked, his neck was slashed, waiting for a bus. This bothers me for a couple of reasons; 1. Our armed forces are generally peacekeepers, and the ideological mentality that would make someone perpetrate violence against any of our defenders of freedom show a sickness of the anti military viewpoint. 2. That this offender will be afforded the freedoms the victim has chosen to defend.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=12818bf7-d022-4e14-aed9-cdde1d578a0f
Elections Canada has a fair amount to answer to, especially after reading the ATIP that was presented to start the Robo-smear. The latest buzz is how non registered voters were allowed to vote without giving an address. With the amount of Elections Canada mistakes coming to light it begs two questions; 1. If they can't manage the Electoral powers they have now, why would they even want more? 2. Why isn't there an investigation into Elections Canada in regards to all the screw ups?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/08/voting-irregularities-marred-toronto-area-vote-in-federal-election-report/
Next we head to Quebec, where University students took to the streets to protest an increase in their tuition (which currently stands alone as the lowest in Canada.) However the demonstration turned towards violence when police were targeted with snowballs, and respond with force to break up the crowd. I feel that once any object is thrown at law enforcement, they must take every step possible to disperse the crowd prior to further escalation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/08/montreal-student-protest-eye.html
More pictures and info here;
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/photos-montreal-students-clash-with-riot-police-in-tuition-protest/
On to the separatist that will live off Canada for the rest of his life, National "Teddy" winner Gilles Duceppe! I can't even comment much here, because instead of being charged with his treason, he gets a fat Canada pension.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/07/duceppe-wins-national-waste-award
Finally I move to something that bothers me more deeply than anything else. In BC a member of our armed forces was attacked, his neck was slashed, waiting for a bus. This bothers me for a couple of reasons; 1. Our armed forces are generally peacekeepers, and the ideological mentality that would make someone perpetrate violence against any of our defenders of freedom show a sickness of the anti military viewpoint. 2. That this offender will be afforded the freedoms the victim has chosen to defend.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=12818bf7-d022-4e14-aed9-cdde1d578a0f
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
So many good blogs.
There are so many good blogs out there that give balance to the current, predominantly liberally, biased media. I just thought I would mention a few here, that stand up for truth in news rather than the one sided, half information you are probably getting now.
The first alternative isn't even a blog, but an (admittedly) right wing news station. When you watch Sun News, at least you know what to expect, unlike the Main Stream Media that actually thinks it has no bias.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/home.html
The first alternative isn't even a blog, but an (admittedly) right wing news station. When you watch Sun News, at least you know what to expect, unlike the Main Stream Media that actually thinks it has no bias.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/home.html
Here are just a few blogs that I regularly follow to balance my "news" diet;
Brian Lilley (Sun News): http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/
Russ Cambell: http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/
Stephen Taylor: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/
Moose and Squirrel: http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/
BC blue: http://bcblue.wordpress.com/
Small dead animals: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
Crux of the matter: http://crux-of-the-matter.com/
CAW workers voice of reason: http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/
There is a whole list of Conservative bloggers that can be found at;
Blogging Tories: http://www.bloggingtories.ca/
What caught my interest, March 7, 2012.
Law and health care always attract interest from me, and today I came across a couple of each.
Health;
The tragic story of a woman discharge at 11p.m. from a hospital in Manitoba, who died as she reached her front door; http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/calls-for-inquest-into-post-er-death-141718033.html
Saskatchewan is looking for immigrants with skills, yet Doctors are unable to find any jobs? And yes we absolutely have a shortage of them: http://www.globalregina.com/doctors+having+trouble+immigrating+to+saskatchewan/6442595683/story.html
Law;
Police defend issuance of cell phone ticket to an elderly man who claims he doesn't own one. I am absolutely behind the law, but if the officer thought he saw something that wasn't, it will give weight to the "the officer was mistaken" defense: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/police-defend-issuing-of-ticket-141718633.html
Protection of property. When you put up with crap from punks, you should NOT be the one charged! http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/06/senior-in-court-for-bringing-vandal-to-rcmp
Weather:
Saskatoon got hit by a blizzard in the past day or two, hopefully as the old adage goes "In like a lion, out like a lamb."; http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Photos+Winter+blast+hits+Saskatoon/6258212/story.html
And so far today, I have yet to see one Robo-story.
Health;
The tragic story of a woman discharge at 11p.m. from a hospital in Manitoba, who died as she reached her front door; http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/calls-for-inquest-into-post-er-death-141718033.html
Saskatchewan is looking for immigrants with skills, yet Doctors are unable to find any jobs? And yes we absolutely have a shortage of them: http://www.globalregina.com/doctors+having+trouble+immigrating+to+saskatchewan/6442595683/story.html
Law;
Police defend issuance of cell phone ticket to an elderly man who claims he doesn't own one. I am absolutely behind the law, but if the officer thought he saw something that wasn't, it will give weight to the "the officer was mistaken" defense: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/police-defend-issuing-of-ticket-141718633.html
Protection of property. When you put up with crap from punks, you should NOT be the one charged! http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/06/senior-in-court-for-bringing-vandal-to-rcmp
Weather:
Saskatoon got hit by a blizzard in the past day or two, hopefully as the old adage goes "In like a lion, out like a lamb."; http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Photos+Winter+blast+hits+Saskatoon/6258212/story.html
And so far today, I have yet to see one Robo-story.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Behind the Robocall movement.
I
think the most disturbing aspects of this article at
Canoe News are 1. “organized by some of last fall's Occupy Ottawa
ringleaders” and 2. “Neither Elections Canada nor the RCMP could
say whether they'd received any of the online petitions.”
Now
I can attribute the second aspect to the fact that it is an ongoing
investigation and protocol more than likely dictates this, even
though I don't see a conflict with admitting where you are getting
you information (especially if the information could be deemed
inflammatory, incomplete, or even incorrect. Ie: from a site like
Leadnow.ca which has been actively soliciting complaints.)
I
attribute the first to the nature of the robocall scandal itself. The
disenfranchised Left which seems unable to concede that the
Conservatives have a Majority Government. Of course they are being
spurred on by the fact that the Tories are trying to achieve their
goals in the House of Commons, and have cut debate at times (to
prevent the never ending repetition of the Opposition.)
I
was once again surprised at a Globe and Mail piece that points out
the ridiculousness of the Faux robo-call scandal. Margaret Went's
editors must be seething to run “Robo-calls? Get a grip. We'reCanadian”.
Brian Lilley gives us the lowdown on the background of some of the members of Lead Now in his Blog. And at Sun News Network in this Video.
Brian Lilley gives us the lowdown on the background of some of the members of Lead Now in his Blog. And at Sun News Network in this Video.
Monday, March 05, 2012
The Globe and Mail concedes:
Something
I usually don't do is post many articles from the far left media The
Globe and Mail, however 3 of today's articles seem to be almost a
precursor to retracting their past rhetoric on Robocalls.
In
the first article: "The
case against a Conservative conspiracy", aside from the
possibility of a training school staffer accidentally misspeaking
with a hypothetical “You didn’t hear this from me, but here’s
one thing you could do…” However they concede (unlike the Liberal
party has been able to do, even after Vikileaks), “But a vast
Conservative conspiracy to steal the general election? No.” Which
is a far cry from how they have been misrepresenting the situation
thus far, highlighted by their article soliciting complaints.
In
the second article: “If
robo-calls were meant to keep voters away, they failed miserably”,
they go so far as to concede “It seems very unlikely that these
alleged tactics greatly influenced the results of the 2011 election.”
In
the third article: “Tory
support steady despite robo-call,e-snooping uproars: poll”,
they have assessed the damage that these scandals have had on voter
support, which has been none. Nick Nano's correctly assesses that “I
think for many average Canadians who are very cynical, they find it
hard to believe that politics of any colour is ethical,”. Although
I myself would go a step further, and I would say that the
Conservative base remains unchanged because they generally agree with
rule of law, which is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Which is
something the rhetoric against the Tories as a whole has failed to
do. I am concerned at the increase of support for the Liberals
though, especially after Vikileaks was shown to be of their party's
invention. (Whether the Leader knew or not, you have to wonder if
Adam Carroll was the scapegoat for an MP.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)