Descent into madness...ISIS needs to disappear.

Killing an innocent bound man, without the means to defend himself, is the bitter end of sanity.  There must be no end unless everyone of those rabid dogs is hunted down and slaughtered.  Savagery deserves no more than savagery. 

Conservatives would rather pay lawyers than veterans

The Conservative government says that they support veterans but their actions show they would rather pay lawyers to fight a class action lawsuit from 7 veterans than pay each of them $100,000.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-spent-694k-in-legal-fight-against-veterans-1.2209816

Fantino claimed,  "There are “real” and “meaningful” programs to help veterans and returning soldiers. On this side of the house, we deliver to our veterans,” he said during question period.

The government made sure the costing for $700,000 came from Justice Department rather than Veterans Affairs. 


And this is who they are fighting:

 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/disabled-war-vet-calls-class-action-against-gov-t-the-biggest-battle-of-his-life-1.2131341

Major Mark Campbell was lying in a hospital bed, just starting to comprehend losing both his legs above the knees in a Taliban ambush, when he found out the federal government had stripped his lifetime military pension.
"I expected to just move off into the twilight and retire, but unfortunately it's just like the cliche out of a Hollywood movie," said the Edmonton man, describing the conclusion to 33-years of service after a final tour in Afghanistan.
"I come home and I find that, honestly, the biggest battle I've ever faced in my entire life is here at home against my very own government."

...

Campbell, who also lost a testicle, ruptured his eardrum and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, said he has been stripped of benefits amounting to about $35,000 -- a plight he would have avoided if not for accepting a second call to duty in Afghanistan. His lower body was decimated by the blast of an improvised explosive device while his team rescued another injured Canadian.

This soldier volunteered for a mission when he could have taken his pension and retired.  Instead, he risked his life and was punished for it.

Why would soldiers join up for unlimited liability? Why would they volunteer for missions that risk their life for volunteer operations overseas? They are making it too costly down the road in case we need people to sacrifice for the country.

Instead, they gave the money to lawyers...

Science is cool, even failed science

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/British-Secret-Wartime-Follies-2x-1.gif

From the Wired article: This rocket-fired bomb was supposed to cruise up the beach and blow up Normandy fortifications...what could possibly go wrong?

Still, the fact is science gives us the tools to try crazy things....

My fondess for Key & Peele

I must express my fondness for the comedy show Key & Peele.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/KeyPeele

When they were on Mad TV, I'm not sure they were able to perform at their peak, now there is no limit to their subtle, nuanced, and satirical comedy.

Bill Maher is very clear about what he states.

Bill Maher is in hot water for his comparison of American Sniper to The Hurt Locker and how that was misunderstood.  Bill Maher described the movie about Chris Kyle, American Sniper, not the person Chris Kyle, it's" just ...American hero,... he's a psychopath patriot and we love him"...

Watch the video before you jump to a conclusion:

He read some quotes from Chris Kyle.  Which tend to support his claim.

psychopath (plural psychopaths)

1. A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness, arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility, callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses.
2. A person diagnosed with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.
3. A person who has no moral conscience.
4. A person who perpetrates especially gruesome or bizarre violent acts.

Chris Kyle, the soldier did become callous - with a lack of empathy for his foes. No one would argue that his sympathy would lie with his comrades. He was willing to shoot people at distance to save his comrades.


But people are not listening, he's commenting on the willingness of the people to support a movie ABOUT a psychopathic killer,  who doesn't seem Christian, than a movie ABOUT an Explosives Ordnance Disposal technician because of the oversimplification.

They are clouding a supposed attack on Chris Kyle the man, when he was in fact dismayed at the American people.


Now the people that can't see the subtlety of what Bill Maher claimed, like Breitbart need to hit the emotional reset button and understand what he said. Or they can go on getting mad at the wrong thing.

A damning rebuke of philosophers, if true....

https://plus.google.com/114461232517824276306/posts/gsNz9MK4p5k

John Kerry: You can't separate religious adherents, they are part of a continuum.

I understand the strategic significance of saying you are not attacking all Muslims, just bad Muslims.  Your attempt to corner the extremists is noble.

However; you can't separate the good adherents from the bad adherents in a religion. 

It is not a question of uniqueness, it is a question of interpretation.  A religious belief system is packed with all kinds of non-sequitur. Many codes and interpretations.  To agree with some of it is to agree with the whole system.  There may be parts you agree more with, and some you would be willing to act on then you are an adherent. The amount and gravity of them depends on your willingness to believe in them. Not whether or not you are in the religion or not.

Islamic extremists are Islam adherents, you can't unpack them from the religion. 

We should not be polite with Islam, we should point out the belief system is part of the problem and reforming that must be part of the solution.

If all your religion can demonstrate is cutting off innocent people's heads...

then you really don't have much to offer, do you?

This is why science is cool; automatic braking to save lives.

Long before cars are autonomous, they will be able to brake to avoid an accident.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends automatic braking in new cars.

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

 "The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash."

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

This means that the technology behind this, sensors that track distance to objects have become so reliable and so cheap that it makes sense to recommend them.

Stopping accidents before they happen will save thousands of lives a year.  This is why science is cool.

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

The agency plans to add crash-imminent braking and dynamic brake support to its recommendations. Crash-imminent braking automatically stops a car if sensors detect a possible crash, while dynamic braking adds force to the brakes if the driver isn't pressing hard enough to avoid a crash.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-govt-emergency-features-safety-device.html#jCp

America: The Schizophrenic Empire - Expansionist / Isolationist

Text from President Obama's speech:

"
America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this:

The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.
At this moment – with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production – we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth. It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next fifteen years, and for decades to come.
Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?

Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?
Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another – or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/full-speech-barack-obama-s-state-of-the-union-address-1.2198275#ixzz3PYTEm5kg"

"

America's state, if I could summarize it as a state space system, oscillates between the two extreme conditions:  Expansionist, then isolationist.

It takes on the demeanor of an empire, pushing troops around and propping up friendly causes up to some theoretical and unseen limit.  Perhaps economic limit. They motivate other peoples to join it and move towards a common cause.

Then, as if by chance, it oscillates back to the other extreme and pulls away: disengages and avoids the very same provocations that caused wars only years earlier.  This leaves allies out in the cold, perhaps at the most inconvenient timing.

The behavior is predictable, but the timing is not.  This schizophrenia gives America's allies great confusion and concern. It is a reason why they can't seem to get ahead for all the blood, and treasure they spill.

A Hitler reference that goes too far.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/lutz-bachman-german-anti-islamization-leader-resigns-over-hitler-pose-1.2921647

You would think that a German, of all people, would understand the world-wide perception / interpretation of a German person photographed with a "Hitler" mustache. 

It wouldn't matter if the cause was free kittens for homeless children. If a German wears that mustache it voids any and all credibility.

ISIS does not recognize any nation, any rights, any freedom.

The caliphate doesn't recognize any nation, group, or ideology other than wahabism, militant extremist Islam.  We are all cattle, ready for death at their whim.

No one will be safe, no one is out of bounds. No one should deal with them.

They must be eliminated.

Islam cannot be saved

There is nothing salvageable in the Islam belief system.

It doesn't matter what are the rules of Islam as apologists explain, it doesn't matter what the Muslim majority does.  The entire system is based on the words of a brigand.  It can claim to be peaceful, but when those that choose to pervert - or some would say interpret faithfully - the rules of Islam they demonstrate the entire system is arbitrary and dangerous for all mankind.  Islam cannot be saved.

No idea is above reproach, beyond criticism

Religious people would like if it you end your rights at the doorsteps of religion.

Pope wants protection of religion from criticism

If anyone can revenge your criticism, then where does it end?

I think pink is evil, you are wearing a pink shirt and you pull out your gun and shoot me?

Religions all cover for each other, all of them can't stand scrutiny so they are in league to squash debate, to censure criticism.  That is how a Catholic can justify for Islam.  They all make their money the same way. They all abuse their followers using the same tricks.

Here is the reality, if you question someone about their religion and they believe in that nonsense, then they get angry because they think you are mocking what they think. You are criticizing them through their beliefs. When people get angry it hides their ego from criticism because it's now about anger than thought. They stop thinking. 

So, the Pope wants you not to anger religious people because they will react in an emotional and unmeasured way. 

He wants to keep milking them, not make them angry and unpredictable.  Religious people want to keep the status quo, keep docile mollified slaves but not angry ones.

Society cannot function better if we let people act or think without criticism.

Glib emotionalism from an intellectual midget.

Randy Weber, you embody all that is wrong in American politics. Your glib emotionalism is what makes it hard to participate in democracy.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republican-congressman-compares-obama-to-hitler-in-tweet-1.2186129

Your president is a busy man, and there are not enough hours in the day. There are real safety concerns if the US president goes to France for a rally; it would make that rally more of a target for the next set of sleeper agents, not less. I doubt he even made the decision. His security probably said, we can't protect him so he's not going.

Frank Weber, you don't even know how wrong your comparison of Obama to Hitler is.

Hitler went to Paris not just to gloat over winning, and to rub French faces in the treaty of Versailles. Hitler was a corporal in WWI.  He went to Paris because he had a deep investment as a former soldier that spat blood in the trenches, and comforted dying comrades. The humiliated and beaten German nation overcame the rest of Europe.  Frankly, Hitler deserved to go to Paris. It was a crowning achievement after a significant victory. All his troops wanted to see their leader stroll under the Champs Elysee. It meant something to the resurgent German people. So it meant entirely more to Hitler than Obama. But that was never the point.

And how does that compare in any way to a freedom march?


Frank Weber, just because you compare someone to Hitler does not make you right and it certainly doesn't make you smart. It makes you an emotional manipulator that can't make an argument without invoking nonsense. Or Hitler.

Desperate people turn to desperate fixes

Hello Daniel Voisin posted this response to my Bill Maher blog;

I spent the time reading every line of that poll a few months ago when Harris wheeled it out. For example the part on suicide bombing says:

Many Muslims express concern about religious extremist groups operating in their country. On balance, more Muslims are concerned about Islamic than Christian extremist groups. And while the vast majority of Muslims in most countries say suicide bombing is rarely or never justified to defend Islam against its enemies, substantial minorities in a few countries consider such violence justifiable in at least some circumstances.

That minority happens to live in and around Palestine. So asking that question to them is really asking them if they think suicide bombing is justified in the fight for Palestine.

Just as if you go further to the part about sharia you'll see support correlates directly to the preexisting legal system on the country. In these cases the question from their perspective would be asking if they thought their current legal system should remain.

You're right that they are essentially living like it was two hundred years ago though. Afghanistan particularly. But why?

Religion isn't a sufficient answer. During the seventies Afghanistan was a highly educated country. So educated in fact that the people started to push for modernisation, secularism, and, this is critical, socialism. Same thing happened in Iran.

And the result? America and Saudi Arabia, both ideologically opposed to the idea of a strong and educated people unwillingly to accept a top heavy distribution of wealth or an aristocracy, toppled the governments and helped install ultra conservative theocracies.

Now maybe an argument could be made that allowing socialism to fester might have lead to a too powerful Russia, however even at that time the USSR was in steep decline. A fact barely acknowledge by political elites that had a vested interest in keeping a cold war and their weapons factories running.

See I believe that he is reading way too much into geopolitical machinations at the top level and not enough bottom up observation of the people on the ground.  Afghanistan was once a modern society, then they got invaded and entered a miserable 30 years slide into backwards times.

Daniel posits that it's the long game strategy of Saudi Arabia and the USA.  To the extent that USA wanted to sucker punch the Soviet Union to repay all the weapons and support to Vietnam, I agree with that.  But no farther.

But I would argue it's far simpler than this:

When a wild animal is coming at you and you don't have a knife to defend yourself, you pick up a rock.  

Desperate humans turn to desperate fixes.  If you are holding a gun when the lion attacks, you raise your arm and fell the beast. It's startling but you are not in mortal danger.

But if you are left with a knife you will get wounded, you will need to perservere but you will eventually slay that beast.

But, in the worst of conditions, you are left with options so ineffective that it is all you can do to summon your inner cave man and fight to the death. You must become as savage as your foe. You must lose blood and continue the struggle. There is only one way out and it's not pretty.

We, civilization, left modern Afghanistan out in the woods with a rock, against the tank columns of the Soviet Army. So how can we expect anything but the savagery that came next?

Desperate people turn to whatever silly nonsense that girds their courage to face another day with an unstoppable enemy. If that's believing there's an imaginary friend in the sky looking out for you and your family, and it helps you win that day then who can judge that?

There are no atheists in the foxholes is a WWII expression. Everyone is begging Jesus to help out, just this once. How can we condemn them for leaving civilization's path?

Soldiers come back from over there with stress reactions to things most civilians don't even consider.  Why? Because they know that crack sounds like a bullet meant for them.  And they respond in the way that kept them safe. 


So the aftermath is a people that can be influenced by the only comfort that they had in a war zone that was their home. And so if you don't have an army to help you terrorize the people the same way you did when the Soviets were there. You make them cooperate and use god as a weapon.  If you don't have power and want it, you manipulate your fellow man to get it or die trying.

Use Strunk & White English

Any engineer that writes flowery, decorated, run-on sentence English should be struck about the neck and shoulders with a bag of excess words from his/her work.

Use Strunk & White's English from The Elements of Style instead. 

Here is one of the rules from The Elements of Style :

Omit unnecessary words.

That's it.  Three words with clear intent and clear scope. Unambiguous.


That's how all writing should be.

It takes more money in effort to debug flowery run-on English.  If I was a business man, I would buy a $10 copy of The Elements of Style for every employee and save $1000's in engineer time. 

Bill Maher is not outrageous, the media's denial about Islam is.

www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/10/pkg-orig-maher-controversial-response-france-attacks-charlie-hebdo.cnn/video/playlists/charlie-hebdo/

CNN makes a living covering terrorist attacks. Bill Maher makes a living pointing out the humor and nonsense in daily life.  Bill Maher read the polls of Muslims that support a lot of the actions of terrorists on nonbelievers as acceptable. Then he pointed it out. CNN calls his comments controversial.

What's controversial is CNN's denial of the obvious.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Looking at the Pew Poll:

 Let's add some of those numbers:

40% of Afghanistan  0.4* 31 million =  12.4 million
40% of Palestinian Territories = 0.4 * 4.5 million = 1.8 million
26 % of Bangladesh  = 0.26 * 156,594,962 = 40.7 million
18% of Malaysia = 0.18 * 30,417,000 = 5 million

I've just shown the first 60 million plus people that think suicide bombers are justified in certain circumstances.  I didn't look too hard, I didn't go too far.

So what's controversial is not Bill Maher, it's the media that will spend hours repeating the same things over and over, but won't pick up a calculator and find out.

This belief system in Islam is why we believe that Islam is the biggest problem religion.

This is how a religion starts....

If Richard Dawkins does not change course, especially the cabal around him, then he will become what he beheld.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/

Islam is the biggest religious problem

Like this cave, Islam hasn't changed much in a millenium.  Islam, the belief system, is contrary to most common modern cultures, standards, and national laws. When considering the most extreme version there is much for society to be concerned about.  Islam has a pernicious set of rules that dehumanize non-believers. This is a real reason for concern as we try to move towards globalization.

It was a religion started from a cult of personality of a local brigand. The claims are no more credible than the Bible. It preaches intolerance and apostasy.  No more, no less.

There is no need to rush to political correctness and claim we are all the same.  That sort of knee-jerk plurality is not what radical Islam would allow everyone else.  Radical Islam are merciless towards any other dogma.  They are even merciless to Islamic people they believe are not extremely faithful.

In comparison, there are no Buddhist death squads.  Radical jihadis justify their actions as approved by god based on the rulebooks they read. And by their rules, they are correct. 

For anyone that thinks we can ignore it as a cause of problems, then consider what that means.  It means letting the people that are under the spell of Islam continue to follow a fallacy and perpetuate more radicals. It means letting moderate Muslims excusing the bad behaviour of the radical jihadists.  It means people living around them have to live in fear of continued violence with no reason.

The biggest problem with Islam is the moderate majority is cowed to submission by the radical elements for fear of retribution. It means that Islamic nations can be governed by religious leaders. It means Muslims can be forced out of pluralistic society and into fascist regimes.  The caliphate is a fascist religious regime.  That reality makes it more dangerous than Christianity.

This is not the same with Christianity, where most people ignore the Pope and ignore the extremists in the Westboro Baptist Church (who mocked fallen soldiers at their funerals), or the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Secularism has beaten Christianity in the West because most Christians are pragmatic. They accept pluralism.

Poor downtrodden people in Christianity go to a shelter.  Poor downtrodden Muslims turn to the Koran and then the rifle. 

Those that choose reason over religion have the most at risk from extremism because we have no skin in the game. We must point out how bad these ideas are no matter how politically incorrect that is.     

Terrorists break the social contract, they deserve no special favour from society

We have a social contract (like Rousseau's) amongst those in society.  We agree to play by the rules, to work together, to obey the laws.  This is the social contract that is the heart of how society's work.

But if people decide to foment rebellion, to terrorize fellow citizens, to act against the common good, to bomb subways, they have decided not to follow the social contract.  Breaking the social contract means they have decided to reject society.

They are in default of contract.  That means we don't have to play by the rules.

If people reject the social contract then they are not willing to obey the agreed upon contract conditions.  Therefore, society should not be held to give them all the rights of society, those are the conditions for contract followers.  They are now savages, they don't deserve the protection of the state. They don't deserve equal rights. They don't deserve freedoms of other citizens.

They don't deserve due process, health care, unemployment insurance, pensions, right to vote, right to assemble, free speech, right to privacy, and so on.  Those are for citizens. 

Kick radicals out

If people wish to fight and die for ISIS, the caliphate, and Islamic extremism

then kick them out of the country. Simply put, they are going to cause problems with terror strikes, causing massive fear, police safety situations, and the loss of life and property of hapless innocent victims.  The cost to society is greater if they stay.

Kick them out to the caliphate. They don't kill our people and we can deal with them by cluster bomb later.

We are all we have

If I could say one thing to try to bridge the conflicts amongst humans:

We are all we have.

Pointing to Stephen Hawking's plea:

"We must continue to go into space for humanity," Hawking said today, according to the Los Angeles Times. "We won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."

"Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."

http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-predicts-end-of-earth-scenario/

It doesn't matter how important or powerful we believe we are, we inhabit one simple tiny insignificant blue dot in the immensity of the universe.

It could be a plague, global environmental catastrophe, an AI uprising, an intergalactic alien invasion, or even something as mundane as a world war.  At the power levels we can play at, the stakes are all or nothing. Nothing suggests extraterran forces would be LESS powerful than the most powerful nation. A passing intergalactic empire might not be at "god-like" power levels but it might still wipe us from existence. Without pausing.

Well, except these guys.



Even the most improbable events would bankrupt our future at catastrophic value levels with a simple expected value equation:

E(x) = (0.00000001) * (-10000000000000) +  (1-0.00000001 )* (1)  < 0

Doubling our planets might double our chances, roughly speaking.

All that we have, all that we know, all that we have made, all that we value. It disappears like Ozymandias and his feared empire if we are extinguished.

In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.
We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.^[9]

How can this be a less persuasive argument than any article of faith?

We are all we have.

Now is the time to look deeply at religion. Can society afford it?

The never-ending destruction caused by religious wars and religious causes must really be put on the same priority level as global warming, poverty, ebola, and other serious civilization-level problems.

It is no longer a benign problem, it never was pleasant but mankind really needs to question the arbitrary traditional logic that claims there is justification in religion. Do we keep allowing religious people to dictate morality to the rest of us? How can we live with a belief system that kills cartoonists and then complains about persecution?

Can we do without science? No, it is obvious that even religious people use optics, drive electromechanical vehicles, and enjoy all the benefits of science.  Think of all the extra technology we could fund if we made churches pay taxes.

All the taboos that we were told by moral authorities what to think: gay marriage, extended families, LGBT, marijuana, they are all falling to reason and evidence.  When will it be time for religion?

Does mankind need religion? Do we need to keep spending time, money and most importantly people following ancient dogma? Should governments be influenced by religion, should it remain a tax-free institution? Is teaching religion to children dangerous?

ISIS will sponsor calculated attacks until we stop it.

There is nothing, no target or person, that is beyond remote attack by ISIS, Al Qaeda or lone wolves claiming to be part of caliphate.  

http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/1/7/34de53a7-b4a5-44e4-8acd-fb5ec302169b_500.png

The caliphate is the real problem. The more they get away with, the bolder they get. 

Conservatives not acting conservatively, more like mean spiritedly.

conservative (plural conservatives)

1. A person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/feds-in-court-today-opposing-long-term-expats-right-to-vote/article22309948/

When in Canada's history did the government disenfranchise its' citizens? If you want to go back to when no one could vote in Canada, then why aren't you taking away everyone's vote. Is this right?

Let me ask it this way, does the Canadian Government expect foreign living Canadians to pay taxes on assets they hold in Canada? I suspect yes.  So how can you in principled "good conscience" take away their rights yet hold them to their responsibilities?

The Harper government is spending your tax dollars to fight a ruling in court to take away the vote from expatriates. Not convicts. Spending serious amounts on lawyers fees to fight a triviality that goes against the true nature of conservatism? This is the best idea they had for tax dollars? Wouldn't donating the lawyers fees to a charity do more for the country? Or donating the lawyers' work pro bono to help fight for Canadians locked up abroad?

If the government was instead fighting to force foreigner Canadians to pick up the cost of sending their ballots in, and not expecting the government to do it for them for free, I would applaud.  You want to live abroad, pay for your voting expenses. That's fair to all.  That is minimal governance.

Taking away rights is entirely different and wrong. It may be the expedient way to do the same, but that's perverting law for the sake of convenience.

Minimal government does not mean going around bullying groups, picking fights with people for reasons of ideology. That ends up costing us all more.  This is mean spirited at best. Outright thuggery at worst.

My first coffee with my pottery mug!

This is my pottery mug my wife made me. I will cherish the warm coffee inside...

Why did the Prime Minister take so long to sack Fantino?

The previous Veterans Affairs Minister was a bumbling underperformer, whose only flaw was following the PMO's orders. Julian Fantino was a train wreck of a manager, destroying the good will of the veterans that have suffered over a 13 year war in Afghanistan. Fantino couldn't spend out $1.1 billion in budget and they called it "good fiscal management".  Veterans are dying faster in Canada from suicide than killed in action. It's disgraceful. It is a real problem that can't be covered over.

It was so obvious things were not going well, this was costing so much and proving that the Conservatives really didn't care for veterans. Veterans won't trust the government to take care of them when they argue in court that the government isn't responsible for veterans.   So why did it take the Prime Minister so long to sort this out?  Why would you tell Canadians a lie, that things were going great and that you were doing well and then get rid of the minister?  How is this open and transparent government?

Expectations and Life

I'm going to share what I've learned from Buddhism about expectations and life.
This was prompted by my father's misunderstanding of life. He gets upset at things that disappoint him or not. So let me impart some wisdom.

I was raised in the traditional North American way, belief that having things and doing things makes your worth.  Win at sports, get a high priced job, be a winner.  I suffered the highs and lows of it all.  I got sucked into the belief system. Now, I am wiser.

Here is the truth: nothing has meaning.  There is no inherent meaning in being a doctor, owning a Maserati, getting a Christmas card or not, or traveling the Serengeti.  Nothing has any meaning except what we put into it. 

It doesn't matter if you are wealthy, or if you are poor, or if you are the most popular person on earth.  It doesn't matter if people think you don't matter.  They don't matter either.  There's a lot to be said for being anonymous.

From the President of the United States to a leper on the streets of Calcutta, or where-ever, we all will go to the grave and become no more. We don't matter.

An asteroid hurtling towards the dinosaurs has no feelings of regret as it decimates life on Earth. The sun would still burn if our planet was wiped out by a cosmic filament.

Getting a Christmas card does not make you happy. Not getting a Christmas card does not make you sad.  You make yourself happy or sad based on your EXPECTATIONS on what that Christmas card means!  That is the truth.

Life would be a lot easier if you didn't have any expectations. Expectations are the cause of human misery.  Owning a Maserati, or not.  Being a doctor, or not.

It's that simple;  you expect good things and they come your way then you are happy.  You expect good things and they don't come your way and then you are unhappy.

No one has any guarantees, no one gets a free ride. Nothing is certain and you cannot pin your life on expectations. 

Try this instead.  Don't expect things and you won't be gloriously ecstatic or sorrowful and inconsolable.

Investing your emotions into expectations means that you are willing yourself to go on feeling all the highs and lows, all the emotions of being attached to things that don't exist and don't matter.  The more you throw your feelings into things, the more that each and every encounter in life will buffet you back and forth, up and down. Life will hurl things at you like a roller coaster course. Unexpected, unanticipated, unprepared. Life is in a constant state of change as is the universe. There is another way.

 It is all avoidable, well let's be realistic it can be reduced if you see it from another perspective. 

If you read this post and thought dark thoughts, then you didn't understand it.
You are still putting MEANING into everything. Take the meaning out, and you will rejoice at the burden lifted. Your expectations are the burden. 

This is what happens when you let expectations govern your emotional state.