To Toll Or Not To Toll

Heard these priceless gems on a morning radio show discussing whether we should have tolls on the Champlain Bridge - that marvel of Canadian engineering: 

Texter: -The rich will get to expense the costs.

Yeah, yeah. Kill the rich - or at least have them pay their fair share. 50% taxes isn't enough.

Anyway. You don't have to be 'rich' to expense anything. If you're self-employed and earn a modest living you can, say, claim gas expenses.

Further proof people play the poor part out of sheer ignorance.

This shit is more dangerous than ebola.

Hang on, it gets better:

On private bridges: "I don't want tolls at the mercy of corporations setting prices."

This is a marvel of derp. Right. Government doesn't bloat prices through inefficiencies and labor. Worse, we never get to see the true price since there's no transparency so we can't even measure the validity of the statement if we wanted to. Government prices is an article of faith I guess. It just pops up and presto! $6 for the Pennsylvania Turnpike! $13 NY/NJ!

Companies have an incentive to keep costs and prices down. It's a basic, elementary business principle. She makes it sound as if the company running the bridge will arbitrarily set a price without considering market forces. Government has no incentive to consider this. NONE.

Worse than ebola I tell ya.

And then this piece de resistance from the resident socialist:

I'm not sure I can make any sense of it but it went something like "I went to Florida. Florida has no taxes. Florida has extreme poverty. No civilization." 

That's standard Canadian nationalist gibberish.

Seeing is believing, eh? Never mind you don't see poverty.

You measure it.

Ebola? Pft.

Should I Stay Or Should I go?

Britain, desperate, is starting to bribe Scotland by throwing free shit at it.

That the UK has lost its luster and balls is pretty clear, but that's sad and reminiscent of the Quebec/Canada issue. When Quebec starts to rail, Canada comes with a bag of goodies.

Both Scotland and Quebec are dependent regions with strong left-wing bents (which is particularly disheartening in the case of Scotland given its contribution to classical liberalism during The Enlightenment) incapable of going on their own.

Best both realize they're NOT Scandinavia.

But what do the political masters (and those connected from intellectual circles) care? They're gonna profit from the scam.

Nonetheless, I'm torn whenever people or regions want to go on their own. What can be more 'free' than exercising their rights of determination? But in these cases, the cons outweigh the pros in my view and is driven less in rationalism and more in emotion.

Bureaucrats Hold The Power

Next time you hear someone babble on about 'deregulation' (still don't know what that means) and the need for more regulations (for civilization's sake) have them watch this. There IS NO FREE MARKET. It's freeish but go out and try and innovate.

You can't without going through them first and that's a huge problem.

The government is fully capable of destroying lives. If it wants its money and wants to show who is in control the pencil pushing bureaucrat with its guaranteed salary and pension doesn't care if it shuts you down so long as it gets its cut.

They're more ruthless than the mob.*

That's the plain truth.

The other day on the radio (CJAD''s 'Gang of Four') I was sickened listening to a bunch of talking heads call for more taxes and regulations on, like everything.  They were talking as if Quebec is Hong Kong when in fact we're closer to a socialist model. Imagine. It's Quebec where the state pretty much controls the plot either through cronyism (which we excel at) or schemes like issuing permits (all I get all day long is propaganda and letters from various government agencies. I swear if I close my eyes it's 1917 Moscow) and they WANT MORE INTERFERENCE.  It was asinine. Only the host showed any sense of sober thought. 

*Loansharking is illegal particularly the interest they charge. If you're late with a government payment go look at the interest and penalties they charge. It's obscene.


What Do I Think About The NFL?

I think the league and some teams could use a real consegliere.

Like Tom Hagen.

Feynman On Science

"You cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess you make is poorly expressed and rather vague and the method you use figure out the consequences are vague... then you see that theory is good because it can't be proven wrong. If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence." 

 Richard Feynman. 

Vague theories make big bucks because it scares the shit out of people.

1984 Is Here

It's not 'coming'. It has arrived. Like 30 years ago. Hello.

The government has more power than any corporation could ever dream or imagine.

Plus it has all the guns.

But worry not. It's all for the children.


Ontario Attacks Human Liberty

Ontario going full blown tyrannical:

"Peer support groups, religious mentors, and even help from friends all depend on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of speech. These rights are spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s supreme law, the Constitution. But these rights may end in Ontario and require the closure of self-help and peer support groups, or place them under the control of a government agency. Interactions for purposes of guidance could net a cleric, pastor or helpful friend a fine of up to $25,000 for a first offence. Clerics who are unable to pay the $25,000 fine for having provided spiritual guidance to individuals who experience emotional or spiritual distress may find themselves delivering their sermons from jail cells or seeing their congregations disbanded."

Remind me who are the 'extremists' again in this plot?

Coercion and violence.

The natural default position of the state.

"The government of Ontario is in the process of granting a monopoly to a politically selected group of people, the Ontario College of Psychotherapy, whose members will have a province-wide monopoly to treat “an individual’s serious disorder of thought, cognition, mood, emotional regulation, perception or memory [that] may seriously impair the individual’s judgment, insight, behaviour, communication or social functioning.” Membership in the college will be restricted to persons holding master’s degrees. Ontario plans to proclaim the College of Psychotherapy into law sometime this fall."

Naturally. Government excels at handing over monopolies of power to one group of people to hold over others.


And women.

"The officials at Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long Term Care who are forming Ontario’s College of Psychotherapy may invoke the notwithstanding clause to bypass statutes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that assure citizens the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Totalitarian and police states intimidate citizens into restraining their verbal communication under threat of possible prosecution, allegedly for the greater good of the society. Ontario appears to be getting ready to enforce the standards of a totalitarian state by retraining citizens’ freedom of speech in helping fellow citizens emotionally and spiritually."

This is frightening shit. This is not Russia. It's Canada. One of the most boastful and insecure nations around. 

True north strong and...free.

Canadian intellectuals laud the notwithstanding clause as some form of brilliant idea.

On the contrary, it's a hideous piece of junk conceived by pathetic, petty and insecure minds.

I loathe this aspect of Canada's Charter.

In essence, we DO NOT HAVE LIBERTY. How can we if a clause can be used to 'revoke' it?

The most patriotic thing a Canadian can do is assert their individual rights. It's not an extreme position. It's a human right.

Alas, as often been said, we're too apathetic and invested in the socialist-democratic experiment to care or even be aware of the fact we have no rights when you get right down to it.

Climate Change Sees Bogeyman Everywhere

"Climate change poses threats to India beyond the sphere of environment as passages opened up by the melting snows in the northern Himalayas could be used by terrorists to infiltrate into the country, eminent environmentalist R.K. Pachauri said here Saturday.

“Melting snows in the north open up passages for terrorists. The melting glaciers will affect water supply in the subcontinent’s northern part, thus sharpening the possibility of conflict with our neighbours,” Pachauri said.

Pachauri, who served as chairman of the Nobel winner Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was speaking at the convocation ceremony at the Military College of Telecommunication Engineering here.

“Our defence forces might find themselves torn between humanitarian relief operations and guarding our borders against climate refugees, as rising sea-levels swamp low-lying areas, forcing millions of climate refugees across India’s border,” Pachauri said.

“Changing rainfall patterns affect rainfed agriculture, worsening poverty which can be exploited by others,” he said.


Gatekeepers Gonna Gatekeep

Was listening to The Herd with Colin Cowherd on ESPN sirius radio last week on the topic was, of Ray Rice and how the NFL handled of the incident.

At the time, Cowherd caught my ears when he zeroed in on the calls from some people asking Roger Goodell to resign and that somehow 'wanting to get people fired' is want 'bloggers do.'

Citation needed because I don't know of any reputable blog that explicitly says it does this. It may 'encourage' it by 'outing' information about athletes but if the athlete or executive are doing things they shouldn't be doing then what's the problem? Cowherd makes it sound as if bloggers are a bunch of runaway misfits out to 'get people.'

Er, in case you haven't noticed, the media does this all the time. For example, a rush to judgment before all facts are in is not a problem among bloggers. Shoot, in fact, I've seen blogs treat facts far ore responsibly than the media. Many stories that get confused often originate from the media and not bloggers. Think Duke Lacrosse. Media sensationalizes; not blogs. And don't fricken get me going on the steroids in baseball story. For me, that was the epitome of baseball writers to invested in their 'access' to tackle the issue. It was bloggers who shone a light on it.

Now. It's not the first time Cowherd goes after blogs (he did it again today) and he's certainly not the only one so it's par for the course another 'gatekeeper' makes this argument. Costas and Wilbon have put in their licks as well.

Problem is, I haven't heard or read blogs call for a resignation in Rice's cases incident. In fact, most of it is coming from organizations like the National Coalition for Women. Moreover, I could have sworn I've heard a few radio personalities do the same. 'He should resign' are three words you hear from pundits on TV and radio all the time.

Why he chooses to single blogs out is a bit of mystery. Right. Cowherd holds the tired generalization of bloggers living in the mother's basement in pajamas.

So 1999.

I don't know where Cowherd has been or what he's reading, but in case he hasn't noticed, blogs revolutionized journalism - and for the better. They offer a whole new dimension and perspectives on sports. Why should it be in the hands of the 'gatekeepers'? There are many great writers and blogging permits them an outlet to express their views. Shoot, a few of them, dare I say, are better than half the crap I read at ESPN. And they're not in their pajamas! They wear pants!

Furthermore, inherent in Cowherd's argument is journalists and ESPN are free from statistical errors and bias. 

Nonsense. ESPN is atrocious on matters of stats. I find way too many mistakes in the soccer section of the site alone.

That being said, Fire Colin Cowherd!

I'm joking.

I kid.

Now where are my pajamas?


NYT: Reversing A Myth They Pimped

The New York Times spends a lot of energy advocating all sorts of state control initiatives. Reading the NYT is a form of soft and subtle indoctrination given it's not only positioned as the paper of record but a news outlet perceived to be the voice of 'reason' and 'facts' in the face of an irrational world. The NYT is where its readers go in search of much needed perspectives.

Yet, its roster - outside of a couple of writers - is anything but a commitment to ideas. Its biggest writers from Friedman, to Krugman to Dowd and Brooks (who recently surprisingly described Obama as a 'reluctant warrior' on PBS) - are just your mundane run of the mill defense of progressive liberal ideals. If you're a 'think outside the box' sorta person, you kinda scratch your head at them. If you're already set in the progressive agenda, they speak truth to power.

The whole gun control debate during the Obama administration has been marked with all sorts of misleading information and downright silliness. The deliberate grouping of guns into one gigantic basket of goods and models, the excessive and sometimes irrational attacks on the NRA (and by extension Koch brothers), the misuse of statistics on deaths by firearms, and the general overall tone of manufactured sheer fear against the rights of man who choose to be armed. The fear went as far as showing pictures of rifles - regardless of genre - as scary 'assault rifle' as if they're all machine guns.

This illogical fear has gone to the point of the left attacking (and I argue engaging in mental gymnastics) the 2nd amendment.*

To people who are able to catch the deliberate appeal to emotion, a simple investigation would have put an end to it as they would learn guns are not a monolithic product. Yet, the media ran with it because the public at large is ignorant. And when you're ignorant nothing rallies the mob more than emotion.

Then, once they lay waste to the collective playing on their emotions explaining they need more control for their own good, they pull this.

"The Assault Weapon Myth"

Recall, they were the cheerleaders for more gun control using the very opposite argument to push the agenda.

*The Democrat party and its extreme left-wing arm, even VOTED on an amendment on the 1st amendment. I don't see anything on the right that comes close to attacking liberty like we do on the left. It's not even close the spread between the statists who want to control large parts of the lives of Americans and the rest.



"By winning the World Cup, we didn’t change the world, we didn’t bring down the price of bread. It was a lovely thought that football players can solve people’s problems; I wish we could. We’d all be better off."

Diego Maradona 


On Second Thought

 Nobel Committee regrets giving Peace Prize to  Obama.

No shit, Einsteins.

They just were too busy stroking it to the silly notion of Obama's promise like a bunch of school children. That and they were dying to make a point about Dubya.

If Obama had any dignity, he wouldn't have accepted it in the first place.

A simple, humble thanks but no thanks would have been more than appropriate. A wise man would have understood his job would have taken him places he did not want to go.

Nevertheless, Obama is still less nauseating than some of the other douches - like Arafat - who got one.

Who are these people giving out these prizes?

Braddeck Pharmacist Moonlights As Dietary Alchemist

Derp in Braddeck, NS:

"Refined sugar is almost as addictive as some street drugs. It starts at an early age." 

Wasn't there a study that just debunked this notion? Why, I think I even posted it on this blog not too long ago. 

He said his pharmacy does a lot of one-on-one consultations that end up veering into giving nutritional advice to patients.

"Just about every conversation led to, 'Please don't drink pop.' Juice is, the sugar in it is, not the healthy thing you've been made to believe your whole life. So as they're leaving the store they're walking past the coolers and the juice," MacKenzie said. 

Juice is not healthy? Because sugar? He's giving diet advice? 

The pharmacist said he had been thinking about pulling the drinks for the past four to six months. He hopes the move will educate frighten and misinform customers. 


"I don't think I'm going to stop people. 

Nice observation on his part.

They can go a block and get a drink of pop, you can go anywhere and get some juice or pop. I don't think I can bar people from drinking. 

He doesn't 'think' he can implies he's looking for ways to do so. He really has a fetish for control. 

It's just the act of doing this will hopefully spur them into thinking, 'OK, there is something wrong with this,'" he said.

MacKenzie stresses the move is personal and he understands many other pharmacies have different business models.

Sugar intake should be cut, says foundation

"If government wanted to look at it, that would be awesome," he said. 

It. Would. Be. So. AWESOME! Mo MMMM ents! Mind. BLOWN!

Naturally. Since he doesn't think he can stop people he'll rely on the government to do that for him. To people like this, it's always about getting the government involved to fuck things up still further. Let's, you know, remove choice from people because they're too fucking stupid to make the right decisions this dope feels is appropriate. I'm sure other pharmacists appreciate his invitation to bring bureaucrats into their stores.

The store isn't sugar free yet."

/face palm.

Democrat Party Of The United States Knows Its Priorities

And its rather tyrannical.

One of the most outrageous attempts at curbing free speech through trying to amend the First Amendment was killed in the Senate.

It should have been executed in front of the people.

Shows how far left the Democrat party has pulled.

Oh, I see extremists alright.

As usual, comments at Reason tell a lovely story.

And just so we're clear. Liberals up here are no different when it comes to free speech. In fact, they have an upper hand given how shitty and meek our Charter is worded when it comes for our freedoms.

In the end, Canada was careful to put it in such a way that the government has final say over our rights.



Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice...

John Kerry claims U.S. is not at war with ISIS.

He said this one day after Obama's 'we're gonna but not gonna' speech.

Question: Will Obama personally account if things don't go according to plan seeing he may bypass Congress?

I guess it can be a rhetorical question too.