If I were to make an epic rock anthology- an opus even - I would open with this. You must open with The Beatles. Then I'd back track to the American masters and move from there into a bruising, in your face debilitating explosion of music in the rock and roll manner.
Great BBC clip with Ronnie Lane performing Ohh-la-la:
2013-11-30
Freedom Of Choice Means People Make Bad Choices - Live With It
Since you've all lost your sense of personal dignity (whoa!) let's keep to the basics.
The fact that junk food is bad food you or that it can possibly cause all sorts of diseases, is a reality most, even all, people understand. Even idiots know a bag of Ringolos is bad for you.
But in the halls of public debate the point is NO ONE has the right to inhibit you let alone legislate against people who freely make such choices.
That's the point.
Am I saying turn your back and not try and influence people through simple education? No. By all means. Try. Everyone needs to come our of their shadows of ignorance from time to time.
However, if you say, "that's true but...therefore I support coercive public policy to force people to make the right choices because (insert whatever bull shit reason here)..."
You've lost the argument and point.
You're a nanny.
Bye.
The fact that junk food is bad food you or that it can possibly cause all sorts of diseases, is a reality most, even all, people understand. Even idiots know a bag of Ringolos is bad for you.
But in the halls of public debate the point is NO ONE has the right to inhibit you let alone legislate against people who freely make such choices.
That's the point.
Am I saying turn your back and not try and influence people through simple education? No. By all means. Try. Everyone needs to come our of their shadows of ignorance from time to time.
However, if you say, "that's true but...therefore I support coercive public policy to force people to make the right choices because (insert whatever bull shit reason here)..."
You've lost the argument and point.
You're a nanny.
Bye.
Quote Of The Moment
"Capitalism doesn't make us all equal, but it does make us all
better off than we were. Just as socialism makes us all worse than
we were, but makes us more equal."
Capitalism Fuck Yeah!
Capitalism Fuck Yeah!
Fisker Files For Bnakruptcy
I wished Fisker well. I just wish they had taken their loans from the private sector. Losing tax dollars is immoral in my view. The government's "investment" in new technology hasn't rendered much.
That's because the market - something the government simply doesn't grasp and I don't mean this in a bad way. It's not their MANDATE - isn't ready. You can't force products onto a market where there's no demand. Believing you can "create" one because it's "good" for society is about as useless and foolish as a monkey trying to tinker with a luxury watch.
Sometimes when you build it, they don't come.
That's because the market - something the government simply doesn't grasp and I don't mean this in a bad way. It's not their MANDATE - isn't ready. You can't force products onto a market where there's no demand. Believing you can "create" one because it's "good" for society is about as useless and foolish as a monkey trying to tinker with a luxury watch.
Sometimes when you build it, they don't come.
Word Of The Day
Justifuckation.
Derivative of justification to describe a bull shit theory or policy. Like Quebec's Charter for example. "Jean-Francois Jefferson (ne Lisee) used sparkling justifuckation for his Charter of Jokes."
Derivative of justification to describe a bull shit theory or policy. Like Quebec's Charter for example. "Jean-Francois Jefferson (ne Lisee) used sparkling justifuckation for his Charter of Jokes."
T.C.'s Proposals
Tax bad policies and bad questions.
Since people just love to believe taxes as a means to discourage 'bad habits' as defined by the state, why not?
Actually, add a tax on herpes and Black Friday (since it's racist).
Since people just love to believe taxes as a means to discourage 'bad habits' as defined by the state, why not?
Actually, add a tax on herpes and Black Friday (since it's racist).
2013-11-29
Obamacare Optics Off
This Obamacare fiasco - the President said he was gonna unilaterally force insurance companies to give people back their plans without, you know, first changing the law that created the mess - is most intriguing.
I was listening to politician Charlie Baker - who helped implement Romneycare in Massachusetts - on Boston radio (Howie Carr) earlier today.
A couple of things stood out. First, his admitting that insurance in Mass is very expensive; among the most pricey in the country. Part of the reason, he argued, was because Massachusetts imposes strict minimum standards. Second, that it has become bogged down by needless red tape that doesn't improve the health of citizens.
No matter how many times we go down this road we act surprised that a government department expands to the point of paralysis.
It just blows my mind we still think it's a good idea to have a massive entity with little accountability administer large facets of our lives.
It's not like we have people warning us.
Third, his assertion that it's not surprising Obamacare is imploding. The law was passed without Republican support. As such, the Democrats chose to not consider roughly half of the country; never mind that polls have consistently shown Obamacare was never popular. The assertion that the GOP played obstructionist rather than ally is simply not true. They did table amendments to the bill only to be outright ignored or threatened to be vetoed by the President.
The other is basic logic. It makes no sense to have a Federal national plan for what really is a local issue. Health and insurance is best managed at the state level.
In this way, Canada - despite its woefully rigid and mediocre system - employs a similar model in which we have a Federal "guideline" for health but it's the Provinces that run their own programs. Interestingly, our medicare cards are no portable.
In any event, best to decentralize and localize.
Local, local, local.
***
Just how off to a rocky start Obamacare is off to?
A Texas man wrote to the President expressing frustration with the law.
Obama personally responded with a handwritten letter in which he used the word 'teabagger' and that Obamacare is not the 'smart political thing.'
On the last point, he could very well have the last laugh. We'll see.
I was listening to politician Charlie Baker - who helped implement Romneycare in Massachusetts - on Boston radio (Howie Carr) earlier today.
A couple of things stood out. First, his admitting that insurance in Mass is very expensive; among the most pricey in the country. Part of the reason, he argued, was because Massachusetts imposes strict minimum standards. Second, that it has become bogged down by needless red tape that doesn't improve the health of citizens.
No matter how many times we go down this road we act surprised that a government department expands to the point of paralysis.
It just blows my mind we still think it's a good idea to have a massive entity with little accountability administer large facets of our lives.
It's not like we have people warning us.
Third, his assertion that it's not surprising Obamacare is imploding. The law was passed without Republican support. As such, the Democrats chose to not consider roughly half of the country; never mind that polls have consistently shown Obamacare was never popular. The assertion that the GOP played obstructionist rather than ally is simply not true. They did table amendments to the bill only to be outright ignored or threatened to be vetoed by the President.
The other is basic logic. It makes no sense to have a Federal national plan for what really is a local issue. Health and insurance is best managed at the state level.
In this way, Canada - despite its woefully rigid and mediocre system - employs a similar model in which we have a Federal "guideline" for health but it's the Provinces that run their own programs. Interestingly, our medicare cards are no portable.
In any event, best to decentralize and localize.
Local, local, local.
***
Just how off to a rocky start Obamacare is off to?
A Texas man wrote to the President expressing frustration with the law.
Obama personally responded with a handwritten letter in which he used the word 'teabagger' and that Obamacare is not the 'smart political thing.'
On the last point, he could very well have the last laugh. We'll see.
A Lazy Mind
I keep hearing about how the 'liberal media' keeps giving Obama a free pass but from where I sit, outside of a few MSMers like NYT, MSNBC, Boston Globe, NBC, mainstream outlets like The Washington Post have been able to maintain some of its dignity and publish highly critical opinions of the President.
Like this one by Ed Rogers.
Ouch.
Of course Obama is ideological. That much is pretty darn clear to those of of us who stayed away from the Kool-Aid table.
One part of the article that caught my attention was Valerie Jarrett saying 'Obama has been bored all his life.' Too cool and smart for life looks like.
I take it differently.
It's proof of an indifferent, lazy, mediocre disposition and intellectual mind.
But that's me.
I listen to Obama and I don't hear a leader with an inspired message.
I hear empty, vapid, predictable, divisive rhetoric.
Like this one by Ed Rogers.
Ouch.
Of course Obama is ideological. That much is pretty darn clear to those of of us who stayed away from the Kool-Aid table.
One part of the article that caught my attention was Valerie Jarrett saying 'Obama has been bored all his life.' Too cool and smart for life looks like.
I take it differently.
It's proof of an indifferent, lazy, mediocre disposition and intellectual mind.
But that's me.
I listen to Obama and I don't hear a leader with an inspired message.
I hear empty, vapid, predictable, divisive rhetoric.
Quote Of The Night
"It's easy to view the opposition in Congress as a bunch of
heartless, obstinate people who care about nothing more than their
own careers, and, in our frustration, we zero in on certain
well-known personalities, like Representative Ryan and Senator
McCain. But legislators like those two and others in the opposition
are merely public faces of real political power: an almost
invisible phalanx of wealthy donors that is even more impervious to
liberal outrage than the most defiant legislators. Those donors
constitute a nebulous and nefarious force in American politics more
powerful than any rational argument for resolving major problems,
any appeal for compassion and decency, and any attempt to throttle
their influence. Ironically, they have the uncanny ability to
sugar-coat their messages in such a way that the average voter will
swallow them. And they don't quit. If they lose on an issue or an
election, they just redouble funding for the next round."
Huh?
/drops cigarette from lips.
I guess I'm just a rube because that was pulled from the New York Times.
Ok.
I lied.
A friend sent me that comment since I stopped reading the Times around the time they acted like a bunch of depraved unprofessional hacks during the Duke lacrosse scandal.
Assholes. The Times that is. Imagine being part of a process that ruined innocent lives.
And Fox is crazy.
Suuurrre.
Huh?
/drops cigarette from lips.
I guess I'm just a rube because that was pulled from the New York Times.
Ok.
I lied.
A friend sent me that comment since I stopped reading the Times around the time they acted like a bunch of depraved unprofessional hacks during the Duke lacrosse scandal.
Assholes. The Times that is. Imagine being part of a process that ruined innocent lives.
And Fox is crazy.
Suuurrre.
Che: Nice Guy
“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary.
These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a
revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine
motivated by pure hate.” -Che 'Cha cha' Guevara
To think (educated) people think this nutcase is some sort of hero.
Yet. Like mindless flies they love the idiot.
To think (educated) people think this nutcase is some sort of hero.
Yet. Like mindless flies they love the idiot.
Spot The Error
Let's play 'Be that Editor!"
"...Durant cette même année, elle a eu la chance d’être retenue par le Massachusetts Institute on Technology (MIT), pour suivre une formation intensive d’enquête en journalisme santé et scientifique."
I'ma headin' to Niagara of the Lake.
"...Durant cette même année, elle a eu la chance d’être retenue par le Massachusetts Institute on Technology (MIT), pour suivre une formation intensive d’enquête en journalisme santé et scientifique."
I'ma headin' to Niagara of the Lake.
Eating Dick On A Plane
This is pretty funny.
Excellent, really.
One of the few instances where I actually enjoy Twitter.
Elan is a star for courageously taking to public what we all think privately.
I hope someone does the same the next time some diva actor pulls a hissy-fit in public.
Excellent, really.
One of the few instances where I actually enjoy Twitter.
Elan is a star for courageously taking to public what we all think privately.
I hope someone does the same the next time some diva actor pulls a hissy-fit in public.
Quebec Micro-Brewery Garners Free Publicity
I haven't come across this beer but I'll be on the look-out.
Those names are hilarious.
More importantly, Quebec has world-class micro-breweries.
As for our nannies, always remember in a (supposedly) free society we have free will and CHOICE.
Don't like it?
Close your eyes and move on.
You can't force your world view onto others. When you do that, especially when enabled by the government, you drive things underground and simply create a black market to fill a demand.
I think I'm gonna change my name to the Little Prick-Bastard.
Those names are hilarious.
More importantly, Quebec has world-class micro-breweries.
As for our nannies, always remember in a (supposedly) free society we have free will and CHOICE.
Don't like it?
Close your eyes and move on.
You can't force your world view onto others. When you do that, especially when enabled by the government, you drive things underground and simply create a black market to fill a demand.
I think I'm gonna change my name to the Little Prick-Bastard.
Match Fixing In Soccer
England is the latest league to be hit with a match-fixing scandal.
To respond to the pundit in the video, no, there are no 'low-level' sides in English soccer because it's the biggest league in the world. Low-level in England is top flight in other leagues. Same with the Bundesliga (Germany), Serie A (Italy) and La Liga (Spain). Those leagues combined possess pretty much all the best talent on the planet.
Which brings into light something I've been saying for the better of seven or eight years now - that corruption in soccer knows no boundaries and reaches the very apex of FIFA and UEFA itself. It's no surprise a game with this kind of popularity and powerful revenue sources will be hijacked from time to time by criminal elements. It's a reality.
That's why it's irritating to hear the 'Hyperboreans' act with such moral indignation when match fixing takes place in Italy.
The English press and fans alike - as they're apt to do for some reason - never seem to miss a chance to be highly critical of Italian soccer.
Yet, some of the biggest scandals in soccer history never really involved Italy while places like Germany, Austria, France and Belgium (and Spain) have all had their fair share of major scandals. Germany and Belgium in particular. A few years ago British investigative show Panorama delved into the world of corruption in English soccer back in 2006 in a documentary titled 'Football's Dirty Secrets."
It was hardly discussed in the North American media despite the involvement of a major side like Chelsea and historical ones like Newcastle United. How soon we forget!
Rather, the Anglo-centric media chose to make a major issue of Italian match fixing around that time. Recall the acrimony surrounding the Azzurri after the revelations? They used it to win their 4th World Cup.
Had England won in such a manner one could only imagine the superlatives used to describe their "heroic" and "spirited" victory.
As one Lebanese business man told me once, "England only does big corruption."
Between the lines, to me, this meant it conveniently allows them to pass judgment on the small scandals since the real major ones rarely are caught.
It's the same perception errors we see with "diving" in the sport. It was outrageously asserted Italy was the poster child for such behavior but when you consult the facts and understand the history of the game, they're no better or worse than most nations. Not even the 'Hyperboreans' despite their haughty claims of playing 'honorable' (which is bull shit), are not immune.
Theatrics in soccer was basically invented in South America and the master actors are by far the Brazilians and Argentinians. Heaven forbid, Brazil gets taken to task for it. Both of them, incidentally, lead all nations when it comes to red cards in the World Cup.
With all that skill, flair and genius, comes some less than impressive antics. Know what? That mirrors life I've come to discover and accept.
To respond to the pundit in the video, no, there are no 'low-level' sides in English soccer because it's the biggest league in the world. Low-level in England is top flight in other leagues. Same with the Bundesliga (Germany), Serie A (Italy) and La Liga (Spain). Those leagues combined possess pretty much all the best talent on the planet.
Which brings into light something I've been saying for the better of seven or eight years now - that corruption in soccer knows no boundaries and reaches the very apex of FIFA and UEFA itself. It's no surprise a game with this kind of popularity and powerful revenue sources will be hijacked from time to time by criminal elements. It's a reality.
That's why it's irritating to hear the 'Hyperboreans' act with such moral indignation when match fixing takes place in Italy.
The English press and fans alike - as they're apt to do for some reason - never seem to miss a chance to be highly critical of Italian soccer.
Yet, some of the biggest scandals in soccer history never really involved Italy while places like Germany, Austria, France and Belgium (and Spain) have all had their fair share of major scandals. Germany and Belgium in particular. A few years ago British investigative show Panorama delved into the world of corruption in English soccer back in 2006 in a documentary titled 'Football's Dirty Secrets."
It was hardly discussed in the North American media despite the involvement of a major side like Chelsea and historical ones like Newcastle United. How soon we forget!
Rather, the Anglo-centric media chose to make a major issue of Italian match fixing around that time. Recall the acrimony surrounding the Azzurri after the revelations? They used it to win their 4th World Cup.
Had England won in such a manner one could only imagine the superlatives used to describe their "heroic" and "spirited" victory.
As one Lebanese business man told me once, "England only does big corruption."
Between the lines, to me, this meant it conveniently allows them to pass judgment on the small scandals since the real major ones rarely are caught.
It's the same perception errors we see with "diving" in the sport. It was outrageously asserted Italy was the poster child for such behavior but when you consult the facts and understand the history of the game, they're no better or worse than most nations. Not even the 'Hyperboreans' despite their haughty claims of playing 'honorable' (which is bull shit), are not immune.
Theatrics in soccer was basically invented in South America and the master actors are by far the Brazilians and Argentinians. Heaven forbid, Brazil gets taken to task for it. Both of them, incidentally, lead all nations when it comes to red cards in the World Cup.
With all that skill, flair and genius, comes some less than impressive antics. Know what? That mirrors life I've come to discover and accept.
2013-11-28
Italian Judicial Courts Experiment With New Strategy To Fight Mafia
By focusing on the country's most powerful institution: The family.
From Mafia Today:
"A judge in southern Italy is pioneering a programme to help children of mafia bosses to escape a life of crime – by taking them away from their parents at the first sign of trouble.
“We needed to find a way to break this cycle that transmits negative cultural values from father to son,” says Roberto di Bella, president of the juvenile court in Reggio Calabria, on Italy’s southern toe.
This is the heartland of one of the most formidable of the country’s mafias – a criminal network known as the ‘Ndrangheta, the biggest cocaine smugglers in Europe.
Mafias are always built around blood ties – especially so in the ‘Ndrangheta’s case, making its clans particularly hard for security forces to penetrate.
“There’s a religious baptism and a mafioso baptism, which is confirmed when you reach a certain age,” says Antonio Nicaso, who has written extensively on the ‘Ndrangheta’s family dynamics.
Mafia organisation based in Calabria, at the southern “toe” of Italy, with about 6,000 members
“‘Ndrangheta” comes from the Greek for courage
Formed in 1860s by exiled Sicilians
Less famous than Cosa Nostra (Sicily) or Camorra (Naples) but thought to be most powerful
Has global reach, and links to Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Colombia
“If it were not part of Italy, Calabria would be a failed state. The ‘Ndrangheta organized crime syndicate controls vast portions of its territory and economy, and accounts for at least 3% of Italy’s GDP”
“So this means that, often, the children of bosses – particularly the first-born – are predestined to follow in their father’s footsteps.”
“If you are a boy whose father, uncle or grandfather is a mafioso, then there’s no-one who can set rules... ”
"...The court began focusing more on the children of well-known mafia families aged around 14 or 15 who had “started to acquire the mafiosi mentality”, as Di Bella puts it, beginning with petty crimes.
So far about 15 of these teenagers – the great majority of them boys – have been taken away from their relatives and placed in care homes. But they are not in prison and they can go back home for visits every few weeks.
“This always starts with a court case,” says Di Bella. “When these children are accused of bullying, of vandalising cars or police cars, and families do nothing, then we intervene.
“Every time I have to take away a minor from a family it’s a very tough decision, I have to make a deep judgement.” But sometimes, he says, the court concludes there is no other option.
“Our objective is to show these young men a different world from the one they grew up in,” he says.
“If you are a boy whose father, uncle or grandfather is a mafioso, then there’s no-one who can set rules – and we provide them with a context.”
The hope is that when the youngster is free to go back home permanently – when he is 18 – he will chose not to enter the criminal underworld...."
From Mafia Today:
"A judge in southern Italy is pioneering a programme to help children of mafia bosses to escape a life of crime – by taking them away from their parents at the first sign of trouble.
“We needed to find a way to break this cycle that transmits negative cultural values from father to son,” says Roberto di Bella, president of the juvenile court in Reggio Calabria, on Italy’s southern toe.
This is the heartland of one of the most formidable of the country’s mafias – a criminal network known as the ‘Ndrangheta, the biggest cocaine smugglers in Europe.
Mafias are always built around blood ties – especially so in the ‘Ndrangheta’s case, making its clans particularly hard for security forces to penetrate.
“There’s a religious baptism and a mafioso baptism, which is confirmed when you reach a certain age,” says Antonio Nicaso, who has written extensively on the ‘Ndrangheta’s family dynamics.
Mafia organisation based in Calabria, at the southern “toe” of Italy, with about 6,000 members
“‘Ndrangheta” comes from the Greek for courage
Formed in 1860s by exiled Sicilians
Less famous than Cosa Nostra (Sicily) or Camorra (Naples) but thought to be most powerful
Has global reach, and links to Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Colombia
“If it were not part of Italy, Calabria would be a failed state. The ‘Ndrangheta organized crime syndicate controls vast portions of its territory and economy, and accounts for at least 3% of Italy’s GDP”
“So this means that, often, the children of bosses – particularly the first-born – are predestined to follow in their father’s footsteps.”
“If you are a boy whose father, uncle or grandfather is a mafioso, then there’s no-one who can set rules... ”
"...The court began focusing more on the children of well-known mafia families aged around 14 or 15 who had “started to acquire the mafiosi mentality”, as Di Bella puts it, beginning with petty crimes.
So far about 15 of these teenagers – the great majority of them boys – have been taken away from their relatives and placed in care homes. But they are not in prison and they can go back home for visits every few weeks.
“This always starts with a court case,” says Di Bella. “When these children are accused of bullying, of vandalising cars or police cars, and families do nothing, then we intervene.
“Every time I have to take away a minor from a family it’s a very tough decision, I have to make a deep judgement.” But sometimes, he says, the court concludes there is no other option.
“Our objective is to show these young men a different world from the one they grew up in,” he says.
“If you are a boy whose father, uncle or grandfather is a mafioso, then there’s no-one who can set rules – and we provide them with a context.”
The hope is that when the youngster is free to go back home permanently – when he is 18 – he will chose not to enter the criminal underworld...."
Achieving Equity At Other People's Expense
Comment from the world wide Intersnets:
"People think wealth should be distributed more equitably."
Translation-- Give me more money that I did nothing to earn because I feel I deserve it.
Rimshot!
"People think wealth should be distributed more equitably."
Translation-- Give me more money that I did nothing to earn because I feel I deserve it.
Rimshot!
Obama Can Tell Who's An Immigrant And Who Isn't
“As I was getting a tour of DreamWorks, I didn’t ask, but just looking
at faces I could tell there were some folks who are here not because
they are born here, but because they want to be here,” he told an
audience of the studio’s animation division in Glendale, Calif. “They
bring extraordinary talents to the United States, and that’s part of
what makes America special.”
That's a special talent he has. Not the oratorical skills, that much we know, but his ability to read the soul.
Maybe a reality TV after he's done saving the world?
Projecting with Obama.
More like Costanza:
That's a special talent he has. Not the oratorical skills, that much we know, but his ability to read the soul.
Maybe a reality TV after he's done saving the world?
Projecting with Obama.
More like Costanza:
Drainville Backs Out Of Concordia Debate
I find the story of Bernard Drainville pulling out of a debate regarding the moronic Charter at Concordia University amusing for a couple of reasons.
First, he and Lisee are the two bobbleheads who had the audacity to compare their anti-liberty Charter to Thomas Jefferson - in the New York Times no less. I understand Americans may meet this with indifference given plenty of tinpot politicians and dictators in the past have claimed a "spiritual kindred" attachment to the Constitution, nonetheless it's still galling. They can fool their political base with this ignorant and thoughtless nonsense but not to those of us outside it.
Second, Jefferson et all (Madison, Franklin etc) rarely - if ever - backed down from a debate to defend their positions. Why? Because they were committed philosophical giants to their cause. Their belief was a just one rooted in the notion of all men being created equal. That tyranny must be guarded against. That the idea of one man holding another man's liberty hostage through tyranny was unjust.
The message was simple in its origins, confirmed by ages, epochs and eras of history, and flawless in its elegant, inspirational but firm poetic, execution. To these men, all sovereign power and its authority flowed from God and proceeds from this point forward.
Put it this way, we still quote these gentlemen. Will we be quoting Lisee and Drainville? Just like no one quotes Camille Laurin. Theirs is a local outlook. Not a global one.
I don't expect the Quebec intellectual classes to grasp this notion rooted in in our collective heritage found in the Age of Reason of the Enlightenment period given their default, parochial position of putting the concept of "collective culture" first, but they damn better understand this was not how the American Founding Fathers looked at history and man's place during the long course of civilization.
In other words, they were able to extricate themselves from the unique position of being American, to become men who spoke of universal principles shared - or should be shared - by humanity. It just so happened they were 'American' but the message is universal.
This is why they - the PQ - have more in common with Dixiecrats and George Wallace than they do with the classical liberal minds of the Founding Fathers.
The Charter has NO universal message. It has no grand philosophical ideal to which other nations, thinkers or people will find any attachment to. It's just a misapplication of the theory of secularism mostly designed to keep 'les autres' out of their affairs.
If their Charter was so great, there would be no push back. We'd collectively accept it but since it has no connection on any level to our diverse cultural reality, it has little value to the population outside the 'pure laine' tribalists. It was conceived, written and sold by the Parti Quebecois for its own constituents, for political expediency and agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. Quebec's idea of tolerance is "come here but on our terms." Which begs the question, why have immigration at all if you will badger people for expressing who they are?
They can pump out their chests in Mussolini style and claim it's a 'great day for Quebec' but it really isn't. It's a sad one. Which will only hasten the growing suspicion people have of this party's motives. Punitively dividing people may get you in power but the (negative) long-term effects on the society at large could be immeasurable.
The beauty in the American Constitution was that it was conceived in a time when tyranny had reached a zenith. While the American colonists remained skeptical of the Declaration of Independence fearing the possibility of a tyrannical government, they added a Bill of Rights to assuage any concerns both citizens and framers had. It was truly a remarkable piece of document that reverberated across the world. Its impact so deep, it remains deep within the psyche of the American people (well, except for Progressives it seems but this is neither here or there). Nothing has ever been declared in world history.
In this light, it's easy to contrast how different Quebec's angle to the United States.
Third, Quebec nationalists tend to be anti-American. So it's quite comical to hear them compare their trivialities to Americans when it suits their needs. It's a red herring and should be refuted outright.
Fourth, what prevails in Quebec is not a free and open society as we've come to hope for but one firmly entrenched in the notion that tyranny of the majority is acceptable. This acceptance is natural enough for the PQ given they have little or no support outside their cubicles. They have to rely on tyranny masquerading as "democratic." On its own, they have no intellectual or cultural currency to speak to those of us outside the party. They can't appeal to us on any level.
They chose this divide. They can't square it with any notion of true freedom of speech, expression etc. Indeed, the proof is right there for all to see: In their laws. I'm second class when all is said and done. You can not say on one side "we're open" and then tolerate outfits like the OLF. If individual liberty is squashed to "protect" the majority through punitive measures, then I would submit the majority have bigger problems to contend with.
For these reasons, in my personal view, Drainville opting out of the debate is not surprising.
They have nothing but their parochialism to push them forward and when that is exposed, the belt holding their pants up snaps like a bad Buster Keaton silent film
First, he and Lisee are the two bobbleheads who had the audacity to compare their anti-liberty Charter to Thomas Jefferson - in the New York Times no less. I understand Americans may meet this with indifference given plenty of tinpot politicians and dictators in the past have claimed a "spiritual kindred" attachment to the Constitution, nonetheless it's still galling. They can fool their political base with this ignorant and thoughtless nonsense but not to those of us outside it.
Second, Jefferson et all (Madison, Franklin etc) rarely - if ever - backed down from a debate to defend their positions. Why? Because they were committed philosophical giants to their cause. Their belief was a just one rooted in the notion of all men being created equal. That tyranny must be guarded against. That the idea of one man holding another man's liberty hostage through tyranny was unjust.
The message was simple in its origins, confirmed by ages, epochs and eras of history, and flawless in its elegant, inspirational but firm poetic, execution. To these men, all sovereign power and its authority flowed from God and proceeds from this point forward.
Put it this way, we still quote these gentlemen. Will we be quoting Lisee and Drainville? Just like no one quotes Camille Laurin. Theirs is a local outlook. Not a global one.
I don't expect the Quebec intellectual classes to grasp this notion rooted in in our collective heritage found in the Age of Reason of the Enlightenment period given their default, parochial position of putting the concept of "collective culture" first, but they damn better understand this was not how the American Founding Fathers looked at history and man's place during the long course of civilization.
In other words, they were able to extricate themselves from the unique position of being American, to become men who spoke of universal principles shared - or should be shared - by humanity. It just so happened they were 'American' but the message is universal.
This is why they - the PQ - have more in common with Dixiecrats and George Wallace than they do with the classical liberal minds of the Founding Fathers.
The Charter has NO universal message. It has no grand philosophical ideal to which other nations, thinkers or people will find any attachment to. It's just a misapplication of the theory of secularism mostly designed to keep 'les autres' out of their affairs.
If their Charter was so great, there would be no push back. We'd collectively accept it but since it has no connection on any level to our diverse cultural reality, it has little value to the population outside the 'pure laine' tribalists. It was conceived, written and sold by the Parti Quebecois for its own constituents, for political expediency and agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. Quebec's idea of tolerance is "come here but on our terms." Which begs the question, why have immigration at all if you will badger people for expressing who they are?
They can pump out their chests in Mussolini style and claim it's a 'great day for Quebec' but it really isn't. It's a sad one. Which will only hasten the growing suspicion people have of this party's motives. Punitively dividing people may get you in power but the (negative) long-term effects on the society at large could be immeasurable.
The beauty in the American Constitution was that it was conceived in a time when tyranny had reached a zenith. While the American colonists remained skeptical of the Declaration of Independence fearing the possibility of a tyrannical government, they added a Bill of Rights to assuage any concerns both citizens and framers had. It was truly a remarkable piece of document that reverberated across the world. Its impact so deep, it remains deep within the psyche of the American people (well, except for Progressives it seems but this is neither here or there). Nothing has ever been declared in world history.
In this light, it's easy to contrast how different Quebec's angle to the United States.
Third, Quebec nationalists tend to be anti-American. So it's quite comical to hear them compare their trivialities to Americans when it suits their needs. It's a red herring and should be refuted outright.
Fourth, what prevails in Quebec is not a free and open society as we've come to hope for but one firmly entrenched in the notion that tyranny of the majority is acceptable. This acceptance is natural enough for the PQ given they have little or no support outside their cubicles. They have to rely on tyranny masquerading as "democratic." On its own, they have no intellectual or cultural currency to speak to those of us outside the party. They can't appeal to us on any level.
They chose this divide. They can't square it with any notion of true freedom of speech, expression etc. Indeed, the proof is right there for all to see: In their laws. I'm second class when all is said and done. You can not say on one side "we're open" and then tolerate outfits like the OLF. If individual liberty is squashed to "protect" the majority through punitive measures, then I would submit the majority have bigger problems to contend with.
For these reasons, in my personal view, Drainville opting out of the debate is not surprising.
They have nothing but their parochialism to push them forward and when that is exposed, the belt holding their pants up snaps like a bad Buster Keaton silent film
2013-11-27
Stack Your Day, Get Things Done
I think we all engage in Parkinson's Law on some level.
For me, when I add things to do on my list, the fear of getting overwhelmed to the point of paralysis pushes me forward to get things done.
For me, when I add things to do on my list, the fear of getting overwhelmed to the point of paralysis pushes me forward to get things done.
Harvard's Finest
I was only kidding! Boy, you right-wingers can't detect sarcasm can you?
Matt 'Sadbeard' Yglesias has to be one of the most insufferable liberals out there. Remember, this guy rights about business and economics for Slate.
What?
There's more to his ignorance?
"The US Embassy in Switzerland also handles Liechtenstein. Clearly no reason for a separate embassy for the Vatican."
Ok. Maybe he is trolling. I mean, this is stuff you can easily look up and read about. At least, I hope.
Comment: "The fucking idiot doesn't realize that diplomatic missions aren't a unilateral affair. The Vatican established a Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, which has an equivalent diplomatic ranking to an embassy, thus we are obligated to return in kind."
There's more to his ignorance?
"The US Embassy in Switzerland also handles Liechtenstein. Clearly no reason for a separate embassy for the Vatican."
Ok. Maybe he is trolling. I mean, this is stuff you can easily look up and read about. At least, I hope.
Comment: "The fucking idiot doesn't realize that diplomatic missions aren't a unilateral affair. The Vatican established a Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, which has an equivalent diplomatic ranking to an embassy, thus we are obligated to return in kind."
Iran Deal Falling Apart
That didn't take long.
Iran-North Korea contravene recent Geneva deal and work on missiles together.
Aw. How quaint.
Not enough?
Iran announces it owns ballistic missile technology.
Aw.
Iran-North Korea contravene recent Geneva deal and work on missiles together.
Aw. How quaint.
Not enough?
Iran announces it owns ballistic missile technology.
Aw.
Comedy: Off To Alberta To Become Millionaires
Canadian Internet show Just Passing Through.
Pretty funny.
Not since the Trailer Park Boys have the Maritimes made us laugh.
Pretty funny.
Not since the Trailer Park Boys have the Maritimes made us laugh.
If You're Easily Offended Do Not Watch Videos
Chappelle's Black Bush.
Would love to see his takes on Obama.
And cooking with a retard:
Would love to see his takes on Obama.
And cooking with a retard:
Not Fair!
Friend to another friend: "Hey, I just got a great deal on new tires! $500!"
"That's fucking awesome dude! Good for you! How did you do it so that way I'll learn!"
"Well, you see..."
Bureaucrat/activist over listening interrupts.
"You boys sicken our Lightbringer leader. Why should you get that right? I'm afraid we're gonna have to change this ability to get deals. It's unfair to the person who didn't get one."
"But, what if that person was too lazy or dumb to shop around?"
"Doesn't matter. It's not fair. We're living in a civilization people! Civilization!"
Two boys look on confused. Bureaucrat continues.
"We need a tax to make things just!"
They walk away gingerly.
"That's fucking awesome dude! Good for you! How did you do it so that way I'll learn!"
"Well, you see..."
Bureaucrat/activist over listening interrupts.
"You boys sicken our Lightbringer leader. Why should you get that right? I'm afraid we're gonna have to change this ability to get deals. It's unfair to the person who didn't get one."
"But, what if that person was too lazy or dumb to shop around?"
"Doesn't matter. It's not fair. We're living in a civilization people! Civilization!"
Two boys look on confused. Bureaucrat continues.
"We need a tax to make things just!"
They walk away gingerly.
2013-11-26
U.S.-German Relations Hit Turbulence; Saying Socially Responsible Sounds Great; Canada's Humanism Questioned; Swiss Set To Vote Again; Defending Obamacare; Harper Goes Ahead With Sanctions On Iran
From Der Speigel:
"...Then, as the extent of the NSA's surveillance became clear, it was abruptly forced to draw a new conclusion: Germany is a third-class ally that the US trusts so little that it monitors German phone calls, emails and text messages. It even tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone..."
***
Define 'socially responsible."
Seriously. People need to start thinking thing - and buzzwords - through.
***
Canada not doing enough for asylum-seekers: Harvard study.
"...The Harvard report also shows Canada and the U.S. are failing to meet their obligations to asylum-seekers under international and domestic laws, said Efrat Arbel, one of the report's authors.
"Canada for many years really did extend meaningful protection to asylum-seekers and that's something to be very proud of, something to live up to," she added in an interview on the eve of the study's official release.
Indeed, the report says, Canada served as an example to the United States in the 1980s, inspiring its southern neighbour to be more welcoming to central American asylum-seekers who were fleeing war-torn regimes in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala..."
The problem is, there's a nativist streak with Canadians these days.
***
Fresh off a vote that restored sanity momentarily in the West, the Swiss are about to vote on whether to give citizens $2800 a month.
It's thought-provoking but is it really feasible? Reason magazine is of the opinion that it's the lesser of all evils since it would reduce the bureaucracy and its efficiencies. The community aren't buying it.
***
The New Republic argues insurances cancellations not attributed to Obamacare.
Yet, TNR asserts it threatens liberalism.
"...Wilson imagined technical experts, the new breed of social scientists emerging from the universities, who could help steer the economy."
/shudders.
"...the Affordable Care Act is the Russian novel of social policy, now totaling 20 202 pages."
Anyway. Good read.
***
Toronto Star asks if Obama is Jimmy Carter.
Duh.
Hello.
Of course not!
"...Obama’s smarts and good intentions are still widely accepted and admired..."
No, they are not 'widely accepted and admired.' As for the former, smarts and good intentions, all up for debate.
Stupid sentence from a major paper.
"...and both are seen to lack the key presidential traits of deviousness and ruthlessness."
Really? I don't see that with Obama. I see a rather indifferent individual and politically shrewd. The passage of Obama was pretty ruthless if you ask me. His Presidency has been rocked by enough scandals to wonder if he's duplicitous and devious.
***
The Front Man, in The National Review:
On Obama:
"His social circle includes an alarming number of authentic radicals, but the president’s politics are utterly conventional managerial liberalism. His manner is aloof, but he is too plainly a child of the middle class to succumb to the regal pretensions that the Kennedys suffered from, even if his household entourage does resemble the Ringling Bros. "
"...President Reagan’s guiding lights were theorists such as F. A. Hayek and Thomas Paine; Obama’s most important influences have been tacticians such as Abner Mikva, bush-league propagandists like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his beloved community organizers. Far from being the intellectual hostage of far-left ideologues, President Obama does not appear to have the intellectual energy even to digest their ideas, much less to implement them. This is not to say that he is an unintelligent man. He is a man with a first-class education and a business-class mind, a sort of inverse autodidact whose intellectual pedigree is an order of magnitude more impressive than his intellect..."
"...The result of this is his utterly predictable approach to domestic politics: appoint a panel of credentialed experts. His faith in the powers of pedigreed professionals is apparently absolute..."
"...Barack Obama is the first president of the democracy that John Adams warned us about..."
Driven by an agenda more than ideas.
That much is, well, transparent.
***
The Canadian government is going ahead with sanctions against Iran. Seems like Harper doesn't feel like changing his name to Chamberlain.
I guess they don't trust Iran - or Obama.
One thing we can't say about this conservative government, they don't necessarily fall into line with the USA.
Speaking of which, for a country that sure loves Obama, he knows how to ignore us.
"...Then, as the extent of the NSA's surveillance became clear, it was abruptly forced to draw a new conclusion: Germany is a third-class ally that the US trusts so little that it monitors German phone calls, emails and text messages. It even tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone..."
***
Define 'socially responsible."
Seriously. People need to start thinking thing - and buzzwords - through.
***
Canada not doing enough for asylum-seekers: Harvard study.
"...The Harvard report also shows Canada and the U.S. are failing to meet their obligations to asylum-seekers under international and domestic laws, said Efrat Arbel, one of the report's authors.
"Canada for many years really did extend meaningful protection to asylum-seekers and that's something to be very proud of, something to live up to," she added in an interview on the eve of the study's official release.
Indeed, the report says, Canada served as an example to the United States in the 1980s, inspiring its southern neighbour to be more welcoming to central American asylum-seekers who were fleeing war-torn regimes in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala..."
The problem is, there's a nativist streak with Canadians these days.
***
Fresh off a vote that restored sanity momentarily in the West, the Swiss are about to vote on whether to give citizens $2800 a month.
It's thought-provoking but is it really feasible? Reason magazine is of the opinion that it's the lesser of all evils since it would reduce the bureaucracy and its efficiencies. The community aren't buying it.
***
The New Republic argues insurances cancellations not attributed to Obamacare.
Yet, TNR asserts it threatens liberalism.
"...Wilson imagined technical experts, the new breed of social scientists emerging from the universities, who could help steer the economy."
/shudders.
"...the Affordable Care Act is the Russian novel of social policy, now totaling 20 202 pages."
Anyway. Good read.
***
Toronto Star asks if Obama is Jimmy Carter.
Duh.
Hello.
Of course not!
"...Obama’s smarts and good intentions are still widely accepted and admired..."
No, they are not 'widely accepted and admired.' As for the former, smarts and good intentions, all up for debate.
Stupid sentence from a major paper.
"...and both are seen to lack the key presidential traits of deviousness and ruthlessness."
Really? I don't see that with Obama. I see a rather indifferent individual and politically shrewd. The passage of Obama was pretty ruthless if you ask me. His Presidency has been rocked by enough scandals to wonder if he's duplicitous and devious.
***
The Front Man, in The National Review:
On Obama:
"His social circle includes an alarming number of authentic radicals, but the president’s politics are utterly conventional managerial liberalism. His manner is aloof, but he is too plainly a child of the middle class to succumb to the regal pretensions that the Kennedys suffered from, even if his household entourage does resemble the Ringling Bros. "
"...President Reagan’s guiding lights were theorists such as F. A. Hayek and Thomas Paine; Obama’s most important influences have been tacticians such as Abner Mikva, bush-league propagandists like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his beloved community organizers. Far from being the intellectual hostage of far-left ideologues, President Obama does not appear to have the intellectual energy even to digest their ideas, much less to implement them. This is not to say that he is an unintelligent man. He is a man with a first-class education and a business-class mind, a sort of inverse autodidact whose intellectual pedigree is an order of magnitude more impressive than his intellect..."
"...The result of this is his utterly predictable approach to domestic politics: appoint a panel of credentialed experts. His faith in the powers of pedigreed professionals is apparently absolute..."
"...Barack Obama is the first president of the democracy that John Adams warned us about..."
Driven by an agenda more than ideas.
That much is, well, transparent.
***
The Canadian government is going ahead with sanctions against Iran. Seems like Harper doesn't feel like changing his name to Chamberlain.
I guess they don't trust Iran - or Obama.
One thing we can't say about this conservative government, they don't necessarily fall into line with the USA.
Speaking of which, for a country that sure loves Obama, he knows how to ignore us.
Another Day, More Obamacare Concerns
This is getting weirder and weirder. The monstrosity that is Obamacare.
***
Does Obamacare take away HSA?
Looks like millions of people - who liked their plans - will be collateral damage.
***
I was thinking about the specious notion pimped out by progressives - including the President - defending Obamacare that 'people losing their plans didn't have good ones to begin with.' As I ready myself to change the 'pneus' (tires) on my 4x4, I saw an opportunity for an analogy.
Basically, it's this. The Quebec government decided to force people to have winter tires by law or face fines a few years back. Suddenly, perfectly adequate four season tires were no longer allowed. The reason I remain angered and opposed to it is (aside from the preventative BS and likely scamming going on) that I got excellent traction on my four seasons because I own a truck. But apparently, I had dangerous tires and I didn't know it despite having gone through five winters with it without as much as losing control of my vehicle.
It was a one-size fits all law designed to make the responsible majority pay for the few irresponsible in our society. Now, I find myself in a situation to go and buy tires every few years.
Needless to say, I plan to buy them in the USA. This year I managed to get a wicked good deal because I think Quebec businesses understand you can't charge $1200 when I can go to Plattsburgh and get a set installed for $650. By pure luck, I got a similar price quoted and went with it.
Anyway. Point is, people who condescend to the point of telling others what they have (based on rational choices and experiences) is invalid can go suck a lemon.
***
Does Obamacare take away HSA?
Looks like millions of people - who liked their plans - will be collateral damage.
***
I was thinking about the specious notion pimped out by progressives - including the President - defending Obamacare that 'people losing their plans didn't have good ones to begin with.' As I ready myself to change the 'pneus' (tires) on my 4x4, I saw an opportunity for an analogy.
Basically, it's this. The Quebec government decided to force people to have winter tires by law or face fines a few years back. Suddenly, perfectly adequate four season tires were no longer allowed. The reason I remain angered and opposed to it is (aside from the preventative BS and likely scamming going on) that I got excellent traction on my four seasons because I own a truck. But apparently, I had dangerous tires and I didn't know it despite having gone through five winters with it without as much as losing control of my vehicle.
It was a one-size fits all law designed to make the responsible majority pay for the few irresponsible in our society. Now, I find myself in a situation to go and buy tires every few years.
Needless to say, I plan to buy them in the USA. This year I managed to get a wicked good deal because I think Quebec businesses understand you can't charge $1200 when I can go to Plattsburgh and get a set installed for $650. By pure luck, I got a similar price quoted and went with it.
Anyway. Point is, people who condescend to the point of telling others what they have (based on rational choices and experiences) is invalid can go suck a lemon.
Is The West Rudderless?
Article from iPolicy:
"Israelis are deeply troubled by what they see as Neville Chamberlain-style negotiations and agreement with Iran that will see a partial lifting of sanctions, but very little in the way of real concessions from Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions by dismantling its centrifuges and heavy water reactor."
"Israelis are deeply troubled by what they see as Neville Chamberlain-style negotiations and agreement with Iran that will see a partial lifting of sanctions, but very little in the way of real concessions from Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions by dismantling its centrifuges and heavy water reactor."
MSNBC Fires Baldwin
Alec, we hardly knew you - and that's a good thing.
For all his wasted energy attacking the papparazzi (you really can't turn your fame on and off), Alec Baldwin has done one worse - ultimately expose himself for the naked miserable individual he is.
MSNBC did the right thing. There seems to be too many negative stories surrounding his incorrigible and inexcusable behaviors.
I don't comment on celebrities because frankly, they bore the living shit out of me especially when they feign intelligence when it comes to political issues as the uber-liberal Baldwin does.
You are worthless Arec Barrin!
For all his wasted energy attacking the papparazzi (you really can't turn your fame on and off), Alec Baldwin has done one worse - ultimately expose himself for the naked miserable individual he is.
MSNBC did the right thing. There seems to be too many negative stories surrounding his incorrigible and inexcusable behaviors.
I don't comment on celebrities because frankly, they bore the living shit out of me especially when they feign intelligence when it comes to political issues as the uber-liberal Baldwin does.
You are worthless Arec Barrin!
Is The White House Lying About The Iran Deal?
The Iranians think so.
This is a serious assertion made by the Iranians who claim they didn't agree to the terms Obama is telling his constituents.
Holy smokes, if true, I think it's time the Americans consider impeachment options.
Obama's miscues and deliberate lies are not good for the country. Not good at all.
It's now past the left-right thing. It's a competent-crediblity thing and Obama's losing currency.
This is a serious assertion made by the Iranians who claim they didn't agree to the terms Obama is telling his constituents.
Holy smokes, if true, I think it's time the Americans consider impeachment options.
Obama's miscues and deliberate lies are not good for the country. Not good at all.
It's now past the left-right thing. It's a competent-crediblity thing and Obama's losing currency.
Monumental Game Changer For Sports In Canada
This is a huge deal the NHL and Rogers (TVA - part of Quebecor - in Quebec) signed.
Pretty big.
It changes the hockey landscape significantly.
In listening to the discussion, it was interesting to hear journalists and executives talk about how this impacts the CBC's Don Cherry. Of all the personalities, Cherry towers above everyone else. Much to the chagrin of haters. Love it.
When Rogers entered the sports world, I welcomed it because it meant competition to TSN. I don't like when any one entity has exclusive rights or control of something.
It will be very intriguing to see how TSN/RDS (subsidiaries of ESPN) react.
It may mean more basketball, soccer or other sports. Which can also be a good thing depending how they deal with it.
Funny how things work out. Once upon a time, TSN's grip on sports in Canada seemed unshakeable even when the obscure Sportsnet (Rogers) came into the picture. Hockey is the main game in town here and Rogers just grabbed the spoils. It's like when Germanic kings - and all other powers in history - conquering Rome to put in its trophy case.
How times have changed.
Pretty big.
It changes the hockey landscape significantly.
In listening to the discussion, it was interesting to hear journalists and executives talk about how this impacts the CBC's Don Cherry. Of all the personalities, Cherry towers above everyone else. Much to the chagrin of haters. Love it.
When Rogers entered the sports world, I welcomed it because it meant competition to TSN. I don't like when any one entity has exclusive rights or control of something.
It will be very intriguing to see how TSN/RDS (subsidiaries of ESPN) react.
It may mean more basketball, soccer or other sports. Which can also be a good thing depending how they deal with it.
Funny how things work out. Once upon a time, TSN's grip on sports in Canada seemed unshakeable even when the obscure Sportsnet (Rogers) came into the picture. Hockey is the main game in town here and Rogers just grabbed the spoils. It's like when Germanic kings - and all other powers in history - conquering Rome to put in its trophy case.
How times have changed.
Go Political During The Holidays
Bringing community organizing to governance.
Obama's administration and its philosophy on leadership is not only rather amateurish but weird.
Lemme get this straight. The government is directly appealing to citizens to have 'the talk' about Obamacare during the holidays?
Well, my American friends, why not just figuratively set up a place at the table for your imaginary bureaucrat because that's pretty much what this amounts to.
You can just pretend 'Todd' is away for the holidays hard at work making the technocratic society more efficient for the benefit of all.
I don't know who is worse when it comes to politicizing private life - Quebec or the USA under Obama.
Obama's administration and its philosophy on leadership is not only rather amateurish but weird.
Lemme get this straight. The government is directly appealing to citizens to have 'the talk' about Obamacare during the holidays?
Well, my American friends, why not just figuratively set up a place at the table for your imaginary bureaucrat because that's pretty much what this amounts to.
You can just pretend 'Todd' is away for the holidays hard at work making the technocratic society more efficient for the benefit of all.
I don't know who is worse when it comes to politicizing private life - Quebec or the USA under Obama.
Australian Pride Restored
What is it with the left and propping up kids to further various agendas like climate change and gun control? Sounds as though it's not restricted to the Obama administration who use sock puppets like they're permanently fitted to their political hands.
These climate change conferences have truly become redundant if not comical.
As predicted here.
All for bella figura.
According to Gore's math - carry the one, multiply by 0 - back in 2005 or something we didn't have much time left to act.
Yawn.
/looks at watch.
Looks like Harper, for all the crap he took for wisely ignoring such conferences, did Canada a favor. If the world's mightiest economies and polluters won't budge, there's not much countries like Australia and Canada can do. That and the fact this PM called BS on the whole thing and decided to focus on, I don't know, writing hockey history books which is probably more productive anyway.
These climate change conferences have truly become redundant if not comical.
As predicted here.
All for bella figura.
According to Gore's math - carry the one, multiply by 0 - back in 2005 or something we didn't have much time left to act.
Yawn.
/looks at watch.
Looks like Harper, for all the crap he took for wisely ignoring such conferences, did Canada a favor. If the world's mightiest economies and polluters won't budge, there's not much countries like Australia and Canada can do. That and the fact this PM called BS on the whole thing and decided to focus on, I don't know, writing hockey history books which is probably more productive anyway.
2013-11-25
McGill's Finest
I'll go out on a limb and assert you just don't see this kind of inane, vapid, insanity on the libertarian side of things. But there's a whole lot of it on the progressive side. Libertarians don't see racists and misogynists under the bed like progressives do.
I came across this article a few days ago and wondered if I should bother posting but it was so infinitely asinine in its hispter-doofus, pseudo-intellectualism it's worth a look-see. My McGill contacts tell me this is par for the course for the Daily.
From McGill Daily:
"Blogger Ashley Ashbee, who calls Movember a type of “slacktivism,” puts it perfectly when asking participants, “Does your moustache share information about the importance of screening, or where to get screened? Does it tell you how you can prevent prostate cancer (if you even can)? Does it tell you the symptoms? Does it tell you who’s affected?” Yes, Movember might raise awareness, and a good deal of money ($146.6 million just last November, according to their website) for a good cause, but that isn’t an excuse to ignore its major flaws. The point of articles like this is also to raise awareness to inherent micro-aggressions (interactions between people of different races, genders, sexualities, and cultures that represent small acts of non-physical violence) and discrimination that campaigns like Movember help perpetuate, whether directly or indirectly. This awareness is raised in order to take something, like Movember, help fix it up and make it more accessible and less misogynistic, and turn it into something better. Do some basic research, educate yourself on the issue, and think twice before growing a moustache this, or any other, November."
The line in bold really pissed me off. The author spends an article making all sorts of outrageous and specious claims and then he condescendingly has the audacity to ask readers to "educate yourself."
As for arguing this article with facts, it's beyond that. It has no merit to begin with. May as well wipe my ass with it.
Keep in mind McGill is a top 20 or 25 University in the world.
Which begs the question: What good are these rankings anyway?
I came across this article a few days ago and wondered if I should bother posting but it was so infinitely asinine in its hispter-doofus, pseudo-intellectualism it's worth a look-see. My McGill contacts tell me this is par for the course for the Daily.
From McGill Daily:
"Blogger Ashley Ashbee, who calls Movember a type of “slacktivism,” puts it perfectly when asking participants, “Does your moustache share information about the importance of screening, or where to get screened? Does it tell you how you can prevent prostate cancer (if you even can)? Does it tell you the symptoms? Does it tell you who’s affected?” Yes, Movember might raise awareness, and a good deal of money ($146.6 million just last November, according to their website) for a good cause, but that isn’t an excuse to ignore its major flaws. The point of articles like this is also to raise awareness to inherent micro-aggressions (interactions between people of different races, genders, sexualities, and cultures that represent small acts of non-physical violence) and discrimination that campaigns like Movember help perpetuate, whether directly or indirectly. This awareness is raised in order to take something, like Movember, help fix it up and make it more accessible and less misogynistic, and turn it into something better. Do some basic research, educate yourself on the issue, and think twice before growing a moustache this, or any other, November."
The line in bold really pissed me off. The author spends an article making all sorts of outrageous and specious claims and then he condescendingly has the audacity to ask readers to "educate yourself."
As for arguing this article with facts, it's beyond that. It has no merit to begin with. May as well wipe my ass with it.
Keep in mind McGill is a top 20 or 25 University in the world.
Which begs the question: What good are these rankings anyway?
Concussion Lawsuit Hits NHL
I'm starting to get uneasy about these lawsuits.
I wonder how many of those players would come off the ice willingly if injured.
Not many - if any.
Forgive me, but they - we who play sports - knew what they were signing up for.
It's a little like the smoker going after the tobacco company. In there somewhere there's personal responsibility. No one put a gun to their heads.
"...It argues that the league continues to contribute to injuries today, by refusing to ban fighting and body-checking, and by employing "enforcers" whose main job is to fight or violently body-check opponents. And the lawsuit accuses the league of promoting a "culture of violence," in which players are praised for their fighting and "head-hunting" skills."
Man, oh, man there's some dizzying - excuse the pun - assertions here.
Ban body-checking? Body-checking! There's nothing wrong with good clean hit. I know much is made of Olympic hockey where skill prevails over brawn but that's an anomaly. You have the very best packed into those rosters. Naturally, the skill level will be phenomenal. But watch hockey where the rosters are less stacked and see how the product looks. I'm not that into European style hockey where there's a lot of dispy-doodling and very little bodes being banged around. Hey, different strokes for different folks, Willis.
Ban fighting? Survey the players. A majority of them will say fighting is a way for players to police themselves. It's not the league that employs "enforcers." Teams do. Always have. Always will. Which begs the question - Isn't this what fans demand?
I know many people are turned off by fighting in hockey (and at one point it had become a side-show in the 1990s when goons were announcing who they were going to fight prior to games reminiscent of WWE. It was more Slap Shot than hockey) but that's calmed down significantly in regular season play and you hardly see any fighting or brawls in the playoffs like we used to see in the 1970s, 1980s and parts of the 1990s- which were awesome by the way.
Where I do agree is with the NHL's horrible job of handling hits to the head. They need to stop the JFK-esque explanations and just ban a player that concusses someone. Not for three games but 30.
It'll eventually sink in. Some of those hits are plain dirty and I don't generally sympathize with the "I was doing my job" or "I didn't mean to hurt" line.
A lot of hits are not necessary and the NHL has been terrible at sending a strong message through its incoherent suspension policies.
As to assigning blame or finding a scapegoat. Good luck with that. This stuff doesn't begin and end with professional hockey. It begins waaayyyy before that. In effect, on trial here is the game of hockey.
Like football is on trial in the NFL.
I wonder how many of those players would come off the ice willingly if injured.
Not many - if any.
Forgive me, but they - we who play sports - knew what they were signing up for.
It's a little like the smoker going after the tobacco company. In there somewhere there's personal responsibility. No one put a gun to their heads.
"...It argues that the league continues to contribute to injuries today, by refusing to ban fighting and body-checking, and by employing "enforcers" whose main job is to fight or violently body-check opponents. And the lawsuit accuses the league of promoting a "culture of violence," in which players are praised for their fighting and "head-hunting" skills."
Man, oh, man there's some dizzying - excuse the pun - assertions here.
Ban body-checking? Body-checking! There's nothing wrong with good clean hit. I know much is made of Olympic hockey where skill prevails over brawn but that's an anomaly. You have the very best packed into those rosters. Naturally, the skill level will be phenomenal. But watch hockey where the rosters are less stacked and see how the product looks. I'm not that into European style hockey where there's a lot of dispy-doodling and very little bodes being banged around. Hey, different strokes for different folks, Willis.
Ban fighting? Survey the players. A majority of them will say fighting is a way for players to police themselves. It's not the league that employs "enforcers." Teams do. Always have. Always will. Which begs the question - Isn't this what fans demand?
I know many people are turned off by fighting in hockey (and at one point it had become a side-show in the 1990s when goons were announcing who they were going to fight prior to games reminiscent of WWE. It was more Slap Shot than hockey) but that's calmed down significantly in regular season play and you hardly see any fighting or brawls in the playoffs like we used to see in the 1970s, 1980s and parts of the 1990s- which were awesome by the way.
Where I do agree is with the NHL's horrible job of handling hits to the head. They need to stop the JFK-esque explanations and just ban a player that concusses someone. Not for three games but 30.
It'll eventually sink in. Some of those hits are plain dirty and I don't generally sympathize with the "I was doing my job" or "I didn't mean to hurt" line.
A lot of hits are not necessary and the NHL has been terrible at sending a strong message through its incoherent suspension policies.
As to assigning blame or finding a scapegoat. Good luck with that. This stuff doesn't begin and end with professional hockey. It begins waaayyyy before that. In effect, on trial here is the game of hockey.
Like football is on trial in the NFL.
Progress California Style
"...Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office who
helped write the ordinance,
explained some of the bill's specifics to ABC
News. "It doesn't matter if it's owner-occupied or
renter-occupied," she said. "We didn't want to discriminate. The
distinguishing feature is the shared wall...I’m not aware of any
ordinance that’s stronger."
But you just did.
I bet this is an ordinance written by rich folks that will fuck over poor people.
That'll learn 'em!
But you just did.
I bet this is an ordinance written by rich folks that will fuck over poor people.
That'll learn 'em!
Obamacare Promises
What happened to the assurances the site would be fully operational by the end of the month?
And notice they aren't talking about the 'cost cutting' aspect of Obamacare so much anymore.
And notice they aren't talking about the 'cost cutting' aspect of Obamacare so much anymore.
Farewell Brian
Er, yeah, no. Granted, I'm that invested in Family Guy like I used to be pre-cancellation but, right, no.
You can't kill Brian.
Mind you. Bat-Man, Robin, Super-Man have all died and come back...I guess. And the Wile E. Coyote keeps surviving all those accidents.
You can't kill Brian.
Mind you. Bat-Man, Robin, Super-Man have all died and come back...I guess. And the Wile E. Coyote keeps surviving all those accidents.
Verbose Protection
Pythagorean theorem: 24 words
Lord's prayer: 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words
10 Commandments: 179 words
Gettysburg address: 286 words
Declaration of Independence : 1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: 7,818 words
US Government regulations on sale of cabbage: 26,911 word
How many pages is Obamacare again?
Six words banned by the bureaucracy: Brevity is the soul of wit.
Lord's prayer: 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words
10 Commandments: 179 words
Gettysburg address: 286 words
Declaration of Independence : 1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: 7,818 words
US Government regulations on sale of cabbage: 26,911 word
How many pages is Obamacare again?
Six words banned by the bureaucracy: Brevity is the soul of wit.
The On-Going War On Caps
Article on the reserve clause in the NBA.
What caught me was this exchange between a Senator and Oscar Robertson:
Even back then political masters wanted to cap how much a man earns. Robertson, of course, was/is in the right.
Shorter Robertson: While it's not a man's place to determine another man's financial well-being, it's none of your god damned business how much I make asshole.
What caught me was this exchange between a Senator and Oscar Robertson:
Robertson: I think it is terribly wrong for anyone to limit anyone’s ability to earn money no matter where it may be, whether it is in business or sports. I think any time you limit a person as to where he can go, such as the case was prior to the two leagues, I think it is terribly wrong.
Hruska: Is it wrong to limit the amount of money a man can earn?
Robertson: I think in America it is.
Hruska: Does the draft system do that?
Robertson: I think if you only had one league, that is true. As long as you have two leagues, there is no telling what a person can earn.
Even back then political masters wanted to cap how much a man earns. Robertson, of course, was/is in the right.
Shorter Robertson: While it's not a man's place to determine another man's financial well-being, it's none of your god damned business how much I make asshole.
Montreal Logo Revisited
Whatever happened to that $487 000 Montreal logo redesign a few years back?
Here was a discussion about from designers at Brand New.
Looks like many professionals like the 'clean' look of the logo, while citizens saw a more negative "price to quality' value to it.
I was in the latter camp.
And the pros failed to sway me.
Not at that price anyway.
Great site by the way.
Here was a discussion about from designers at Brand New.
Looks like many professionals like the 'clean' look of the logo, while citizens saw a more negative "price to quality' value to it.
I was in the latter camp.
And the pros failed to sway me.
Not at that price anyway.
Great site by the way.
Kill All The Lawyers!
Erm.
Not yet. You may want to hold off.
You're gonna need them once the full implications of Obamacare kicks in.
Not yet. You may want to hold off.
You're gonna need them once the full implications of Obamacare kicks in.
Comment Of The Day
Retarded comment of the day:
"The middle class is being beaten up by corporate greed, not by taxes, and not by the needy. Gross income disparity was created by corporate welfare, not by health reform. You can continue believing the lie that government is the problem, or you could open your eyes and find that being a functioning, contributing member of a caring society is a good feeling."
It's from a Krugman comments thread.
For the life of me, I don't know how anyone can continue to think this (Marxist-Unicorn) crap. And what does 'corporate greed' even mean?
Meh.
I'm not holding punches anymore.
Someone takes a stab at a response:
"The middle class is being beaten up by corporate greed, not by taxes, and not by the needy. Gross income disparity was created by corporate welfare, not by health reform. You can continue believing the lie that government is the problem, or you could open your eyes and find that being a functioning, contributing member of a caring society is a good feeling."
It's from a Krugman comments thread.
For the life of me, I don't know how anyone can continue to think this (Marxist-Unicorn) crap. And what does 'corporate greed' even mean?
Meh.
I'm not holding punches anymore.
Someone takes a stab at a response:
"Corporate greed means you are in business to make money. In
other words, the entire basis for an advanced, wealthy society such
as we have.
And if the greed enabled by corporate welfare is the problem, wouldn't that mean that the government IS in fact the problem?
It's amazing how close these people can get to seeing what the problem (or one of them) is and yet still completely dismiss the huge role the government plays in all of it."
And if the greed enabled by corporate welfare is the problem, wouldn't that mean that the government IS in fact the problem?
It's amazing how close these people can get to seeing what the problem (or one of them) is and yet still completely dismiss the huge role the government plays in all of it."
Another Take On Iran
Interesting alternate take on Iran's nuclear deal.
From Atomic Insights.
"...Iran, with its 70 million citizens demanding better living conditions, burns the equivalent of about a million barrels of oil per day in the form of internationally valuable hydrocarbons (oil and methane) to supply domestic electricity. If it continues to add to its nuclear energy capacity, it will free up supplies that it can sell in the world market. That increased supply will inevitably lead to lower prices as a result of the well understood relationship between supply and demand.
If Iran does not build its domestic nuclear energy capability, growth in domestic oil and gas demand might eventually result in it not being able to export any oil at all. There are good historical reasons why Iranian leaders believe that their country must have domestic nuclear fuel capability; the international market has not been a reliable supplier of any important products to Iran over the years."
On the other hand, someone pointed out why does Iran want nuclear options when it's sitting on so much oil? Nonetheless, I've come to realize it is quite rational for Iran to develop its nuclear facilities with its eroding oil infrastructure. It is a valid question, why should Israel, USA and by extension other countries like India, Pakistan, France etc. have the right to go nuclear but not other nations? I understand the whole 'death to America and Jews' angle (which is serious enough) but is it the international communities right to deny it? Not so sure.
***
Non-sequitur.
Still laughing at Jean Francois Lisee.
/pounds table.
"And for tonight's first act, Jean Francois Lisee!"
"Whoa, hey, hi there! Good crowd, good crowd. So, let's see here. Oh, my government just recently penned a revolutionary Charter that we feel matches anything the Americans put together. Dare I say, it's even greater than the Magna Carter! I know, I know. Hold your applause. It wasn't easy, what, with all that irrational and emotional Anglo nonsense but we Pequistes are a reasonable and strong bunch.
"Is there a joke in there?"
"I'm getting to it. I really need to ban English in public spaces. Anyway. We Quebecers need to defend the sanctity of secularism and with those scary Islamist we're all doing you a favor in doing the dirty work. It's a wonderfully crafted balanced Charter if I may say so myself."
"Boo! Where's the Vaudeville cain!"
"Chalice. Fine. What does a cannibal do after dumping his girlfriend?
"What?"
"Wipes his butt."
"Boo! Hiss."
"Is that a way to treat me! I'm Jean Francois Jefferson!"
Club manager: "Hit the red button. NOW!"
From Atomic Insights.
"...Iran, with its 70 million citizens demanding better living conditions, burns the equivalent of about a million barrels of oil per day in the form of internationally valuable hydrocarbons (oil and methane) to supply domestic electricity. If it continues to add to its nuclear energy capacity, it will free up supplies that it can sell in the world market. That increased supply will inevitably lead to lower prices as a result of the well understood relationship between supply and demand.
If Iran does not build its domestic nuclear energy capability, growth in domestic oil and gas demand might eventually result in it not being able to export any oil at all. There are good historical reasons why Iranian leaders believe that their country must have domestic nuclear fuel capability; the international market has not been a reliable supplier of any important products to Iran over the years."
On the other hand, someone pointed out why does Iran want nuclear options when it's sitting on so much oil? Nonetheless, I've come to realize it is quite rational for Iran to develop its nuclear facilities with its eroding oil infrastructure. It is a valid question, why should Israel, USA and by extension other countries like India, Pakistan, France etc. have the right to go nuclear but not other nations? I understand the whole 'death to America and Jews' angle (which is serious enough) but is it the international communities right to deny it? Not so sure.
***
Non-sequitur.
Still laughing at Jean Francois Lisee.
/pounds table.
"And for tonight's first act, Jean Francois Lisee!"
"Whoa, hey, hi there! Good crowd, good crowd. So, let's see here. Oh, my government just recently penned a revolutionary Charter that we feel matches anything the Americans put together. Dare I say, it's even greater than the Magna Carter! I know, I know. Hold your applause. It wasn't easy, what, with all that irrational and emotional Anglo nonsense but we Pequistes are a reasonable and strong bunch.
"Is there a joke in there?"
"I'm getting to it. I really need to ban English in public spaces. Anyway. We Quebecers need to defend the sanctity of secularism and with those scary Islamist we're all doing you a favor in doing the dirty work. It's a wonderfully crafted balanced Charter if I may say so myself."
"Boo! Where's the Vaudeville cain!"
"Chalice. Fine. What does a cannibal do after dumping his girlfriend?
"What?"
"Wipes his butt."
"Boo! Hiss."
"Is that a way to treat me! I'm Jean Francois Jefferson!"
Club manager: "Hit the red button. NOW!"
Nationalism Canadian Style
I sat down this morning to watch the sports highlights with an espresso as I usually do every morning after dropping the little one off at school. The lead-in was the Broncos-Patriots which is fine given the nature of the game - two AFC powerhouses, Brady v. Manning blah, blah.
Problem is...last night was the 101st Grey Cup contested between the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Hamilton Tiger-Cats won by the Roughies 45-23. It was the team's 4th Grey Cup title in 19 appearances.
Seems to me, you know, being from Canada and all the game should have been first off the mark.
No?
Bah.
Problem is...last night was the 101st Grey Cup contested between the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Hamilton Tiger-Cats won by the Roughies 45-23. It was the team's 4th Grey Cup title in 19 appearances.
Seems to me, you know, being from Canada and all the game should have been first off the mark.
No?
Bah.
2013-11-24
Pack Of Lies From MFI
Steve Dilbert over at Mortgage Fraud Investigations should explain or cite this assertion:
"Yes, Bank of America, the bank founded by a mafioso loan shark named Amadeo Pietro Giannini..."
'Cuz if there's none, dare I say it's a stereotype!
Here's a little background into Giannini.
I can't find any information alleging he was a loan shark.
As for the rest of the article, usual vapidness about business. Par for the course.
"Why are corporations so greedy!"
Jesus Christ.
"Yes, Bank of America, the bank founded by a mafioso loan shark named Amadeo Pietro Giannini..."
'Cuz if there's none, dare I say it's a stereotype!
Here's a little background into Giannini.
I can't find any information alleging he was a loan shark.
As for the rest of the article, usual vapidness about business. Par for the course.
"Why are corporations so greedy!"
Jesus Christ.
Homer Approved
While on vacation, I always try to consume local stuff as much as I can. In St. Petersburg I tried Jai Alai beer which was a delicious beer.
Speaking of which, Beer Advocate helps amateur tasters make sense of the beer world. Filled with ratings and rankings.
Canada as a whole produces mediocre beer but Quebec and its micro-breweries is a separate issue. World class stuff comes out of this place.
Speaking of which, Beer Advocate helps amateur tasters make sense of the beer world. Filled with ratings and rankings.
Canada as a whole produces mediocre beer but Quebec and its micro-breweries is a separate issue. World class stuff comes out of this place.
Obamacre Agency Took No Bids For Website
Who do the Americans think they are?
Montreal, when it comes to doling out corrupt government contracts?
Oh, the cronyism of the Obama administration. The most fairest and transparent administration of them all!
Montreal, when it comes to doling out corrupt government contracts?
Oh, the cronyism of the Obama administration. The most fairest and transparent administration of them all!
There Are No Consequences When There Are Unicorns To Protect Us
The progressive movement is a cult. Or at least they move about like mindless drones in lockstep with each other holding hands in a long-chain. It's almost as if they receive marching orders and off they run to infest us with their demands and solutions for social ills they deem urgent.
When the topic of taxes arises, for example, you'll hear one progressive leader assert 'taxes are the price for civilization' and next thing you know the Prog Army of Rational Lightbringers are repeating the phrase ad nauseum. Or 'pay a living wage' (followed by an arbitrary figure - it's always arbitrary with them) as President Obama vapidly proclaimed in a State of the Union address earlier this year.
Result? The cue was taken. Must. Follow. Orders. A socialist in Seattle demands Wal-Mart pays $15 /hr. The government already superficially set a pay scale in subsidized daycare. It's been transferred - unfairly - onto private entities who don't have the luxury of using tax dollars to cover salaries. But in the minds of the left I'm "rich" simply because I own a business and will have to make do.
What these people don't care about - no literally, they don't care because they see corporations as malignant entities there to be raped and pillaged for the greater good as they define it - are the consequences - unintended or otherwise - of those actions. Any semi-economic literate mind will see raising such a raise will come at a significant cost. It can hurt, for example, the middle-class in the form of higher prices as the costs will be passed on to us. It can mean a company reducing hours or its labour force because the cost of doing business threatens their margins. It also plays a role, in a larger context, lead to 'outsourcing' as businesses will naturally look to lower costs. Alas, this is not what they're supposed to do according to the prog-pan! Furthermore, they can demand or require more experienced workers at such a price thus freezing out low-skilled employees of which they represent a large percentage of the employment base.
And so on.
But they don't care.
All they see is their magical unicorn prancing around dispersing high wages and all will be fair and well. Theirs is the grand compassionate project.
What of fairness?
Their concept of fairness is as warped as their interpretations of finance.
They insist the government intervenes in such matters. But as usual, when they implicate their policies into our lives it creates more injustice since they pick and choose 'winners' and 'losers' when it comes to, for instance, subsidies and bail outs.
Progressive thought has become predictable as it has become patently puerile. As time went on on my long journey onto becoming a libertarian-humanist, this became apparent.
When the topic of taxes arises, for example, you'll hear one progressive leader assert 'taxes are the price for civilization' and next thing you know the Prog Army of Rational Lightbringers are repeating the phrase ad nauseum. Or 'pay a living wage' (followed by an arbitrary figure - it's always arbitrary with them) as President Obama vapidly proclaimed in a State of the Union address earlier this year.
Result? The cue was taken. Must. Follow. Orders. A socialist in Seattle demands Wal-Mart pays $15 /hr. The government already superficially set a pay scale in subsidized daycare. It's been transferred - unfairly - onto private entities who don't have the luxury of using tax dollars to cover salaries. But in the minds of the left I'm "rich" simply because I own a business and will have to make do.
What these people don't care about - no literally, they don't care because they see corporations as malignant entities there to be raped and pillaged for the greater good as they define it - are the consequences - unintended or otherwise - of those actions. Any semi-economic literate mind will see raising such a raise will come at a significant cost. It can hurt, for example, the middle-class in the form of higher prices as the costs will be passed on to us. It can mean a company reducing hours or its labour force because the cost of doing business threatens their margins. It also plays a role, in a larger context, lead to 'outsourcing' as businesses will naturally look to lower costs. Alas, this is not what they're supposed to do according to the prog-pan! Furthermore, they can demand or require more experienced workers at such a price thus freezing out low-skilled employees of which they represent a large percentage of the employment base.
And so on.
But they don't care.
All they see is their magical unicorn prancing around dispersing high wages and all will be fair and well. Theirs is the grand compassionate project.
What of fairness?
Their concept of fairness is as warped as their interpretations of finance.
They insist the government intervenes in such matters. But as usual, when they implicate their policies into our lives it creates more injustice since they pick and choose 'winners' and 'losers' when it comes to, for instance, subsidies and bail outs.
Progressive thought has become predictable as it has become patently puerile. As time went on on my long journey onto becoming a libertarian-humanist, this became apparent.
The Science Bubble
From Science Daily:
"...Budtz Pedersen and Hendricks show how the 'breakthroughs' and' turning points' promised by many neuroscience projects -- when combined with the fact that recent studies indicate a number of neuroscience publications seem to lack the statistical power to back their findings -- have the potential to become a fully-fledged science bubble. In other words: the value of the neuroscientific promises and the investments made in them may turn out to bear no relation to the actual value of the scientific results..."
"...Even in the highly rationalised science community, people are susceptible to a social-psychological phenomenon like pluralistic ignorance, where every researcher and policymaker individually may doubt the promises made by a particular research programme but also wrongly believe that everybody else is convinced of its robustness; so they all end up collectively supporting a dubious programme which subsequently receives generous funding," professor Hendricks says and concludes:
"When researchers choose to ignore their private information and instead mimick the actions of researchers before them, they initialise a so-called lemming effect in which everybody publishes in the same journals and applies for funding for the same type of projects. Such a scientific bubble will eventually bust when the programmes' scientific explanations are put to the test, but the problem is that they may already have drained the research system from resources. And then the system will be faced with an investor confidence crisis."
We're all subject to basic laws of economics.
"...Budtz Pedersen and Hendricks show how the 'breakthroughs' and' turning points' promised by many neuroscience projects -- when combined with the fact that recent studies indicate a number of neuroscience publications seem to lack the statistical power to back their findings -- have the potential to become a fully-fledged science bubble. In other words: the value of the neuroscientific promises and the investments made in them may turn out to bear no relation to the actual value of the scientific results..."
"...Even in the highly rationalised science community, people are susceptible to a social-psychological phenomenon like pluralistic ignorance, where every researcher and policymaker individually may doubt the promises made by a particular research programme but also wrongly believe that everybody else is convinced of its robustness; so they all end up collectively supporting a dubious programme which subsequently receives generous funding," professor Hendricks says and concludes:
"When researchers choose to ignore their private information and instead mimick the actions of researchers before them, they initialise a so-called lemming effect in which everybody publishes in the same journals and applies for funding for the same type of projects. Such a scientific bubble will eventually bust when the programmes' scientific explanations are put to the test, but the problem is that they may already have drained the research system from resources. And then the system will be faced with an investor confidence crisis."
We're all subject to basic laws of economics.
2013-11-23
Analyzing Soccer Players
The Capello Index is a neat source in analyzing soccer players.
Soccer sorely needs Bill James type of statistical gathering.
It figures it would come from the mind of the hyper-tactical, disciplinarian Fabio Capello.
Soccer sorely needs Bill James type of statistical gathering.
It figures it would come from the mind of the hyper-tactical, disciplinarian Fabio Capello.
NASA Job Application
Fall Of The West Reason 4959697788
Uninjustice!
‘Non-white’ students at UCLA complained recently that by pointing out punctuation and spelling errors creates an “unsafe culture.”
David Thompson reported:
Wait. Is there hope?
‘Non-white’ students at UCLA complained recently that by pointing out punctuation and spelling errors creates an “unsafe culture.”
David Thompson reported:
More crushing injustice on campus, this time at the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies:
In a letter sent to colleagues in the department after the sit-in, [Professor] Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of “micro-aggression.” “I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don’t feel that is appropriate,” Rust said in the letter.You see, by highlighting spelling and punctuation errors, the professor is contributing to an “unsafe climate for students of colour.” For those of you interested in the policing of tiny tragedies, “micro-aggressions” are defined by one official report as,
Subtle verbal and nonverbal insults directed toward non-whites, often done automatically and unconsciously. They are layered insults based on one’s race, gender, class, sexuality, language, immigration status, phenotype, accent, or surname.
Wait. Is there hope?
Ford Small Potatoes Next To His American Brethren
I kept deferring looking up Marion Berry (I have a list of over 25 topics I'd like to get to before...I die) to compare to Rob Ford but was too lazy.
And now my laziness has been rewarded by someone else doing the job better.
PolicyMic on how Ford pales in comparison to U.S. Mayors.
And now my laziness has been rewarded by someone else doing the job better.
PolicyMic on how Ford pales in comparison to U.S. Mayors.
Rambling On
I will post about Jean-Francois Lisee and Bernard Drainville's ignorantly comparing their gibberish to Thomas Jefferson. Crackpots around the world have always made claims to holding a kindred spirit with the Founding Fathers. So I guess it's par for the course for Americans who may have come across the letter in the New York Times.
It baffles me how parochial these people really are. Thankfully, not all Quebecers are buying it including Le Devoir. Some sanity restored.
How can anyone - let alone Frick and Frack - square the policies and rhetoric of the Parti Quebecois with the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States?
For example, it is intellectually impossible to find any similarities between the language laws of this province - which FUNDAMENTALLY and LEGALLY prevents freedom of choice and freedom of expression - with the Bill of Rights.
At this point, I really don't care what flunkies and apologists of the PQ think or how they reason (if you can call it that) or spin their regressions to be made to look like it's rational and for the common good.
It's good for ONE side of the coin: Their own.
And therein lies the final conclusive piece of proof we need. It's more tyranny of the majority that prevails and less any resemblance to the American Constitution.
The laws here simply DO NOT exist in the USA. Nothing on the level of the OLF exists in Western culture. Nothing. Fear of assimilation is not an excuse to engage in punitive measures - however benign - against minorities. Bill 14, 101, 22 - all anti-civil liberties bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
When you have journalists advocating PUBLICLY that a person who has an English name shouldn't be allowed to have a sign in their own name - ie Davis's Cafe - you know you have a morally and intellectually defunct society in dire need of a real intellectual revolution on some level - A second Quiet Revolution of sorts. As I've said, Quebec resembles more the American south circa 1949 than it does Jeffersonian.
The Lisee's of this world must be challenged at every turn.
Quebec's intellectual classes are inferior - not equal - to the American version.
Ramble On!
It baffles me how parochial these people really are. Thankfully, not all Quebecers are buying it including Le Devoir. Some sanity restored.
How can anyone - let alone Frick and Frack - square the policies and rhetoric of the Parti Quebecois with the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States?
For example, it is intellectually impossible to find any similarities between the language laws of this province - which FUNDAMENTALLY and LEGALLY prevents freedom of choice and freedom of expression - with the Bill of Rights.
At this point, I really don't care what flunkies and apologists of the PQ think or how they reason (if you can call it that) or spin their regressions to be made to look like it's rational and for the common good.
It's good for ONE side of the coin: Their own.
And therein lies the final conclusive piece of proof we need. It's more tyranny of the majority that prevails and less any resemblance to the American Constitution.
The laws here simply DO NOT exist in the USA. Nothing on the level of the OLF exists in Western culture. Nothing. Fear of assimilation is not an excuse to engage in punitive measures - however benign - against minorities. Bill 14, 101, 22 - all anti-civil liberties bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
When you have journalists advocating PUBLICLY that a person who has an English name shouldn't be allowed to have a sign in their own name - ie Davis's Cafe - you know you have a morally and intellectually defunct society in dire need of a real intellectual revolution on some level - A second Quiet Revolution of sorts. As I've said, Quebec resembles more the American south circa 1949 than it does Jeffersonian.
The Lisee's of this world must be challenged at every turn.
Quebec's intellectual classes are inferior - not equal - to the American version.
Ramble On!
2013-11-22
Gore Comes Galloping In
Al Gore comes to peddle his agenda in Ontario.
Comment I pulled from a thread by an engineer: "Saying that solar/wind has caused CO2 emissions to lower anywhere is a bold faced lie, especially in Ontario where nuclear power has increased to provide 56% of Ontario's electricity. There is no level of dishonesty that "Greens" will not sink to to push their idiocy."
Comment I pulled from a thread by an engineer: "Saying that solar/wind has caused CO2 emissions to lower anywhere is a bold faced lie, especially in Ontario where nuclear power has increased to provide 56% of Ontario's electricity. There is no level of dishonesty that "Greens" will not sink to to push their idiocy."
"Willing Slaves of the Welfare State"
C.S. Lewis.
"....If crimes are diseases, why should diseases be treated differently from crimes? And who but the experts can define disease? One school of psychology regards my religion as a neurosis. If this neurosis ever becomes inconvenient to Government, what is to prevent my being subjected to a compulsory 'cure'? It may be painful; treatments sometimes are. But it will be no use asking, 'What have I done to deserve this?' The Straightener will reply: 'But, my dear fellow, no one's blaming you. We no longer believe in retributive justice. We're healing you."
"...Two wars necessitated vast curtailments of liberty, and we have grown, though grumblingly, accustomed to our chains. The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance. Our intellectuals have surrendered first to the slave-philosophy of Hegel, then to Marx, finally to the linguistic analysts. "
"As a result, classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good -- anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers'. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their business. "
"...I believe a man is happier, and happy in a richer way, if he has 'the freeborn mind'. But I doubt whether he can have this without economic independence, which the new society is abolishing. For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticise its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology."
"Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists' puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.
Thirdly, I do not like the pretensions of Government --the grounds on which it demands my obedience-- to be pitched too high."
"On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They 'cash in'. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. Perhaps the real scientists may not think much of the tyrants' 'science'-- they didn't think much of Hitler's racial theories or Stalin's biology. But they can be muzzled.
We must give full weight to Sir Charles's reminder that millions in the East are still half starved. To these my fears would seem very unimportant. A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom. We must give full weight to the claim that nothing but science, and science globally applied, and therefore unprecedented Government controls, can produce full bellies and medical care for the whole human race: nothing, in short, but a world Welfare State. It is a full admission of these truths which impresses upon me the extreme peril of humanity at present. "
"We have on the one hand a desperate need; hunger, sickness, and the dread of war. We have, on the other, the conception of something that might meet it: omnicompetent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement? "
"The question about progress has become the question whether we can discover any way of submitting to the worldwide paternalism of a technocracy without losing all personal privacy and independence. Is there any possibility of getting the super Welfare State's honey and avoiding the sting? "
"Let us make no mistake about the sting. The Swedish sadness is only a foretaste. To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness. From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow.
Quite the deception we've fostered.
About civilized man and the notion of education. The government has weeded - or is in the process of eliminating - the idea of having access to schools that cater to one's conscience. Look around, you have no choice. You only have government options. And where private alternatives exist, the state lurks not too far behind with its crushing paternalism.
We're slaves to the state. What C.S. Lewis is lucky enough to not have discovered is our willingness has graduated to over-reliance and then to addiction.
We can no longer conceive of a world Lewis speaks of.
"....If crimes are diseases, why should diseases be treated differently from crimes? And who but the experts can define disease? One school of psychology regards my religion as a neurosis. If this neurosis ever becomes inconvenient to Government, what is to prevent my being subjected to a compulsory 'cure'? It may be painful; treatments sometimes are. But it will be no use asking, 'What have I done to deserve this?' The Straightener will reply: 'But, my dear fellow, no one's blaming you. We no longer believe in retributive justice. We're healing you."
"...Two wars necessitated vast curtailments of liberty, and we have grown, though grumblingly, accustomed to our chains. The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance. Our intellectuals have surrendered first to the slave-philosophy of Hegel, then to Marx, finally to the linguistic analysts. "
"As a result, classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good -- anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers'. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their business. "
"...I believe a man is happier, and happy in a richer way, if he has 'the freeborn mind'. But I doubt whether he can have this without economic independence, which the new society is abolishing. For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticise its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology."
"Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists' puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.
Thirdly, I do not like the pretensions of Government --the grounds on which it demands my obedience-- to be pitched too high."
"On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They 'cash in'. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. Perhaps the real scientists may not think much of the tyrants' 'science'-- they didn't think much of Hitler's racial theories or Stalin's biology. But they can be muzzled.
We must give full weight to Sir Charles's reminder that millions in the East are still half starved. To these my fears would seem very unimportant. A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom. We must give full weight to the claim that nothing but science, and science globally applied, and therefore unprecedented Government controls, can produce full bellies and medical care for the whole human race: nothing, in short, but a world Welfare State. It is a full admission of these truths which impresses upon me the extreme peril of humanity at present. "
"We have on the one hand a desperate need; hunger, sickness, and the dread of war. We have, on the other, the conception of something that might meet it: omnicompetent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement? "
"The question about progress has become the question whether we can discover any way of submitting to the worldwide paternalism of a technocracy without losing all personal privacy and independence. Is there any possibility of getting the super Welfare State's honey and avoiding the sting? "
"Let us make no mistake about the sting. The Swedish sadness is only a foretaste. To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness. From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow.
Quite the deception we've fostered.
About civilized man and the notion of education. The government has weeded - or is in the process of eliminating - the idea of having access to schools that cater to one's conscience. Look around, you have no choice. You only have government options. And where private alternatives exist, the state lurks not too far behind with its crushing paternalism.
We're slaves to the state. What C.S. Lewis is lucky enough to not have discovered is our willingness has graduated to over-reliance and then to addiction.
We can no longer conceive of a world Lewis speaks of.
Quebec Unicorns
A rebuttal against Lisee and Drainville.
There you go.
Their letter does sully Jefferson's name.
And another from the NP.
You know, I'm of the opinion that if French Quebec feels this way so be it. Just don't get goofy and start believing you're part of or fulfilling Jefferson's grand philosophies saying your document is 'revolutionary.'
It works in lesser societies like our own but when you stand on the grand stage of international opinion and say such things it just shows how parochial we are.
If the Charter becomes what they claim (and I highly doubt it Lisee is no Jefferson. All sorts of tinpot places with their crackpot leaders claim to be related to a Founding Father) and stand shoulder to shoulder with the American Constitution, then I'll retract.
I'm gonna go with my own understanding and knowledge of history and bet against it.
One last thing, would the Founding Fathers ever pen such anti-liberty Bills like 101 or 22? Or would Americans tolerate an outfit like the OLF?
Therein lies the answer to how frivolous and vapid comparing the PQ Charter to Jefferson really is.
Quebec is not enlightened. It still let's tyranny of the majority govern its tribal impulses.
***
I sent the letter to a couple of my American friends - both political junkies. One liberal the other conservative. Both were astounded.
I quote one of them:
"WTF!!! I can't believe this shit!!"
There you go.
Their letter does sully Jefferson's name.
And another from the NP.
You know, I'm of the opinion that if French Quebec feels this way so be it. Just don't get goofy and start believing you're part of or fulfilling Jefferson's grand philosophies saying your document is 'revolutionary.'
It works in lesser societies like our own but when you stand on the grand stage of international opinion and say such things it just shows how parochial we are.
If the Charter becomes what they claim (and I highly doubt it Lisee is no Jefferson. All sorts of tinpot places with their crackpot leaders claim to be related to a Founding Father) and stand shoulder to shoulder with the American Constitution, then I'll retract.
I'm gonna go with my own understanding and knowledge of history and bet against it.
One last thing, would the Founding Fathers ever pen such anti-liberty Bills like 101 or 22? Or would Americans tolerate an outfit like the OLF?
Therein lies the answer to how frivolous and vapid comparing the PQ Charter to Jefferson really is.
Quebec is not enlightened. It still let's tyranny of the majority govern its tribal impulses.
***
I sent the letter to a couple of my American friends - both political junkies. One liberal the other conservative. Both were astounded.
I quote one of them:
"WTF!!! I can't believe this shit!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)