Capitalist Shrugged

The Case Against Anarcho-Capitalism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:58:00 +0000

This post has been revised and moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_Against_Anarcho-Capitalism

The Case Against Expanding CPP

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:53:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_Against_Expanding_CPP

The Case for a Simple Tax Code

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:50:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_for_a_Simple_Tax_Code

The Case Against Advocating 'Small Government'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:46:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_Against_Advocating_Small_Government

The Case for Learning Philosophy as a Political Enthusiast

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:43:00 +0000

The act of turning people onto philosophy is one that is unrewarding. It's even harder with people that think they have it all figured out - especially those with interests in politics, you'll be greatly rewarded for taking on the task. I'm by no means an expert on philosophy, but I'm always learning - learning about myself.

Philosophy has taught me to:

Develop my ideas and views to well-reasoned positions.
Since my positions are better, I can argue them better.
And since my positions are better, I can defend them better.

When someone new encounters philosophy that most likely end up overwhelmed. Tough questions, different responses and many feel that it's all a matter of opinion. "Do you exist or are you in the matrix? How do you know?" "Is murder morally wrong? Why? How do you know?" It's not an easy field to learn.

There was a great comment on reddit that I had to save because this was the question brought up, "isn't it all a matter of opinion?" and I thought the reply was worth wild.

I think a lot of people, when they first encounter philosophy, aren't really sure what to make of it. For most of their education, and life generally, they are used to taking claims mainly based on authority. So, the textbook says something, or the teacher says something, or your parents say something, or your priest says something, and that's that. You might ask some internal questions about what they say, but rarely are you going to raise your hand in a physics class and ask "but, really, what is 'knowledge'?"
…
So, people come in to philosophy, and they are thrown. It's one of the first time people are being asked to think for themselves and really inquire about the foundations of thought. You are being asked to evaluate an argument, defend claims, make cogent objections, and articulate reasonable positions. And without being able to rely on authority, a lot of people get lost and confused. Not seeing a clear answer, they then say, "well, I guess it's just all opinion." And this is, in some sense, an intellectually cowardly answer. It's often a sort of thought that goes "well, if there is no one to tell me what the answer is, then there must not be an answer."

What is gained in philosophical study is your thought process working in a much more reasonable manner. Inevitably you'll learn that all views and positions are reflected in the way one thinks; from their religious views to politics. The real value to those interested in politics is better understanding the fundamentals. Political positions are a meaningless point to start with people - even though that seems to be where everyone starts. Political positions are the result of hierarchically more important views and positions - something many people don't understand.

There's a foundation of metaphysics (reality, the universe), epistemology (what is knowledge, how do you know what you know), and ethics/morals (the good and bad behaviors). Politics is merely another piece on top of these concepts, in particular the ethics/morals.

Making Arguments and Critiquing Arguments

My understanding of arguments has grown so much that it is the most valuable skill I've attained from philosophical study that I can apply to my interests in politics. When it comes to exchanging ideas and winning people to better ideas, arguments need to be presented.

The most alarming thing to take away is how your arguments lack any sort of credibility as an argument. Just poor assumptions and weak premises - no wonder I wasn't able to convince anyone of any ideas. Why does this happen? It happens because you challenge your own ideas and the reasons that lead you to believe it. It's not about your partisan politics, it's about the best idea. You challenge yourself because you want to know. When you're ideas are backed up with sound reasoning, you then form proper premises and harder to dismiss arguments.

The counter is true of your opponents. You start to see the fractures in people's arguments they give to you. The amount of times that I would end up in endless conversations about topics where someone had premises that didn't even lead to the conclusion. An example of this would be the is-ought problem, also know as the naturalistic fallacy. This is where someone takes a fact of reality (the is) and turns that fact into some sort of ethical action/behavior/policy (the ought), even though is doesn't get you to ought without some sort of ethical view to qualify what to do with the is.

Conclusion

Philosophy is the study of the more fundamental questions of existence, knowledge, values, ethics, etc. Most people never put more than a momentary thought in these questions. A person that challenges these ideas, understands them and hears a new perspective is going to be able to solidify their views and positions.

The value is the ideas and views you hold become much more stronger. Since they're stronger and better understood, you're better at arguing them and dealing with counter arguments.

The Case for First Past The Post (FPTP)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:40:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_for_First_Past_The_Post

Philosophy: The is-ought Problem and the Appeal to Science

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:34:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_is-ought_Problem_and_the_Appeal_to_Science

The Case for Governments Using Open Contract Bidding

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:26:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_for_Governments_Using_Open_Contract_Bidding

The Case Against Urban Solar Panel Use

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:00:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_Against_Urban_Solar_Panel_Use

The Case Against Just Consuming Your Point of View

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:46:00 +0000

The counter title for what I'm discussing would be The Case for Open Discussion & Challenging One's Ideas. This is going to be a bit more of a radical type of discussion. It's an observation I've had for sometime and I think it explains a lot of the more extremist type behavior we end up seeing in society.

The internet is by far the greatest achievement with regard to our ability to transmit, exchange and consume ideas. There is so much information on the internet that no one on this planet could possibly consume it all. Humans from around the world have easy access and means to communicate near instantaneously.

The problem I see is how some people choose to use the internet. Since there is too much to possibly consume, an individual needs to make a value judgment on what they're going to consume. All this means is that people will consume videos that they judge will entertain them, learn about things that they judge to be value to them and in the case of ideology (politics, religion, morality) items that they judge a value to them.

My argument is that this type of value judgment leads to more extreme views. Views such as conspiracy theories, self alienation & victimization from society and in some ways manifesting in violent acts.

The Internet's Political Forums versus Pre-Internet

Political views have to be about the most valuable resource in understanding the way someone thinks and looks at problems. There are a wide range of varying ideas that go well beyond simple left-right political dynamics.

Mainstream Politics Online

People who hold more mainstream political views tend to end up at mainstream type forums. These forums are in a more agreeable "culture" when it comes to discussion. You may not agree totally with most people, but differences may only be slight. This in itself isn't necessarily a good thing, but since the middle/center/moderate/mainstream typically isn't indulging in the extreme fringes, it's less likely to get in the crazy. Though, that's not to say that the mainstream can't end up in vary odd places.

It's important to note that mainstream forums are unable to have a narrow focus and encompass a wide range of people. This means that you do end up with ideas presented that start to verge away from the mainstream - though these ideas are not as common as the mainstream.

Diverging into the Fringe Online

I'd argue that fringe is best described by the degree that one diverges away from the mainstream. That's not to say that fringe ideas are bad or lead to violence. For example, pacifism isn't a popular idea in today's society, but it is highly unlikely it would lead to violence, plus many in the mainstream are at least sympathetic to the idea.

Since one seeks out to consume things that bring value to their life, inevitably they will end up at forums with similar views. This is nothing strange. Two problems arise when one chooses to engage on a mainstream forum as someone in the fringe. First, it becomes an exhausting grind to have a discussion. Every idea is either ignored (completely) or jumped on negatively. This results in many users signing off and returning to their more fringe forums. Secondly, there is a form of alienation. Where a fringe user looks at things in a very hopeless way where the cards are stacked against them. Eventually they return to their fringe forums.

Pre-Internet

This was an interesting time precisely because fringe outlets were most likely too fringe to exist. That's not to say they didn't, obviously racist groups like the KKK had their means of communicating internally. But the difference for an average Joe was that all they had was the mainstream outlets. They'd have to go into town, to the bingo hall and have a discussion with friends and associates. Finding more fringe groups required a lot more work than that of the internet, plus there is an aspect of anonymity that wasn't available to people, like on the internet.

What ends up happening?

The fringe ends up on fringe forums discussing fringe ideas with other people that hold the same fringe ideas. There is a general tone and frustration with their views in society due to alienation - and there may even be feelings of victimization. What happens is something known as a circle jerk. This is self congratulations and kudos given to everyone for expressing roughly the same ideas. This is where the real problem arises and going forward I'll refer to this phenomenon as a circle jerk.

A circle jerk over time creates a few things,

Ideas and views appear to be better argued than they really are.
Ideas and views appear to be more acceptable as correct to the general public.
Ideas and views appear to be morally superior than others.
Ideas and views center around a narrative of something to hate (bourgeoisie, the government, the rich, oil companies, etc)
Due to the above, one can go beyond rules or what is acceptable for their ideas and views.

This result is a problem due to how devoid it is of reality because there is no open discussion & challenging of ideas.

* Now I'd like to point out that I don't blame the mainstream for facilitating the fringe. No one is owed a free pass on their ideas and defacto acceptance of them. I do however think the mainstream suffer from the same problem as the fringe and produces the same circle jerk results (see above bullet points), but this typically results in just a stronger mainstream (whatever that happens to be at any given time).

Examples in Action

At this point all I've presented to you is a theory of how people look at the internet and consume the content they want. I also explained how people end up on their forums reinforcing their ideas by circle jerking. It's time to present a few examples to help.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

When it comes to Americans, polling on 9/11 is quite shocking. There are a lot of ways to orient data depending on how the question was asked, but anywhere between 20% to 50% of Americans believe in some conspiracy theory related to 9/11. This can be as simple as a belief that the government knew and did nothing, all the way to cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon. I found the Scripps Howard polling on July 2006 to be the most direct with it's questions^[1].

Americans aren't the only ones off base here. In September 2006, Ipsos Reid poll found that 22% of Canadians believe that Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks and that the plot was by influential Americans^[2]. This trend continues world wide, demonstrated by the work of WorldPublicOpinion.org (a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at University of Maryland, College Park)^[3].

Another interesting statement from the world poll was...

Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education were only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda. Steven Kull comments, "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information."^[3]

Conspiracy Theory Pundits

The circle jerk phenomenon isn't exclusive to the internet. The internet is merely a medium, just as radio, television and even in person meetings are their own medium. If this is the content you exclusively consume, you run into the same problems.

Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist radio host. New York magazing describes Jones as "America's leading conspiracy theorist". Texas Monthly reports that his viewership reaches 2 million listeners weekly and his websites a staggering number of unique users^[4].

The 2014 Las Vegas Shooters, Jerad and Amanda Miller were fans of Alex Jones and other libertarian politicians, members of a Jones website and wrote content on it^[5]. Figuring out whether Jones was an influential part of their motives is impossible, but what is undeniable is the fringe of where they stood. Let's look at a snippit of their events,

On June 8, 2014, the Millers first went to a CiCi's Pizza restaurant on foot at 11:22 a.m., finding Las Vegas police officers Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck, who were eating at the restaurant on their lunch break. Prior to the shooting, they had observed the restaurant. Jerad Miller fatally shot Soldo in the back of the head with a handgun, then shot Beck in the throat. Both Millers then killed Beck by shooting him multiple times after he attempted to fire back. Afterwards, they dragged the officers' bodies out of their booth and covered Beck with a yellow Gadsden flag and a swastika. They also pinned a note on Soldo's body, which read: "This is the beginning of the revolution."^[6]

And just to head back to Alex Jones, on his website they posted The Police (to Kill or not to Kill), which was never deleted.

Jones isn't the only player in the radio market. There are far too many to mention, but a few additional ones would be Jeff Rense and David Icke.

James von Brunn

This is one case that I personally dug into that is quite the oddest. This is the guy that shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.^[7][8][9]. Even though this was a very old man, he had quite a life on the internet in fringe groups. Not to mention he enjoyed a previous conspiracy related kidnapping of Federal Reserve officials in the 80s.

If your unfamiliar with this type of conspiracy it is popular among the neo-confederate and Murray Rothbard influenced libertarians (such as Ron Paul). Much of this group is (or has been infiltrated without criticism) filled with racist bigots and the very least, racist innuendo.

James von Brunn used a Yahoo newsgroup to discuss his ideas, plus had a website where he sold his books Kill the Best Gentiles and A New Hard-Hitting Exposé of the Jew Conspiracy to Destroy the White Gene Pool.

Summary

With all the examples I've given, you could say these are odd nuts. And I agree. They're the odd ones out that turn to such extreme ends, but they all hold ideas and unchallenged ideas. Even though some may act on their conspiracies violently, doesn't negate many others that simply believe it, fester with it and can eventually be problematic or enable/protect/sympathize with those that do the violence.

In Conclusion

Everyone holds ideas, even the ones that hold some of the crazier ideas. They're ideas none the less and they have consequences. A person should seek out challenges to their views in order to reason, think and really work through why they believe something.

The internet gives people this opportunity to experience many different views and discuss various topics with many different backgrounds. The problem is that people don't like to be challenged. They like to take the path of least resistance and that inevitably leads them into positions where they discuss ideas with people that are most likely to agree with them.

People that hold more fringe views will feel alienated (there own doing) and seek out fringe communities to discuss ideas. Pre-internet, this was much harder to accomplish because you would have to talk to people in your town and couldn't really screen by some ideological purity. Today ideas are discussed in a very self congratulatory way, with no criticism and lots of pats on the back. This makes people think their ideas are not only stronger, but more mainstream (unspoken majority) and more likely to act to fix the injustice (the fact that their ideas aren't as popular as they see it).

I'm not trying to pigeon hole those that discuss in an ideological pure space as violent extremists or even unhealthy. It is unhealthy, intellectually, if that's your only outlet and it can lead down a bad path. It may not lead to violence, but it may lead to enabling violence or sympathizing with it.

One must seek out other views to be challenged. That's not to say you must surrender your views. If one believes their views and ideas to be right, they should be able to present a reasonable argument for them and win people over. If you can't accept that premise, you won't be appropriately challenged. It's in your interest to do this. Being able to understand other views and the disagreements with your ideas, allows you to understand whether your views are sound. It is in your interest to know your views are sound and that's something you can't get in a ideological safe space.

References

Opinion Polls About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Wikipedia
One in 5 Canadians see 9/11 as US Plot - Poll - Reuters
International Poll: No Consensus on Who was Behind 9/11 - WorldPublicOpinion.org
Alex Jones is about to Explode - Texas Monthly (2010)
Jerad Miller Posts at Alex Jones' Infowars - Little Green Footballs
2014 Las Vegas Shootings - Wikipedia
Von Brunn Background - Anti-Defamation League
James Von Brunn Indicted for Murder of Special Police Officer Stephen Johns and Hate Crimes Charges for Attack on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
James von Brunn - A great workout of the man.

Are Trade Deficits Bad? No.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:37:00 +0000

This post has been moved.

http://nolasagna.com/Trade_Deficits_are_not_Bad

Meat Advertising Trickery - Be a More Informed Consumer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:33:00 +0000

This is something that has been on my nerves a bit lately. Advertising of meat is very manipulative, especially for the do-good yuppies that are generally low information, but very motivated to show how progressive they are with food. I'm not calling for regulations or anything like that on how one advertises because they're not lying. I want consumers to better understand what marketing is and how they end up doing it.

The specific cases I want to discuss are very common ones. Currently A&W is running with the "Our chicken is raised without the use of antibiotics. Another one that A&W personally does is that their beef is made without growth hormones. President's Choice has a similar slogan regarding pork.

Marketing is a very simple concept of displaying benefits to consumers. It's not lying, but you're not necessarily getting the full story or an entire perspective. Without that perspective, you can be mislead. I think the first time I learned that was with an infomercial can opener. This type of can opener cut the top off differently and gladly showed the benefit that the top is not sharp! Wow. Full truth, the can itself was the sharp part.

Most of this fear with meat is a caricature of the US marketplace and not relevant to Canada.

Growth Hormones in Canada

The practice of using growth hormones in Canada has been illegal since the 1960's^[1], except for beef^[2]. This shows that President's Choice has used a very manipulative tactic with regards to pork. What they say is true, but it is true for all pork. A&W's claim regarding beef is actually a lot more honest.

When it comes to beef, I think it's important to qualify the type of hormones used. There are three approved natural hormones and three synthetic hormones^[2]. Don't let the word synthetic scare you. It's the process of making an identical hormone in a lab. It's how diabetics get insulin. It's synthetically made, but chemically identical to what the body produces.

It's important to qualify that there is no such thing as hormone free beef, or hormone free animal product. Animals have hormones and when you eat them, you consume some of those hormones. You can get into a discussion about whether it is ethical to eat meat with a hormone that makes meat leaner, but you can't escape that hormone. Also important to note that our body creates many of these hormones ourselves and the actual quantity gained through consumption is next to negligible (measured in nanograms)^[2].

Dairy cows are not allowed to use growth hormones and produce dairy products^[3]. The only time it is administered is when the cow is suffering from a health problem and they're taken out of distribution.

Animal Antibiotics in Canada

Preventative antibiotics in chicken are restricted in Canada. This means that it is only administered to chickens if they have a health issue, plus they're removed from the distribution side until the animal is clean again. Other meats follow a similar mandate. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates this part of the process and it is rare to find any antibiotics in meat.

The regulatory view on claims of "natural", "raised...", etc.

This probably the most interesting aspect of this discussion because we need to know definitions. What makes the meat "natural"? What makes the meat "organic"? What exactly does "raised without growth hormones" mean? The answer to these questions might not be exactly what you think.

The claims below are based on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency food labeling requirements.

"raised without the use of antibiotics"

In order to display the claim "raised without the use of antibiotics" the animal or fish must not have received antibiotics from birth to harvest. In addition, no antibiotics can be administered to the mother of the animal in question in any manner which would result in antibiotic residue in the animal. Vitamins and minerals given to the animal may only be given at the level of physiological action for dietary supplement, not for antimicrobial effect.
...
However, the following are permitted in the production of foods of animal or fish origin labelled "raised without the use of antibiotics" claims (other substances will be evaluated as required):Veterinary biological products:
•vaccines
•antisera
•colostrum
•direct fed microbial products registered with CFIA as feed ingredients, for example Interbac.

Even though the CFIA clearly states that "raised without the use of antibiotics" as an animal not receiving antibiotics from birth to harvest, it can still use that label when it receives vaccines, antisera (blood agent), colostrum (anti-bodies) and direct fed microbial products (lactic producing bacteria).

"raised without the use of hormones"

No hormones shall be administered in any way (including through the mother) to the animal that forms the food product carrying the claim "raised without the use of hormones" on the label or advertisement.
1.In cases where regulations permit the use of hormones and where none were used, the products from these animals could make the claim "raised without the use of hormones".

Another interesting perspective from our regulators. To use the claim of "raised without the use of hormones", no hormones shall be given to the animal, including the mother. Even though this definition seems pretty straight forward, if a jurisdiction requires hormones to be used, the claim "raised without the use of hormones" can still be used.

"grain fed"

These claims are considered synonymous and are acceptable on food products derived from animals which were fed a grain diet, where the macro feed ingredients, added as sources of energy and protein, are made up solely of grains and grain by-products with no ingredients of animal origin. Minerals and vitamins as well as non-nutritive feed additives such as medications, biologics, pellet binders, enzyme supplements, anti-caking agents, flavouring agents, etc., may be added regardless of origin.

So "grain fed" also includes medication, biologics, enzyme supplements and anti-caking agents.

"natural"

With respect to a meat, poultry, or fish product, "natural" and "naturally raised" claims are considered acceptable only on products that were raised with minimal human intervention, for example, wild turkey or wild fish. To raise animals so that their products can be labelled as "natural" would be very difficult as most animals receive vaccination or medication and the feed given usually contains vitamins, minerals, additives, medication and direct fed microbials; none of which are considered to be minimal human interventions. To claim on a product label "naturally raised" would be even more difficult, as raising a farm animal or fish is an expression of human intervention.

Unless you're buying meat from hunted animals, it's impossible to get natural.

References

Hormones and Antibiotics in Food - Eat Right Ontario
Understanding Hormone Use in Beef - Canadian Beef
Antibiotics, growth hormones and steroids - Alberta Milk
McDonald’s Announcement In Keeping with Chicken Industry Direction on Antibiotic Use - Chicken Farmers of Canada

The Case for Corporate Personhood

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:30:00 +0000

This post has been moved.
http://nolasagna.com/The_Case_for_Corporate_Personhood

The Case Against a Sugar Tax

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:21:00 +0000

I keep seeing the sugar tax come up on the news and I find that the argued sides are missing the point with respect to an individual and their life. The World Health Organization (WHO) wants to see a 20% tax on all sugary goods and drinks. The Global News here in Calgary claims that doctors want 30%. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation (CTF) is saying that it is nothing more than a tax grab and they don't see how this will result in people making better choices.

Who is standing up for the freedom of an individual to make their own judgment call and choose to consume something?

The CTF certainly isn't standing up for the individual. They are correct in their assessment that this is just another tax revenue for the government to impose at the expense of everyday consumers, but they surrender the moral ground. They accept the premise that there is a role of government in the personal choices of individuals.

The WHO and Canadian doctors aren't standing up for the individual. They're standing up for the collective idea of 'society'. Their value is to extract a drop in obesity and other related problems like diabetes and heart disease. They are totally unconcerned with your life other than the use of it as a collective goal.

As a free individual I think and act on my judgments for the values I seek for my life. I'm the one that lives my life everyday and my values, goals, ambitions and desires are mine. I can choose to be as destructive or protective of my health as I so choose to my overall aim of my life. One can have a sex, drugs and rock & roll lifestyle that shortens their lifespan and you, me and everyone can choose a different path. This is the same for sugar. It's not your call on whether I consume Double Big Gulps or whey protein isolate. You don't have a say over my life and I don't have a say over yours.

I don't view sugar as a good, if the end is health. I'm not a big consumer of a sugar, but when it comes to government we are talking about imposing something by force. An end consumer may not be the recipient of the force as the job is placed on businesses, but if one were to not comply they'd find themselves with a gun forcing them to act.

Here's how it would work in a society of free individuals: Sugar is bad for my health and I value my health, so I don't consume sugar. End. That's it. It ends with you.

TEDxYYC Shouldn't Have Political Speakers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 15:45:00 +0000

I wouldn't normally post about TED or TEDx as I really don't care for it. "Ideas worth spreading", more like a big circle jerk for people that think they're very smart. Anyway, I saw them on the local news trying to promote their little show.

If you don't already know TED is not affiliated with TEDx. TEDx is a self organized group and inevitably the agenda driven one. TED will at least approach things from an impartial perspective and generally try to do away with woo woo. When it comes to TEDx, you're really getting down to what is basically the group dynamic. The loudest mouth and the ones with the biggest agenda inevitably get the biggest move.

I was disappointed to see that they have Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada, as a speaker this year. There's a few reasons I'm disappointed, the first being that May is essentially the typical green woo woo person. She thinks WIFI internet causes cancer and won't even validate her political party supports junk science like homeopathy.

The other big point that annoys me is that they're helping May with her green agenda push into Calgary. During the Calgary Centre bi-election the Green Party through a ton of money into that election, purely just for the sake of saying they landed a seat in the conservative stronghold. They lost that bi-election, but obviously she still has an interest. She doesn't hold a seat in Calgary. The only reason she was able to get a seat in Parliament was by running to the complete other side of the country and some how magically declaring residence there and running there. If that isn't Mike Duffy-esque, I don't know what is.

I'm just really disappointed by it. It's not like the event is devoid of a green type of speaker. They have Lindsey Kindrat speaking on LEED, which is a standard for building green buildings.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that TED's philosophy is "Ideas Worth Spreading" then it shouldn't be co-opted by political agendas, especially from those on the fringe. Not that I support this, but having a REAL politician that actually runs governments, has power over policy, etc would be far more beneficial. Though I don't see the day that Stephen Harper would be invited to TEDxYYC.

Can Conservatives Only Be In Contempt of Parliament?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 19 May 2014 23:14:00 +0000

Just to bring a little Canadian flavor to my blog (being a Canadian and all).

So in Canada, back in 2011, the Conservatives with their minority government were deemed to be in contempt of parliament. It sounds a lot worse than it actually is and is more related to a high school election on the person they hate the most. The process of determining whether a government is in contempt isn't done by a judge, nor is it done through some sort of police investigation. It's just something that is voted and passed in parliament. The conservatives only having a minority government (for my American readers, having the most seats of any party, but still outnumbered by opposing parties) they were easily outvoted by the three left wing parties; Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois. An aside: the same three parties tried to oust the Conservatives from power by aligning together... and if you're unfamiliar, the Bloc Quebecois is a separatist party.

Anyway, the Conservatives were forced to call an election and ended up winning a majority.

Today, we have the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in trouble now. He doesn't understand how two parties are outnumbering him on votes and are calling him to task. What have the NDP been doing? Well, allegedly, building satellite offices with party money, but paying staff with House of Commons money... money that is meant to pay for the work an elected official is supposed to do. It's not to pay people to do partisan party work and promote the party as they see fit. Tax payers aren't responsible for that. You can read more about it here.

Just as an aside, I was reading an interesting article about how there aren't any bearded politicians (at least ones that win) anymore. Maybe Mulcair needs to take a visit to the Shaving Stallion and learn how to shave off that face. He might actually win something outside of the media's darling attention of him.

I guess the big thing for me about politics is... well politics. It's the hypocrisy of it all. The same person loves the witch hunt against the conservatives, but gets all so upset when he's the one being hunted. Will the NDP and Thomas Mulcair be held in contempt of parliament? Probably not. Not even sure if this is a particular event would qualify.

All I do know is that you can't do this. You can't build a political party office and then "staff" it with people paid for by the government of Canada to work in such offices. Mulclair just needs to own up to it.

Science Cannot Determine Ethics and Morals - A Rebuttal of Sam Harris

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 04:06:00 +0000

As a non-believer, atheist or whatever you want to call it, I never really thought of the hard questions. Even though I haven't read much on the topic of atheism, I still am one. Sam Harris is by far the most interesting in my mind. I'm not saying he's necessarily the one that I agree with the most, but I found that he has challenged my assumptions more than others.

I find there are much better new atheists out there that I enjoy listening to such as Christopher Hitchens, but I guess I eventually realized that even though Hitchens (and others) were giving me what I like to hear, I was never really being challenged. It was like I was engaging in a circle jerk of my own ideas.

When it comes to Harris, he has opened me up to a much more candid discussion not necessarily on whether there is a God or not, but the more important questions such as philosophy of ethics and morals. I have to admit that I enjoy the idea that science could result in these answers. It's pushed my thought process in a different direction. And well, I can't conclude the same.

What is Harris' Position?

I tried to find a quote that could explain the position without me having to fumble through it. The best way to do this is through questions.

Imagine that you have a world where everyone and everything suffered in the worst possible way. If this world had less suffering, would that be better? Yes is the answer to that question. Therefore, improvement of your happiness, pleasure, well-being, etc is the key to ethics and morals.

In science we can determine a lot of things. Do we know how to make ourselves healthier that result in us feeling better? Yes. Can we take your broken leg and take the pain away? Yes. Can science tell you that eating bacon every day will lead to heart disease or smoking will cause you lung cancer, so you shouldn't do it? Yes.

This is the basis of his argument.

Is-Ought Problem

This is where I can't get passed things. Science is the 'is'. It tells us the is in the world. It is something that tells us that this substance is poison. It tells us that exercise is healthy. The problem with this is just because something is, it doesn't mean we ought to do it. This is known as the is-ought problem, first coined by Scottish philosopher David Hume.

I find the argument that Harris is presenting is quite simple, but there is still a philosophical point made in the 'ought' part. Essentially that seeking less suffering is something you ought to do. He has made a moral judgement and you have to agree with that to accept his point.

The real question that everyone needs to ask: should less suffering be my motive when acting on something. When phrased that way it doesn't seem quite as powerful of a position than the original position articulated.

Utilitarian Form of Ethics

If you're unfamiliar with utilitarianism, it's actually quite simple. It's essentially to act to increase happiness and reduce suffering. But what happens when you take this form of ethics beyond the individual and apply it to society. How should society morally act as a whole? It's to increase happiness and decrease suffering for the least amount of people.

This almost seems like a pure form of democracy without that limitation on it that protects individual rights. Not a form of ethics I like.

The Word Game: Well Being

Having the chance to go through many discussions on this topic, I've found that the word used to describe the ought was well being. I've found this to be something that forms a very good argument. We should act to improve our well being. When faced with the choice of smoking or exercising, you'll choose to exercise. If your choice is to go to a party or study for your final exam tomorrow, you'll choose to study.

What is well being? The problem is really the definition of the word. When you really look at it, it's quite a vague concept. What type of well being should you pursue?

If you can have a delicious meal of bacon, that brings you joy from taste, or a healthy breakfast that you don't enjoy, which one is your well being? Is the instant gratification better than the long term health of that healthy meal?

If the opportunity arises that you could be unfaithful and have a sexual relationship outside your marriage, is the derived pleasure part of your well being? Or is turning it down and trying to rebuild a troubled marriage part of your well being?

These examples might be a little easier for you to answer as they're more engaging in our moral compass. But the question still remains, what is well being?

It's not that easy to answer, but can make an argument seem more powerful without any substance.

Science Helps, But Not Morally or Ethically

Science is something powerful and good for our life. I'm not disputing that nor do I want us to stop. We need to keep going. But at the end of the day the moral and ethical work needs to be done by us.

Why? Values.

It's what we value that inevitably drives our actions. Science tells us exercise is healthy. We need to value health to determine we ought to act on it.

I feel like when Sam Harris looks at science and morals from the point of view of health he is cherry picking a particular niche of ethics that we most likely agree with. Most of us value being healthy. Most of us value being happy. These are things we want and we'll receive health care that fixes broken bones. We'll eat better when we learn a food is bad.

These are moral questions, but it misses out on more fundamental questions.

Is it moral for the Red Cross to teach the Taliban first aid and supplying them with medical supplies?

If you're stranded on a mountain with two other people, with only enough food for one person, who eats?

These questions science won't be able to answer with a moral certainty. And isn't that really why we learn ethics.

In situation 'A', should you put your boss in their place or just keep your mouth shut to not rock the boat? In situation 'B', your friend opens up someone else's piece of mail and reads it aloud to a group of friends, do you speak up and voice your disgust or go along? In situation 'C', you're married with children, yet you're no longer in love with your wife, what do you do now?

This is ethics. It's the values that guide you and allow you to make choices to act on. Science unfortunately can't answer them. This is your work to do.

I Support CISPA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:33:00 +0000

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge

without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.

- Samuel Johnson

I'll continue on doing a series of posts that I see on the EFF.org website because I feel the manipulation that they present isn't true or greatly exaggerated into conspiracy mode. Take a look at the title of this post? How many people have actually come out and said this? Not very many. According to Google (at the time of this post) only one page on the internet contains these words in their title and it happens to be a tweet. 3250 pages contain this phrase. I'm definitely at a minority here with my support.

What is CISPA?

Well it's a bill. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. I would say more, but judging by how the EFF answers this question, they seem to want to set the frame as evil. I think asking more first is a better way to frame this question.

What is the objective of CISPA?

Essentially the objective is to stop hacking attacks government and business infrastructures. In case you've been out to lunch, there is a lot of hacking going on right now. Literally a war is being fought in cyberspace. You may not think it's really that big deal if the Department of Homeland Security website gets defaced, but that really isn't the main concern.

The objective is to prevent such attacks, but also to open up doorways of justice by the people who do this.

What is the problem CISPA is to solve?

It's trying to solve the problem of coordinated hacking attacks, both on the government and of large private businesses. These attacks can be as simple as defacing a website. They can be sophisticated as stealing personal information (credit cards, addresses, names, SS numbers, tax information, etc) and ending up in the hands of someone else.

There can also be a wide-scale cyber attack designed to shut down major government network infrastructure (and of private business) that could literally costs billions of dollars wasted.

The real problem on the internet is that a hacker (at least the smart ones) isn't going to go on their home computer and hack the FBI. If that's how it worked, we wouldn't need a law like this. Most DDoS attacks happen from several computers that were infected/exploited or hacked into to launch the attack.

What is the purpose of CISPA?

The purpose is to enhance sharing of information. That's all it is.

The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow

elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence

with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

Ignore the vague part of that because this is for a committee, which end up figuring out these things. But you get the intention. It's to share information. This may seem weird and wild to you (I don't know why), but this does happen. Amber alerts are shared information. It's not evil or Orwellian. It's sharing of information that can be beneficial.

CISPA in Every Day Words

Everyone that is getting worked up, is getting worked up for no real reason. This law is being passed to deal with a full out cyber attack against the United States government and the economy. That's it. It's not to spay on punk kid intellectual property thief (despite your delusions of grandeur, you're not that important).

This is for the ever increasing cyber attacks that seem to be coming from the Chinese government. It's to deal with problems like this.

And just an FYI because an argued point I keep hearing is that this law allows the government to go to Facebook, get you private information without a warrant. Totally not true. There is absolutely nothing in this bill about such things. Since it doesn't talk about anything like this, it doesn't contain the information about getting a warrant. So therefore they don't need a warrant. Crazy.

What's all the resistance?

It's quite simply idiots. There seems to be this view that the internet needs to be anarchy because that's what it's like now. It's the wild west. We all like freedom, but there are rules of law. There's a reason why you get 10 emails a day in your spam folder from a Nigerian bank. If real ethical and moral laws were applied to the internet, you wouldn't get a single email like that. Doing this isn't wrong, immoral or an attack on freedom. It actually enhances freedom.

Guess what? There's no big government conspiracy to spy on you, and to know what you're doing. The government doesn't care if you support the Green Party and talk about it on the internet. It's nice to think that you're being watched and the government really does take that much interest in you, but it doesn't.

Enforcement of moral laws on the internet shouldn't be opposed. Will it result in your lost freedoms of making death threats and harassment? Probably. Will you be free to discuss politics, read about interesting topics, chat with your friends, and look at weird pornography you like? Absolutely.

Conspiracy-esque is the only way to really describe the opposition to such a law.

Intellectual Property Thieves Hate Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 05:33:00 +0000

Property is an intellectual production. The game requires coolness,

right reasoning, promptness, and patience in the players.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

As of late, I've been feeling the need to discuss intellectual property rights and the importance of them. Like I've mentioned in my previous post, there is a war going on. And it's a war I feel we (the supporters of intellectual property) are losing. There are mobs of brats on the internet that think they can pirate. And this is what it is, no matter what they say. It's about what they don't have to pay for, nothing more.

The EFF is a group on the front that defends the destruction of intellectual property as free speech, and any attempt by governments to enforce basic laws is slandered as tyranny of the state to rape our free speech. It's like the basic laws of countries don't apply on the internet. Lest it be evil government tyranny. Try to pass a law that makes it easier to shut down child porn sites, screams! Defended by very poor interpretations of the law or (in most cases) outright lies on what the law actually states. I've gone into this sort of thing with my post on SOPA and PIPA.

So where is the part where the intellectual property thieves hate free speech?

Well, I was just browsing the internet today and I went to the Centre for Copyright Information, a pro-intellectual property rights site. I use a program called Web of Trust in my browser. It's essentially a user based community that allows you to easily identify good sites and bad sites. The idea is that a site with a lot of pop ups, spam, malware, infected, hate speech, white power, etc sites will warn you before you go to them and give you a big RED icon to show that the site is bad. Regular sites that are normal and good will show up with GREEN to show that they're good. It's a very simple system.

The problem is that it is user rated and not based on any sort of objective rating. Guess which site was slandered down into the red as a bad site? That's right, the one that supports intellectual property rights.

This is a copy of the comment section of people who took the time to comment beyond the point of just ranking the site. Aside from a few people that use the service ethically, we have a bunch of people that are showing that this site is a "hate site" and a few people that go to the point of saying that this site will hijack your computer or has browser exploits.

Is this the side of the free speech that we see? Is this what the EFF means when it defends the "free speech of those that commit massive copyright infringements? If you're unclear, it is a crime to violate these.

My point with this post is that there is a war going on. A war that you might be oblivious to because it's easy to put in the back of your mind. We have employment and obligations. Unfortunately kids (and I use that term loosely to include the college kids that haven't grown up) that don't have jobs and clearly too much free time are amassing for their right to loot off the hard work of others.

The good news is that we have sensible lobbies working for this right, which we can be thankful for. But I feel there needs to be more said on our part because we can't let others fight our battles. With the anti-intellectual property propaganda (which is mainly half truths and outright lies) we have the moral argument on our side. That's the key. It's wrong to take something that isn't yours. It's even worse to think you have the right to something that isn't yours.

We also have the other side that are the EFF, that don't take the free speech and privacy bullet points, which seems to appeal to the most brain-dead conspiracy theorists that think the government is watching everything and out to get them.

The war is on, whether you fight or not.

Know thy enemy.

- Sun Tzu

Cary Sherman on Intellectual Property (Duke)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:19:00 +0000

As everyone should know, I'm a big supporter of intellectual property. It's important to understand the need for protecting this. It's easy to come up with very weak arguments to justify the downloading (infringing) of someone else's hard work, but they're just an excuse for your own benefit (at the expensive of someone else).

I feel like there is a new battle every week that the "anti-copyright" people are amassing and fighting, yet we don't seem to have the masses defending the intangible hard work of others. And that's what I'm trying to do here.

United Auto Workers are Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:17:00 +0000

I have a beef to pick with the auto industry workers that are in a union. A lot could be said about what this union has done and how it actually destroyed jobs, rather than secure them. If you bleed a business too much it won't be able to survive. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk directly to the United Auto Workers or anyone that is in a similar situation.

The way that auto workers worked was really quite simple. You worked on an assembly line, you had your particular job on the assembly line and that yielded very good pay/benefits. Your job wasn't exactly challenging, but the union was there to protect you and insure your wages. During the years you worked there you spent most of your inflated wages on "life". Instead of saving, growing, learning and a lot of other important things, you just lived beyond your means. And then when the plant closing came you complained.

I have some advice for you and for anyone that is in a similar position.

If your job can be learned in as little as a week or two, you do not have job security. Union or not. It becomes less secure the more money you make.
Your job isn't the most valuable money maker in your life. It is you. If you're not growing each year and building your "human capital" during your life, than you're worth nothing as are the skills people are willing to pay you. If you don't carve a niche in the market, build up your skills with experience and courses, you're just wasting your time. You're going to get blind sided one day.
The money you do earn on your paycheck doesn't have to be spent all up before the next check. There is this thing called savings and investing. If you don't have any emergency savings than you're an idiot. If you're not putting away dollars for retirement thinking you'll have a big fat pension, you're an idiot. If you buy a house with a little or no downpayment, you're an idiot. At least live within your means. Live below your means, so you can leverage cash.
Don't be some self entitled little prick because you are the worst people to hire. No one wants that type of worker. They want skilled people that get the job done. End of story. You're not special.

Out of all these points, the second one is the most important. If you're not building your skill set and becoming a more valuable person you're just playing with fire. There's a lot of ways to get human capital which include work experience, courses, specific jobs, independent research, etc. Screwing doors on an automation line is not building your human capital, especially if you've been doing it for a few decades.

I Support SOPA and PIPA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:34:00 +0000

Well, let me correct things, I don't know if I should support such laws because I haven't actually read the bills in their entirety. I know enough from the usual talking heads, social media influence and general stupidity of arguments that most likely people are fighting without exposing their true intentions (like net neutrality, which I don't support).

Everyone should know by now that I'm a strong supporter of intellectual property rights (more here). Thought, art, engineering, entertainment are all forms of intellectual property. Creators have every right to protect their property from what I'll call moochers, which I derive strictly from the book Atlas Shrugged.

I find arguments to be all over the place when it comes to pirating and stuff like that. The reason for this is that you have people of all political stripes united on the issue, which means that there is something up. When you see communists and Ron Paul supporters siding with each other you know that there is something up.

For the duration of this article, I'm going to use stealing and copyright infringement as the same thing.

Let me try to sum up all the views into three categories:

I hate rich people
Copying isn't stealing/Intellectual property doesn't exist
I'm entitled

1. I Hate Rich People

This is your typical left-winger type argument. They look at a musician or a movie studio and think they have a lot of money, so they have the right to steal the work. This attitude is something that is very closely related to the entitled attitude.

They take because they think that they're being exploited as a consumer. I don't know how that works though. Often their arguments revolve around "why would I pay $15 for a crappy album made by a corporate manufactured band" or "why would I pay $12 to see a movie that sucks". Are these arguments for why you have the right to steal intellectual property? They seem like arguments not to consume, which is your choice.

I've heard this type of argument over and over again. The only thing a rational person can say to such a thing is "why would you pirate it, if it sucks?"

2. Copying Isn't Stealing/Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist

I find this to be the funniest of them all. I typically run into this type of argument from libertarian/Ron Paul/Austrian economic type people, though a lot of people of all political stripes use the argument.

Of course copying isn't stealing (in the legal sense), it's copyright infringement. Usually people that use this argument tend to be of the entitled category, but they think they can slap out this pseudo-intellectual position and what can you say?

The intellectual property existing versus not existing is definitely a poor position to come from. Many important things that hold intellectual property have benefited your life, so it's such a stupid argument.

3. I'm Entitled

This is basically the brat. They're all brats, but this is the biggest brat of them all. They'll use all the arguments to justify why they do it, but all they're really saying is that it is their Sweet 16 and they better be spoiled.

-------

The problem, at least from the "property" side of things, is that people seem to think property can only be based on scarcity. The idea is if I own the land, no one else can own it too. But property isn't really based on the concept of scarcity, but really the idea of value. And thought has value, some more than others.

Imagine you're developing the cure for cancer. You dedicated 8 years of your life working, testing and going through the regulatory process to bring this to the market. By the time it makes it to the market you've spend a $100 million on research and development. Imagine someone buying the medication, copying it and selling it for a fraction of the price (because they didn't have to spend $100 million developing it).

This person or business would be a moocher and as the person developing it the only word you could come up with is theft.

This same argument can be applied to almost anything. Writing a book for a year (without pay) and selling it. I had an argument with someone over sunglasses. They said cheap sunglasses and expensive sunglasses cost the same to manufacture. This is a true statement, but the "intellectual" value poured into a cheap pair of sunglasses is a lot less.

Anyone that doesn't believe in the concept of intellectual property is anti-man. The brightest minds lose their incentive to pour their wisdom into the market place. Imagine having a job where you produce intellectual items. Say your boss asks you how to do things and one day your boss says, "I'm just not going to pay you because they're just thoughts"? I know how stupid these arguments can seem, but the counter is from such a retarded point of view.

------

So I'm sure some of you are thinking what this has to do with my support of SOPA and PIPA (or at least the ideas behind them). I have to bring it up because you have to know that intellectual property rights are the key to this argument. This isn't about censorship. Every whining brat on the internet and social media is probably pirating, but they have something nice to hide behind "censorship". And you know it.

The big argument I hear about this is that these bills allow the government to run just like Chinese internet censorship, where they can shut down/block sites that they want and that's all there is to it.

*rolls eyes*

Google had a blog post that just pissed me off. Let me quote a little bit for you as it is so retarded.

These bills would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world

So, oppressive regimes use the same technology eh? I hear that oppressive regimes have police officers too. Should we get rid of them? I hear they have roads. Should we get rid of them?

These bills wouldn’t get rid of pirate sites. Pirate sites would just change their addresses in order to continue their criminal activities.

This one pissed me off the most. Of course it won't completely stop pirating, but it will eliminate the vast majority of it in the United States. If The Pirate Bay is blocked and they have to setup a new one, well, a fraction of people will actually find it. And block it within an hour until they stop. It's actually quite an effective solution.

The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding.

This is what is happening now and it's not fixing things. Essentially Google thinks that they should treat this as an international trade issue. Oh wow. You really mean it Google. We can treat it just like it has always been treated. What a position!

The idea is that countries with poor intellectual property rights (ie: China, Russia, etc) will dictate how Americans can access things and subvert laws of other countries. Does the internet need to be governed by the lowest common denominator when it comes to world governments? If this was child porn we wouldn't have a problem (oh SOPA and PIPA will help stop child porn).

The other argument that I hear is that they'll start censoring sites, basically at random. Someone posts something bad on Facebook, it'll be shut down. Put up an offensive picture on reddit, site shut down. Give me a break. This is scare mongering of stupid proportions.

The day that police officers were given guns to carry, they could go rob people, murder people. You can do anything you want with a badge and gun. Why the assumption of the worst?

Let me show you how it WOULD work. FREE SPEECH is a RIGHT in the United States, so censorship wouldn't stand. Sites that promoted CHILD PORNOGRAPHY would be shut down. When a site had an issue with copyright infringement the owners could fix it after complaints and such. Sites that ignore such legal warnings (like the Pirate Bay) would be shut down.

I know you morons like to think that the government is out to get you and police state, insert generic conspiracy theory crap, but you're not that important. They're not going after websites. They're targeting sites that pirate.

------

When it comes to SOPA and PIPA, I don't know if they're the best way to enforce this. This type of argument is fair. But everyone is arguing about censorship and shutting down websites. It's all so stupid and it's coming from the worst ideological position (a pirating position).

Stealing intellectual property is WRONG! We should all be working to strengthen intellectual property rights and the enforcement of them. Eventually that is going to lead to the internet. So back off and stand up for the rights of creators, engineers, artists, producers, actors, etc.

If you don't like that, don't come back to my blog.

Edit:
I did some research and it seems like ALL the arguments against SOPA and PIPA are blatantly false. One of the big complaints is that the government or government censor gets to decide what sites are shut down, without due process. Guess what children, not true.

Check the following from Wikipedia's Protect IP Act page

The bill provides for "enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas" and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against websites dedicated to infringing activities, if through due diligence, an individual owner or operator cannot be located.^[11] The bill requires the Attorney General to serve notice to the defendant.^[12] Once the court issues an order, it could be served on financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, Internet service providers, and information location tools to require them to stop financial transactions with the rogue site and remove links to it.

Okay, let's dissect what this says. The first point, a court order is needed. This makes it 100% legal allowing for due process. The second point is that it is designed to go after sites DEDICATED to infringing activity (whether on purpose or the owner of the site has abandoned it). The defendant of said site will be served notice by the attorney to comply.

Guess what children, this law is actually quite reasonable, rational and moral.

The same is true for SOPA, which you can see on Wikipedia's Stop Online Privacy Act page

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.

Look children, yet again a court order is needed. This time it is for sites located outside the US borders.

Yet again, reasonable, rational and moral.

Did anyone actually look into the facts of the case? Nothing but FALSE fear mongering.

Facts about Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:47:00 +0000

I feel the need to write this post as I've seen some surges in polls regarding Ron Paul. I know that you can't put much into polls involving Ron Paul because typically the one that counts (elections) show a much different result. Anyway, I feel like I need to write about this. There is a lot of misinformation out there on him. I find that his supporters are literally marketers for him and I mean marketing in a way of selling his ideas, not really giving you a fair shake.

I think I can give you much better facts on him since I was a supporter back in my more "ideal" time in life. Since then I've smartened up and became much more rational. In that time I learned a lot of the discussion points and the way things are argued. My Ron Paul facts will be very accurate and I know a lot of his fanatical supporters won't like that. If you're one of those people, eat me.

Ron Paul is a Racist

Don't let anyone, ever, convince you that he is not. Fanatical idiotic Ron Paul supporters may try to convince you otherwise. About 10-15-20 years ago Ron Paul produced letters to supporters in his community and mainly in his area of Texas. These letters are the items you really need to read. This is the true ideological point of Ron Paul and a huge part of his followers. And there's a lot more in there aside from racism

Let's review some of the quotes:

"Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks." - Ron Paul on the LA riots (June 1992)
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. Laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul in 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people [white people], but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul in 1992.

This is just a small selection of what is out there. I suggest you find actual copies of the newsletters on the internet and read them for yourself. There's more in there than just racism. There's conspiracy theories and the typical "Jews own the world" type crap.

Anyway, Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself have a very pathetic excuse for this. They say it was taken out of context. Oh, but than they said, it's completely fabricated. Oh and about the time Ron Paul began more Republican runs he has said he didn't write them. With different excuses to explain this, you can pretty much tell that he was involved. Even if you buy into the fact that someone else on his campaign wrote it and sent it out (as a letter with Ron Paul's name on it) you should never be able to get away with it. No politician could live this down yet Paul supporters think it's a conspiracy against him by the "media".

Ron Paul is an Isolationist

This is a point that makes Ron Paul supporters blood boil. I think the main reason is that it is so true, but they have an excellent rebuttal for it. If you bring up the isolationist point you'll often hear something along the lines of "he's not about war. He's about being friends with countries and having free trade with them." It does sound nice and very peaceful, but it doesn't negate the fact that he's an isolationist.

For example, Ron Paul is against GATT, NAFTA, FTAA and every other single form of a free trade that has ever been introduced in Congress under the guise that it isn't "true free trade". There's also the other excuse which is a conspiracy, world government type deal, but I'll save that for another bullet point.

It's true that these agreements aren't technically "free trade" as there are rules and regulations. Just as there are rules and regulations in the United States on "trade" within it. In the world we live in, we need agreements to liberalize trade and make it easier. Anyone with a brain knows that these agreements are progress to a freer world and freer markets.

Ron Paul's view on free trade is known as unilateral free trade. This is where he executes a free trade in and out of the country, just on the US side. He has no desire to negotiate an agreement with other countries because he doesn't believe in it and he doesn't like telling other countries what to do. Despite your opinion on whether this is a better form to achieve free trade is up to you, but we can all agree that it is an isolationist point of view.

The other point is that he doesn't seem to care about the world outside the United States the immediate effect on the country. If you go back 250 years, it was quite easy to hold the Ron Paul position because the world was a different place. If the British were sending troops over to fight, it took them a month to cross the Atlantic. Today, we have intercontinental ballistic missiles. We have technology that can destroy the lives of millions in a matter of seconds. This same technology is being pursued and already achieved by theocratic nuts and dictators.

You just can't hold a position like this. It isn't rational.

Ron Paul on Iran

One of the most troubling Ron Paul facts are his idiotic and completely dangerous views on Iran. Despite all the racist, conspiracy theories and all his odd policies the scariest thing I've ever heard him say is that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and we have no right to stop them. This is very dangerous, anti-man, anti-mind talk.

Libertarians and Ron Paul are very emphatic about rights, as am I. The difference is that libertarians don't really know where rights come from. We have the right to free speech, but a libertarian couldn't tell you where that right comes from. They'd probably say the constitution, but that doesn't really get down to the core. Rights don't come from God and rights don't come from existing. It's this unknown that inevitably leads to Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians for the most part) to defend Iran and defend the "rights" of Iran.

What's worse is that you often hear a blaming of American and a blaming of the free world. It's the core points (or lack thereof) of libertarian philosophy that leads libertarians to the point of view that Iran has equal rights, the same rights that a free democratic society has. This is a severe and dangerous look at the world.

Rights are in fact born out of the requirement to live your life properly and to the best of your ability. When rights are taken away, the lives of people suffer and are often lost. This same thinking applies to governments, but not equally. A free democratic country is better than a theocratic dictatorship. Dictatorships and theocracies don't have rights.

This means that we don't have to give Iran the benefit of the doubt. This means that we don't have to wait and avoid a preemptive strike. We don't owe a dictator anything as a free society. We don't have to listen to them.

Rational thought tells us that crazy theocracies cannot have nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. We don't owe them an explanation. We don't owe them a benefit of the doubt. We owe nothing less than destroying the capabilities that lead to this.

Not only has he expressed this dangerous opinion, but he just expresses factual incorrect information on the subject. In the past, Ron Paul said that Iranian democracy is a model for other countries in the Middle East. Sounds like a nice statement, but Iran is a theocratic dictatorship.

Ron Paul also says that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Well, there is the IAEA report that was released November 8 2011 that says so. He says that there is no credible evidence. Of course, Ron Paul would never listen to the IAEA because they're a branch of "world government" which exists to take over the world and all the rich Jews will steal his gold, or something like that.

Ron Paul is the king of Conspiracy Theorists

I wish I could show you a video I seen on Ron Paul's Congressional website a few months after 9/11. This was a time before Youtube, as I remember watching the video through Windows Media Player. Ron Paul was standing in front a crowd in his town speaking and he said that the government was pulling the wool over the eyes of America. Literally coming out and saying that it was an inside job. Go find the newsletters he wrote about 15-20 years ago and you'll see plenty of conspiracy theories.

With the popularity of the internet growing and the ability to share information, Ron Paul has become more popular and has really toned down the conspiracy stuff. But he still has the underlying words where he almost comes off as one. This attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists to him. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters believe in whacko conspiracies.

I know that is a very generalized and subjective statement, but serious go to a Ron Paul forum and just lurk. Read what they say. Whacko people.

And this is something that doesn't stop with 9/11. If you believe in this type of crap you almost guaranteed believe in "the Jews" are behind (insert whatever). The Jews run the media. The Jews are part of the New World Order. The Jews run all the bailed out banks. There is absolutely no end to the amount of retarded conspiracies that savages like Ron Paul supporters come up with.

Even though Ron Paul has shut up about Israel and "the Jews" recently, it can still be found on his newsletters. The conspiracies against Jews are the ones that annoy me the most. Conspiracy theories in general piss me off, but when it involves Jews it comes from the most vial place and it just disgusts me.

But the conspiracies don't stop there. One of the Ron Paul facts that you probably hear about was his opposition to the "NAFTA highway". He says he opposes it for "sovereignty" reasons. I say he opposes it because he views NAFTA in general as a way of building a "North American Government" and eventually world government type deal. The fact is that it is just a road. It's made of asphalt and you drive your car on it. It's not a conspiracy. It's a road.

Ron Paul's favorite conspiracy theorist is Alex Jones who runs two websites known as InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. I will not link to these websites as I don't want to do them any favors. Alex Jones is literally screwed in the head. It's not like this guy has one conspiracy, it's that everything is a conspiracy. This includes con trails to 9/11 to police state to UN troops taking over the United States to brain washing chemicals in the drinking water. Absolutely crazy stuff. Ron Paul is a continued guest on his talk radio show. Continued. This guy is insane. Look up his Youtube videos and see the crazy stuff. I can't believe people exist like this.

Ron Paul hates Gay People

Often Ron Paul supporters will try to show a softer and gentler side of Paul that is for the LGBT community. They have a quote from him saying that he views all of God's creatures equally or something like that. And I often hear them say that he's against the amendment to ban gay marriage. Yet again, don't be fooled by this.

The Ron Paul newsletters, yet again, expose a much different story and an extreme view on gay people. He said that gay people should be rounded up and quarantined from society because of AIDS. This sums up his view right there. There is nothing else to be said on this topic because of what he has said in his newsletters. That opinion is based on nothing more than bigotry and hatred.

See what his buddy Alex Jones says.

Ron Paul Hides Views "Constitutionally"

You ever notice that Ron Paul and his supporters talk a little too much about the constitution instead of coming out and just saying what they believe. This is a planned act because they can hide more radical opinions of him. The way that Ron Paul interprets the constitution is that there is very little power that the Federal government has. We can all argue the degree of this statement, but it's a convenient way to hide your opinions.

For example, there is no where in the constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate or define marriage. So when you hear a supporter saying Ron Paul is against federal attempts to ban gay marriage you're not getting the whole story. Ron Paul is against gay marriage. He doesn't like it, and he doesn't want to see it happen. This is something that he supports on a state level or a municipal level.

If you get down into the core beliefs of Ron Paul and his supporters you'll find a very clueless belief. One of the big ones is that Ron Paul actually wants to live in a religious theocracy type government, but it has to be on the state level. He's a proponent of government and religious mixing. He doesn't believe the separation of religion and state, which I think is bad.

Don't be fooled when you hear Ron Paul play the constitution card because he's really working to hide a more offensive position.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution

Stupid. He's a doctor as well, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Absolute complete retard. What else can I say.

---

These are the big Ron Paul facts that I've displayed here. I bring this from a unique point of view and I hope I illustrated a lot of the main points you should take away from this. I'll probably end up coming back to this and writing more because I literally get pissed off thinking about him and the stupidity of him. I'm hoping this changes minds and makes the world a better place by turning people off of him.

Shortly after posting:

I'd like to add something that shows a lot of what I'm talking about. I was going to post a video of Mark Levin talking about Ron Paul. I vaguely know who Mark Levin is and I don't really know much of his views. Though I do know that he's against Ron Paul and I know he has boycotted such events that allowed Ron Paul to be involved.

I thought instead of posting the video, I could post a picture as a picture speaks louder than words.

Edit Jan 15 2012:

Found a nice site dedicated to exposing Ron Paul. A very interesting look at things as Ron Paul supporters are worse than Ron Paul himself.

Retarded Occupy Wall Street Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:35:00 +0000

Since my post on how I thought Occupy Wall Street is Stupid, I've been getting a lot of traffic. The vast majority has been quite positive, agreeing with my post. Over the last few days I've been getting very pro-occupy wall street comments and this mainly corresponds with the traffic dying down a bit. Plus occupier are being evicted. Anyway.

Normally I just delete comments that are so retarded. Normally I allow stupid, but if it falls into that fringe of catchy stupid/conspiracy crap it goes. I thought I'd share the ones I get here and people can see. I'll even reply to them. *More will be added as they come in.

It is an anti-corruption protest! What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves) it is a huge disservice to the American people, who deserve to have political representatives who act in the best interest of the constituents.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM not Corporatism which we see today. Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility. They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank. They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

So the OWS is actually fighting for capitalism and democracy, corporations to abide by laws and morals, what is wrong with any of that?

I just can't get over the stupidity of this statement. It's one part Ron Paul retarded and one part Liberal. And you know that it is a good mix.

It is an anti-corruption protest!

No it's not. From the Occupy Wall Street website: "...aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people..." I at least hope you remember all the "We are the 99% crap". You're not the 99%, but that is another story. It's a socialist movement. One that isn't looking to "end corruption", but to distribute wealth away from the rich and give it to others.

What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves)

For me, this stuff falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. There always some group moaning about how the "big corporations" are running everything. Even though the corporations don't have the right to vote and pay taxes, while every American citizen of the age of 18 can vote, whether they pay taxes or not. It's almost as bad as the claim that people are too stupid to know who to vote for. The evil media brainwashes people into voting for certain candidates and no one else has the intellectual power to see past it, except for yourself.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM

Not true. Nothing really to say but that.

Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility.

Such as? Do they have the right to vote? I seriously would like to know because I actually own a small corporation, so I want to know what sort of bonus rights that I have (especially the ones about world domination).

They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank.

That doesn't sound like "true CAPITALISM". In fact, I'm pretty sure the Glass Steigel Act does the complete opposite of what you stated.

They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

Another glorious conspiracy theory. All that crazy Jekyll Island stuff and rich bankers planning to take over the world. The only problem with this is that it simply isn't true.

The reason I posted this comment is because it just shows you how the stupidity of fringe right and fringe left actually mix quite well. It's literally one part crazy Ron Paul and one part crazy Ralph Nader. Creepy.

Can Particles Travel Faster Than Light?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:30:00 +0000

I thought I'd talk about something related to science because it is something that greatly interests me. No doubt you heard recently that scientists have made a particle go faster than the speed of light. The big deal in the science world is that Einstein's theory was that the fastest a particle could go was the speed of light. And since a lot of the physics we know today is based off this assumption, it's a really big deal. You can read about the news when it first came out here.

I was skeptical for a few reasons, but I'll go into that in a little bit. Today, a group of scientists in Italy are claiming that in fact that the study is wrong and that it's not traveling faster than light.

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso - which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics - now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading.

In a paper posted on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."
They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top US physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light.

But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles travelling at the speed of light and no more.

I'm fairly confident that the Opera experiment (the group the found a particle faster than light) is wrong. I hate when the media gets ahold of science and related matters because you never get a full picture. You often only hear a conclusion on the study. Without an understanding of methodology used to achieve results, how can you really know what is going on.

In a world of 'nothing faster than light', you can't measure anything faster than it. It's not like they had a speedometer to measure such things because there is nothing in science that we know of that could possible measure that. This means there is another methodology and another form of measurement for this type of thing. In this case it's a basis of the particle energy, which also happens to be another type of assumption science (just as the nothing faster than the speed of light is).

I think when you hear about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), which is the physics of the subatomic, you should be skeptical. It's actually a very tough science that we frankly don't know much about. It's growing and I think the studies are important and the more we learn the better, but I just get annoyed with so called "findings". Especially the ones picked up by the media.

Things like string theory, which by objective standards is retarded, is picked up by media and made to shine. Though the real science establishment won't touch it.

So think people. Remember that quantum physics/mechanics is a tough science to do. There's a lot of promise in the subject, but it's tough to figure things out. The measuring is by far the hardest. I find what they do very interesting and if I could be involved in such scientific projects I would. But take what you hear with a grain of salt because the standards are just not the same.