Saturday, 7 September 2013

Calling Out The Sugar-Coated Facts

Stumbled upon this absurd picture trying to change people’s thinking using “facts”. 

In 2009 I watched 60 Minutes showing how DHL was leaving a small town; causing devastation to the people. 
 CBS was using this story to depict the suffering of the small town by using “real life examples”.  Was I the only human on the planet who caught the following?!?!?!

This is the lady who was upset about not being able to buy food: 7min 40 seconds, “…you just have to start doing without."
Below is quite the stockpile of "necessary" foods that CBS shot while on the subject of not being able to buy food. (7:20)
Do you see lots of  luxury brand name items too? Ironically, while she is talking about stockpiling necessary foods to survive, I paused the video and this is where the video landed. 
Quite the "necessary" item.  I find it deplorable and a massive insult to the truly needy of the world that a lady who is clearly 40 (or more) pounds overweight is complaining about no money for food while holding Betty Crocker Vanilla Icing (with cake mix in behind) when there are frail and malnourished people who would be thankful for rice and basic food items.  The left needs to address this common reality with food, booze and smokes before it gains an ounce of credibility with their pathetic pictures trying to trick us into thinking the lady is actually holding veggies.  I found no veggies in that mess of foods...did you?
 Oh, and BTW, SHAME on CBS for failing to ask, "If you are short of cash and cannot afford food, then why are you buying Vanilla Icing?"  SHAME.  The very subtle agenda they were promoting is the very opposite of the reality they actually portrayed.  I least edit your own work and replace the Icing with some veggies.
 It's not about the 'mother trying to buy veggies' or else the left would call it's about wealth transfer.
 If the left admitted there is a crisis of money going to poor food choices/booze and smokes, that would de-legitimize their actual goal of massive wealth they need to cover up (tee-he...icing on cake...) the baloney spending of several low income earners with a slender woman holding veggies so they can curry favor with the reasonable masses.
Get real lefties...your only fooling the foolish.


It’s Greedy For You To Keep Your Money…But Not For Me To Take It.


Left wing ideology is much harder to have patience with when you are working your tail off.  A major problem with left wingers is that they are all too often unable (unwilling/incapable?) of debating past their own contradictions and emotional tirades.  Simple points become massive stumbling blocks to further a discussion.  Is there anyone out there who can offer a semblance of intelligence with respect to the dialogue below?  

Socialist: “The employer should be forced to pay the employee more money. It’s not fair for the employee.”

Reason: “Why is it wrong for an employee and employer to come to an agreement  on wages  paid for work performed?”

Socialist: “When it means the worker is living below a poverty line, the employer should do more.”

Reason:  “Why should the employer pay more then the value of their work? Since when is the employer responsible for the financial living conditions of someone else?”

Socialist: “Because the employer has excessive profits and can afford to share”

Reason: “Then the worker should ‘pay up’ when the employer has losses, right?”

----conversation over----

Reason on tail end: “Why is the answer not to increase the skills of the worker and therefore their earning potential?”

Reason: “……I’m genuinely asking…”

----conversation over….still…----

Is it possible to further this discussion?

 The left goes wild when government tries to stop same-sex marriages. They always cite, “2 consenting adults should be able to make their own choice without government stopping them”….yet magically and suddenly…this very logic collapses when it comes to earning wages…all of a sudden 2 adults have no business agreeing on something between themselves and MUST have governments dictate to them the ‘rules of engagement’…please explain how the stench of hypocrisy is not enveloped in this simple matter. In the situations of same-sex marriage and wage negotiations: 1. It is with adults of a sober mind, 2. They are consenting with each other 3. They each agree to certain roles and responsibility within their functions and 4. there is no law being broken and they have the choice to engage or not to engage. 

Until some form of reason can explain these gaps (and I concede gaps are possible to be filled); it is reasonable to state the left’s agenda is not rooted in congruent principles and values, but in a pragmatist ad hoc approach that leaves the on-looker bewildered and confused with obvious contradictions in key policies and core values. 

NDP leader Tom Muclair is at the park with his son.  His son sees a little girl with 12 scoops of ice-cream and starts to cry.  Tom, a seeker of justice, asks his son what’s wrong.  With a huff and a puff Tom’s son pouts, “She has 12 scoops and I only have 1 tiny scoop…that’s not fair.”  Tom (the logical man he is) thinks to himself, “How do I take my core political values and apply them here?”  Tom walks over to the little girl and explains to her, “You do not need all that ice cream…it is a superfluous situation that requires my intervention as my son only has 1 scoop…your excess is causing my sons loss and that simply is unjust.”  The girl says, “This belongs to me,” and pulls the ice-cream back.  Determined to see justice done, Tom pursues the little girl and takes a scoop and gives it to his son who promises to stop whining…until the sugar high is over. 

In the real world, Tom would be charged for robbery…to avoid charges, the left simply seeks to change the laws.  Since the ice-cream ‘belongs’ to the little girl…you simply pass a law that says that ice-cream now belongs to the state. Since this example is absurd, the left will agree the ice-cream belongs to the little girl….hence the contradiction. 

The Left argues it is a core principle to seize ownership (money/property) of group A and forcibly give it to group B to re-distribute the wealth. 

Taking money from Group A (Excess profit mongers: Wal-Mart…Excess playground girl with ice-cream) and forcibly give it to less fortunate Group B (low income wage earners/Tom’s deprived son) brings justice.  The same principle is argued to be sound in 1 case…but clearly foolish in another. Same logic, same basic conditions…contradictory results…telling me the inherent core value is broken.  That’s why several on the left are notoriously known for emotional breakdowns in the midst of a sensible argument; because when faced with the inevitable contradictions of their policy, they do not humble themselves and concede a point…so they lash out.

I strive to live a life where the principles and values that govern my family life are consistently reflected at work, politics, media, church and at the park.

Perhaps the left should strongly consider winding down their strong critique of the right’s core values….and develop some ‘contradiction free’ values of their own.

 Bonus Material:
Who “owns” an employee’s  time and talent?  The evil capitalist thinks: the employee.

Who owns the capital in the company?  The capitalist thinks: the shareholder (by definition).

Who owns the risk of capital, the losses of a corporation, and the profits? The owner.

Why should the worker not determine the fate of what the own, and the shareholder the same; after all, they each own their respective contributions?

Why is it okay to take from one group and give to another?

Left, please create your position of forced increases in minimum wage by incorporating sensible answers to these questions…without embarrassing contradictions…then perhaps we can further the discussion.

Saturday, 20 April 2013

Intercepted Letter Before He Made It Public!

Justin Trudeau's Letter:

                                                                                                                                      April 20, 2013
Dear Fellow Canadians,

Some of you (mostly in the conservative media) has made some very divisive comments about my remarks from the tragedy in Boston.   I intend to set the record straight.
Asked how I would have responded as leader to this tragedy, I indicated we “need to look at root causes”.  I also said, “…there is no question this happened because someone feels completely excluded.” We also have to be careful, “…not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group”.
The criticism against my comments is that I sought to absolve people from personal responsibility by siding with the terrorists.  This could not be further from the truth.  I said, “we need to keep the borders safe” and that includes apprehending those that break the law.  Let me clarify.
I am a Liberal.  My dad was a Liberal and he said it best;

“A Liberal philosophy places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. The liberal is an optimist at heart who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man’s inclination to good but knows it must be cultivated and supported. While understanding as well as any other man the limits of government and the law, the liberal knows that both are powerful forces for good, and does not hesitate to use them.”
The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, April 1974

This may be a bit complex for the average Canadian outside of Quebec, so please allow me to break this down in simpler notations;
-man is free and therefore must change
-we do this change through reforming society by modifying institutions and then we have liberated citizens.
-we trust people, knowing man is not perverse, but capable of moral progress, through support and cultivation from government and law as powerful sources.
Government has a responsibility to help liberate people through programs and laws.  Liberals therefore create programs and laws to help people.  The Boston individual(s) who planted the bombs are people, therefore we must get involved in their rehabilitation thorough programs and laws.  In order to get involved in their rehabilitation, we must know “why?”.  It is clear we need to look at root causes to understand “why?”.  A root cause with these individuals is “exclusion from society”.  In order to understand how “exclusion from society” impacted these individuals, we need to stop blaming and start discussing root causes of exclusion.
Here is what is at issue:
Conservatives think adults are responsible for their own actions.  Liberals believe society shares responsibility with individuals for their actions.  How else can you connect a bomber blowing people up and me (hours later) discussing root causes of the bombers hurts?  The bombers struggling to be included is my struggle, or shall I say… our struggle.  For when you realize that as a compassionate Canadian you too must lay down your divisive tendencies that seek to lay blame on groups or people for their actions and instead focus on inclusiveness, I say, real change…a better Canada…can truly be realized.  Join me in my analysis of ‘root causes of exclusion’ starting with the Boston bombers and then the troubled individual in India.
Before you get divisive and angry with these men…think, “…excluded from society” and "...don't point fingers"…then you will see root causes and truly build a compassionate Canada.

Justin Trudeau

*Writen by Ryan Jantzi* (He won't be direct with his I did it for him...really apologize if any confusion...none intended...)

Monday, 11 February 2013

I'm Too Stupid To Think! Gov. To The Rescue

One of the problems with publicly funded health care is that the overseers get to tell us what we can and cannot do.  This obviously limits our freedom of choice, but more prominently, forces each taxpayer to pay into a massive national program.

Quebec’s recent decision to ban tanning beds to minors is an example of a freedom that individuals must give up because lawmakers think they know what’s best.  Since the government pays the healthcare bill and will ultimately foot the bill for the kid’s choices, they feel obliged to decide on their behalf.  Ironically the most vocal proponents of “woman’s control over their body” on the abortion debate hop the fence on tanning beds pronouncing that a woman shall have no control over their body when it comes to tanning, least they face a $100 fine.

If a government passes a law, there is a presumption the law is on the right side of the moral fence.  Now that minors do not tan in Quebec, we can all take a deep breath of relief and think; “It’s the right thing to do”.

“Free healthcare” comes at a significant cost to our freedoms by allowing the government to impose morality on the population through the creation of healthcare specific laws: consequence free to the patient, consequence filled to the taxpayer.

Governments will continue to envelope the population with requirements on how we ought to live our lives until there is a collective voice that pushes back towards a more private healthcare system that imposes costs on individuals (with a support system for those who lack…I am not calling for a “crash and burn--you’re on your own” system).

Perhaps if people see the consequences of their poor choices then coughed up the money to get better, we would see a healthier Canada.  As we know, a significant portion of North America’s sickness is brought on by poor choices (again, some sickness/diseases are 100% no fault of an individual).

Before the cat-calls of ‘cruel’ and ‘heartless’ are tabled, consider a compassionate position:

Imagine a society in which people who choose to ruin their bodies are able to do so, but then pay the cost themselves. Perhaps this individual will turn to family, friends and loved ones in a time of need and we can see real change: from the inside out.  Imagine those who made good choices now have much more dispensable cash because the government is not taxing them for a national healthcare system.  Furthermore, their premiums are so low because they make good, healthy choices.

The key to a healthier Canada is not government imposed laws through micro-control of each choice we make.  Freedom to choose, then pay for mistakes is a great way to learn. It’s cheap, harsh, humbling and effective; especially when we can turn to those who love us for help. If we want to see change in others, influence and mercy is a more powerful agent then law.  Parents, until we see an overhaul with Canada’s healthcare system, let’s lead by example. 


*In another blog entry, I will tackle what I propose is a compassionate position with respect to low income families.  Also, what about disease/sickness that is no fault of an individual?  Neither case do I propose, “let them suffer” followed up with devilish laughs.


Saturday, 9 February 2013

Nova Scotia, Blackberry And A Dash Of Honesty

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter is giving $10 to BlackBerry in exchange for the promise of 400 jobs in the province. This comes just two weeks after BlackBerry's launch of BlackBerry 10 and a new line of phones.

Nova Scotia government invests $10-million in BlackBerry jobs

On Thursday, Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter announced that the province would be investing $10-million in BlackBerry — formerly Research In Motion Ltd. — as part of a promise to employ 400 workers in the province.

BlackBerry plans to employe at least 400 people annually with an average salary of at least $60,000,

“These partnerships help to foster innovation and support BlackBerry’s competitiveness on a global scale,” Mr. MacLeod said.

With the government rescue, the following messages are being spoken to the 400 employees of Blackberry:

1.      Your job does not exist because you are generating wealth; it exists because the government wrote a cheque on your behalf.

2.      Your skills and abilities are insufficient to keep your job: if you want proof, turn down the $10 million.

3.      Blackberry did not want you…until the government paid them to want you.

4.      You are not ‘worth’ what Blackberry pays you. The government is hiding this by propping up your employment and wage.

5.      Your hard work will not advance you; the government will.

6.      You did not earn your keep. You were given your keep. If I am wrong, then say ‘no’ to the $10 million with a collective response, “Thanks, but no thanks…we can make it on our own.”

7.      Your employer is actually the taxpayer, masqueraded by a Blackberry logo.

8.      Partnership” between the Nova Scotia government and Blackberry literally means $10 million wired from the governments bank, to Blackberry’s, resulting in an “offset” for the deficiency of productivity pertaining to each employee’s existence. (Daddy bought your car and paid for your school…how ‘accomplished’ do you feel?)

9.      To keep your moral high, we lied to you and ‘played pretend’ that you are increasing global competitiveness. To prove this is true, simply forgo the $10 million and see how much you increase global competitiveness.

10.  As long as supply/demand is not a factor and government cheques flow, your job is safe…but worry not, should Blackberry not sustain you...the government will find another suitor. For its reach is broad and heart ever so big.  Trust in the government, not yourself.


So God Made A Liberal

Go ahead, crack a smile :)

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain