http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/monckton_ca_assembly_presentation.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WNm1-GMWdlw
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Watching 100% of the Canadian voters participate in a Federal election.
Please allow me to point out 100% of Canada's eligible voters contribute
to a federal election: 38% vote Conservative, 28 each for the NDP and
Libs, a few vote for the PQ and Green parties.
But the largest
voting block are the voters who stay home. That group exercises it's
constitutional right. However, we in the poverty of our education have
not been taught the most important fact about abstaining: An abstaining
vote is a vote for the majority. That is a fundamental democratic
principal that no one is willing to talk about. Most Canadians have
never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach
them. Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority
governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy
in those who stay home. We teach it in our schools, we support it in
our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.
As my children grew up, I challenged their reticence to vote. I said something like, if you didn't vote and your friends didn't vote, what would happen if a real bad guy won the election. Would you be more happy or less happy about that? Since you never voted, your democratic rights allowed you to abstain, in fear perhaps, or in antipathy, or confusion. Abstaining allows a citizen to criticize a selection irregardless of who it is that wins the election. There is a certain smugness in that, but in truth all citizens either actively or passively decide the vote. The passive side in democratic language says they either don't care who governs them, or perhaps object to "all of the above", but in the end by abstaining declare they will accept what the rest of Canada wants. You are saying you are with the 38% of the vote who wins the house. Therefore, if you add 50% of any abstaining vote to the winners of the majority, you can quickly see they have actually won 85% of the vote in Canada.
If you can live with that, then its fine, you have after all demonstrated your democratic right to abstain. You know you are in effect saying I will go along with the majority of voters decisions. To consider this a nil vote simply is not true. However to vote, is to indicate you want only one direction for your country to go. And, if that puts you in a minority position and your guy doesn't win, you have actively been a part of the exercise in democracy. Surely that is preferable to being under a government that came into being because of the abstaining vote of the country.
to a federal election: 38% vote Conservative, 28 each for the NDP and
Libs, a few vote for the PQ and Green parties.
But the largest
voting block are the voters who stay home. That group exercises it's
constitutional right. However, we in the poverty of our education have
not been taught the most important fact about abstaining: An abstaining
vote is a vote for the majority. That is a fundamental democratic
principal that no one is willing to talk about. Most Canadians have
never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach
them. Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority
governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy
in those who stay home. We teach it in our schools, we support it in
our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.
As my children grew up, I challenged their reticence to vote. I said something like, if you didn't vote and your friends didn't vote, what would happen if a real bad guy won the election. Would you be more happy or less happy about that? Since you never voted, your democratic rights allowed you to abstain, in fear perhaps, or in antipathy, or confusion. Abstaining allows a citizen to criticize a selection irregardless of who it is that wins the election. There is a certain smugness in that, but in truth all citizens either actively or passively decide the vote. The passive side in democratic language says they either don't care who governs them, or perhaps object to "all of the above", but in the end by abstaining declare they will accept what the rest of Canada wants. You are saying you are with the 38% of the vote who wins the house. Therefore, if you add 50% of any abstaining vote to the winners of the majority, you can quickly see they have actually won 85% of the vote in Canada.
If you can live with that, then its fine, you have after all demonstrated your democratic right to abstain. You know you are in effect saying I will go along with the majority of voters decisions. To consider this a nil vote simply is not true. However to vote, is to indicate you want only one direction for your country to go. And, if that puts you in a minority position and your guy doesn't win, you have actively been a part of the exercise in democracy. Surely that is preferable to being under a government that came into being because of the abstaining vote of the country.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
I have a hard time not believing the haters aren't disingenuous nay-sayers, since this was an absurd partisan issue that was thoroughly aired almost a year ago. But for those who genuinely wonder:
1) Sole-sourcing. Sounds like there was no competitive bid process. But in fact there was. It happened in the Liberals era. Boeing and LHM were the only manufacturers that presented a bid with a working proto-type. If your really want to dig, you would discover this is actually sourced from numerous companies all over NATO including Canada, who's aerospace industry has already earned hundreds of millions sourcing to the project. The bidding process continues as hundreds of companies are constantly competing and bidding to provide the parts that make this plane.
2) Build our own. Most Canadians are nostalgic for the Avro Arrow we designed in the 1960s for good reason. But in this case, designing and building a 5th gen plane costs 300 Billion dollars. Is it reasonable for Canada to take on a project that will add 300 Billion to our debt (remember Canada's total debt from decades is around 600 Billion. ) Considering the hew and cry of spending up to 30 billion for aircraft now.
3) Alternative planes. Unless you buy off the Russians, there are no alternatives. We have the choice to build superior planes, far above the playing field of today's fighters. In World War II Poland saw no need to build tanks when their horses were just fine. And they were fine--the Polish cavalry was one of the best. The current version of the F-18 hornet suggested by some to be the way to go, has a kill ratio against the F-22 and F35 of 0 (yes that's zero) to 100. The enemy in 5th gen planes could kill 100 Hornets without losing plane! When it comes to warfare technology, you don't want to field equipment that is as good as the enemy, you want to field the superior equipment. It has been the vast superiority that has decided every war we have fought since WW I.
4)Buying from an American country. Yes the main assembly will be done at LHM in the US. BUT the equipment is going to be built by all participating NATO countries. Canadian aero space has already made hundreds of millions of dollars providing Canadian equipment for the project. LHM expects to spend 12 Billion dollars in Canada in comparison to the 9 billion quote. Even supposing the price balloons to 30 billion; if the Canadian factories have zero inflation, we would be buying for at least 30% less than anyone else. AND will create thousands of high-paying jobs in Canada.
Finally one important point. We are not buying these planes for 2012. We are buying them for 2030. It is so easy to be backwards looking to save a buck. But this direction is a direction that has a firm grip on the future.
1) Sole-sourcing. Sounds like there was no competitive bid process. But in fact there was. It happened in the Liberals era. Boeing and LHM were the only manufacturers that presented a bid with a working proto-type. If your really want to dig, you would discover this is actually sourced from numerous companies all over NATO including Canada, who's aerospace industry has already earned hundreds of millions sourcing to the project. The bidding process continues as hundreds of companies are constantly competing and bidding to provide the parts that make this plane.
2) Build our own. Most Canadians are nostalgic for the Avro Arrow we designed in the 1960s for good reason. But in this case, designing and building a 5th gen plane costs 300 Billion dollars. Is it reasonable for Canada to take on a project that will add 300 Billion to our debt (remember Canada's total debt from decades is around 600 Billion. ) Considering the hew and cry of spending up to 30 billion for aircraft now.
3) Alternative planes. Unless you buy off the Russians, there are no alternatives. We have the choice to build superior planes, far above the playing field of today's fighters. In World War II Poland saw no need to build tanks when their horses were just fine. And they were fine--the Polish cavalry was one of the best. The current version of the F-18 hornet suggested by some to be the way to go, has a kill ratio against the F-22 and F35 of 0 (yes that's zero) to 100. The enemy in 5th gen planes could kill 100 Hornets without losing plane! When it comes to warfare technology, you don't want to field equipment that is as good as the enemy, you want to field the superior equipment. It has been the vast superiority that has decided every war we have fought since WW I.
4)Buying from an American country. Yes the main assembly will be done at LHM in the US. BUT the equipment is going to be built by all participating NATO countries. Canadian aero space has already made hundreds of millions of dollars providing Canadian equipment for the project. LHM expects to spend 12 Billion dollars in Canada in comparison to the 9 billion quote. Even supposing the price balloons to 30 billion; if the Canadian factories have zero inflation, we would be buying for at least 30% less than anyone else. AND will create thousands of high-paying jobs in Canada.
Finally one important point. We are not buying these planes for 2012. We are buying them for 2030. It is so easy to be backwards looking to save a buck. But this direction is a direction that has a firm grip on the future.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Please allow me to point out 100% of Canada's eligible voters contribute to a federal election: 38% vote Conservative, 28 each for the NDP and Libs, a few vote for the PQ and Green parties.
But the largest voting block are the voters who stay home. That group exercises it's constitutional right. However, we in the poverty of our education have not been taught the most important fact about abstaining: An abstaining vote is a vote for the majority. That is a fundamental democratic principal that no one is willing to talk about. Most Canadians have never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach them. Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy in those who stay home. We teach it in our schools, we support it in our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.
______
I pose the question: **Could** this have been done by the NDP? It is rather odd that these Robo-calls be centered in bastions of Conservative support. Everyone does polling, few ridings were surprises to either side, except perhaps the NDP's surprise wins in Quebec. Liberals and NDP knew those ridings were solidly conservative, so who had anything to gain by this? I wouldn't be surprised to find that the trail of Pierre Poutine leads to an NDP dirty tricks squad. One has to admit they are pretty much the only ones to benefit from this--I know, this used to be the kind of thing the Liberals were good at with the brat pack, but might be difficult with 3rd party status and millions in debt... Suppose this was Conservative. How could they expect to benefit, since things like this inevitably come to light? Even if they thought the would get away with a conspiracy on this, in the end there were no political points to win. A huge swing in Guelph wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome everyone's polling had indicated. Nor would a few hundred votes matter to the Conservative victory. No, it doesn't make any sense for it to be a Conservative conspiracy, but an NDP or Liberal dirty trick squad could mine this for years... even if in the end this was a fabrication.
But the largest voting block are the voters who stay home. That group exercises it's constitutional right. However, we in the poverty of our education have not been taught the most important fact about abstaining: An abstaining vote is a vote for the majority. That is a fundamental democratic principal that no one is willing to talk about. Most Canadians have never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach them. Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy in those who stay home. We teach it in our schools, we support it in our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.
______
I pose the question: **Could** this have been done by the NDP? It is rather odd that these Robo-calls be centered in bastions of Conservative support. Everyone does polling, few ridings were surprises to either side, except perhaps the NDP's surprise wins in Quebec. Liberals and NDP knew those ridings were solidly conservative, so who had anything to gain by this? I wouldn't be surprised to find that the trail of Pierre Poutine leads to an NDP dirty tricks squad. One has to admit they are pretty much the only ones to benefit from this--I know, this used to be the kind of thing the Liberals were good at with the brat pack, but might be difficult with 3rd party status and millions in debt... Suppose this was Conservative. How could they expect to benefit, since things like this inevitably come to light? Even if they thought the would get away with a conspiracy on this, in the end there were no political points to win. A huge swing in Guelph wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome everyone's polling had indicated. Nor would a few hundred votes matter to the Conservative victory. No, it doesn't make any sense for it to be a Conservative conspiracy, but an NDP or Liberal dirty trick squad could mine this for years... even if in the end this was a fabrication.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
On IRAN'S Motives, and a simple quest for truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/11/peter-beaumnont-iran-nuclear-threat?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
It is an interesting thesis that other papers around the world have promoted recently as well. There are sever flaws however. It is based on a premise that Iran ceased military dimensions to its nuclear technology in 2003. Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation". It could be that due to incompetence the writer has opted out of the merest modicum of critical thinking. However the reason for this, it is a tragedy that many readers who are simply not aware or are not trained in critical thinking, to line up behind this idea.
The first and obvious difference begins with the very fundamental issues of science. We knew Iraq had a nuclear program before the first gulf war. We didn't know if it had one when the hew and cry for WMDs were happening under Bush. Sure we had suspicions, but we didn't know. How different is Iran? The whole world knows it has a nuclear program. The whole world knows it's fairly recent non-compliance with the IAEA. (ahem, notice that this fact is certainly true post 2003),
The second involves the very publicised acquisition of nuclear triggers. To think this is a pre-2003 issue is beyond comprehension: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?pagewanted=all This was published everywhere last year. This issue hardly compares with the Iraqi inspections. Sure both countries were evasive to inspectors, but Iran was caught with the goods--as it has numerous times in the past decade.
Do I really need to go on to recount what this author has apparently forgotten? This was the initial premise the argument was written upon. Since it is a profoundly false or ignorant premise, so falls the rest of the logic. How many decades can Iran's nuclear reactors run on just the 20% proof-uranium it now has? No, this article is the sort I would expect from PressTv or some other Iranian propaganda organ, but not the Guardian.
____________________________
"Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation"
This is getting tiring Pot calling the Kettle syndrome on your part.If you have the inclination or willingness to read the above excellent @AnthropoidApe post and his links, please do , otherwise you are blowing the same trumpet of war. Either sir or madam you are willingly or unwillingly misinformed hopefully the latter or you have some sinister private agenda hopefully not. Of course yo have an absolute right to your own opinion,unlike the real threat to innocent people who may die or be maimed in any hostile from either side who will most certainly not have such recourse.
_____________________________
It is an interesting thesis that other papers around the world have promoted recently as well. There are sever flaws however. It is based on a premise that Iran ceased military dimensions to its nuclear technology in 2003. Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation". It could be that due to incompetence the writer has opted out of the merest modicum of critical thinking. However the reason for this, it is a tragedy that many readers who are simply not aware or are not trained in critical thinking, to line up behind this idea.
The first and obvious difference begins with the very fundamental issues of science. We knew Iraq had a nuclear program before the first gulf war. We didn't know if it had one when the hew and cry for WMDs were happening under Bush. Sure we had suspicions, but we didn't know. How different is Iran? The whole world knows it has a nuclear program. The whole world knows it's fairly recent non-compliance with the IAEA. (ahem, notice that this fact is certainly true post 2003),
The second involves the very publicised acquisition of nuclear triggers. To think this is a pre-2003 issue is beyond comprehension: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?pagewanted=all This was published everywhere last year. This issue hardly compares with the Iraqi inspections. Sure both countries were evasive to inspectors, but Iran was caught with the goods--as it has numerous times in the past decade.
Do I really need to go on to recount what this author has apparently forgotten? This was the initial premise the argument was written upon. Since it is a profoundly false or ignorant premise, so falls the rest of the logic. How many decades can Iran's nuclear reactors run on just the 20% proof-uranium it now has? No, this article is the sort I would expect from PressTv or some other Iranian propaganda organ, but not the Guardian.
____________________________
"Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation"
This is getting tiring Pot calling the Kettle syndrome on your part.If you have the inclination or willingness to read the above excellent @AnthropoidApe post and his links, please do , otherwise you are blowing the same trumpet of war. Either sir or madam you are willingly or unwillingly misinformed hopefully the latter or you have some sinister private agenda hopefully not. Of course yo have an absolute right to your own opinion,unlike the real threat to innocent people who may die or be maimed in any hostile from either side who will most certainly not have such recourse.
_____________________________
Saturday, March 3, 2012
iran
Scott, books have been written about the doctrine of the fragility of the mutual annihilation of nuclear powers. To argue Iran needs special consideration starts with the Iran/Iraq war: which saw hundreds of boys running across mine-fields, blowing themselves up, so the Revolutionary Guard could penetrate the area. This is how much it values human lives. The avoidance factor behind "Mutually Assured Destruction" dogma pre-supposes both sides value it's citizens temporal lives. Radical Islamist see their annihilation a door way to paradise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This was a simple critical analysis of the thesis of the article. If an argument is based on a clearly flawed premise, it cannot stand as a credible piece. It is clear many commenting here have bought into the conclusion, and giving every benefit of the doubt, if they arrived at these conclusions only as a result of this argument and presupposition: it is evidence of the deception and devastation of illogical arguments. If every commentator was not prejudiced prior to reading this, it would be one thing, however it would seem both author and commentators are demonstrating the profound ignorance of the herd mentality: Moved and herded by logic simply imperceived. (unrecognized)