Ignorance is not an excuse

Diane Finley has put the bill to rob low-income seniors of their ability to support themselves on hold for this time. She stated:

“I was very concerned by what was reported,” Ms. Finley said when Liberal MP Gerry Byrne asked about the issue in the House of Commons. “That is why I have instructed departmental officials to immediately put a hold on this policy while we review it completely.”

I am not sure why the concern over this issues only arose when someone made note that this was abhorrent. She must have seen the file since this is a concern of her ministry. If she did not, then why even have a minister for such things. It seems more likely that this woman was willing to let it slide as long as no one was interested in looking to closely at the file. She only shows outrage after the fact because there was no outrage before someone was poking their nose into it.

I also like her response "That is why I have instructed departmental officials to immediately put a hold on this policy while we review it completely." She does not even suggest she will put an end to the motion, rather she puts it on hold. Why would she do this? It may be simply the conservative strategy of tabling it until everyone forgets. They can then push it through quietly while the people are focused on the next travesty.

They have now targeted veterans and seniors, I wonder who the next group of people we plan to screw is. I wonder if it will be children or some visible minority. I guess we will just have to wait and see. This also gives a new definition of senior abuse.

Climate change? What climate?

Well Harper has maintained his predictable set of behaviors. When something he does not support goes out of his control he just breaks another one of myriad of promises he made to voters when trying to get a majority. This time he has destroyed a climate change bill C-311 through the SENATE. I did not even know the Senate had that kind of power in our system. How can an unelected body, appointed by the Prime Minister, side track a bill passed by the House of Commons, filled with elected members? And what kind of many promises not to use such tactics to win votes then turns to it when everything else has failed. The kind of man who is more interested in his vision then with the collective vision of the majority of the population (even if you count just those who vote). Bruce Hyer said it best when he stated:

"I'm still reeling from the shock, but after no debate, no consideration at all, all of a sudden in another ambush move by Stephen Harper, the Senate voted yesterday to kill the climate change [bill] without debate,"

Way to go Steve you may actually succeed in creating a three party system in this country. All you need is a little help from Iggy, if he looks anymore like a con the NDP should soar in the next elections. Heck even the Green's might win a seat.

Moral Musings

I am currently reading a book called Freakenomics by very distinct and interesting individuals. We often believe that economy is seperate from morality, but any aspect of human life is touched by the belief in the way we should behave. He provided an example of a business man who brought in bagles to local offices, left them in the staff room, and left the money box beside it. People were asked to pay for taking the bagles, but no one was really watching if they did it. The result was that he made a tidy profit and the majority of people actually did pay. He also found that in smaller offices, with fewer employees the pay rate and theft rate were markedly smaller. His argument is that in smaller offices more people would know who you are and you would like to maintain appearance so you steal less.

This touches on my own observation of individuals. I would argue that there are few truly "evil" or "good" people. Instead people are driven by insentives. This means that a corrupt society would produce a larger number of corrupt individuals, because the incentives to be corrupt are more prevalent. Moralist tend to have problems with this arguement because it means people respond to incentives rather then an imperative to act in a "good" manner. If on the other hand you assume people are not evil or good, but rather simply are, then I see it as a hopeful situation. If moralists are correct then those born good are good and those born bad are bad, no real room to change. If a moralist would turn to you and say that of course people can change, then they are not fundamentally anything. If they then say that people are naturally good and evil is a product of society, then how did good people develop such an evil society. Moralist cannot provide conclusive evidence about human nature, because there are to many variables to being human.

If they can't provide evidence, then why do I think I can? Rest assured that I cannot provide conclusive evidence either, just a convincing argument. There are countless examples of humans acting in their own self-interest and (despite what many pessimist might suggest) there are many examples of altruistic behavior. This suggests to me that people have the capacity for both types of behavior. It also suggest that they are enclined to neither moral extreme. To put a quick end to a long thought I would say we must get out of this idea of right and wrong for they are metaphysical concerns, rather worry about mundane, earthly matters for those are the things that will kill us.

My word is as good as quicksand

I guess I can understand why Mr. Harper seems to think that it is up to himself and his cronies to choose if troops stay overseas, away from their family and loved ones. He is after all carying out Gods divine will on earth so how could we besmirch him for making such simple decisions without the consent of those for whom he is deciding.

Honestly I am very sick of all this crap. when harper says

“My position is if you’re going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament,” he said. “But when we’re talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own.”

what I hear is this.

"The interests of our allies and our business relations far out weight the interests of the men and women who will be put into dangerous situations and taken away from their family and friends for long periods of time. If they were stupid enough to join the army, they will not play their proper role as pawns of the state to serve my interest."

Now ofcourse no PM with half a mind would actually come out and say that, and I am in no way a qualified expert to impose my interpretation on a speaker or the public, but I wonder how many people get the same of a similar feeling from the above mentioned statement.