The end is near

Normally saying "the end is near" is a dire warming of imminent destruction, but today it is simply a statement saying a new year begins soon. What does that mean for Canada and Canadians? Well I am sure it means many bad things to come, but even I feel that this may not be the best time of year to address those worries and fears. Instead let us look at some of the things that give us hope.

First I would like to address my fellow bloggers, who wish to voice their opinion, views, and understanding with other individuals, hoping to inspire people to take an interest in their nation. You are the grunts, the ground troops in a constant struggle for freedom of speech and thought. For all your efforts I salute you and I hope that you maintain your vigor and interest in providing perspectives from all corners of the political spectrum.

Next I would like to salute the public service, especially those who have put their neck on the chopping block, so to speak, in order to serve and protect the public. It is a tragedy that hired or appointed individuals must stand up and protect the public from the body they elected to represent them, but i am glad someone is doing that thankless job. May many take heart from your example and stand up for their belief and principles, for what they feel strongly is write and just.

My next thanks goes out to Wikileaks and all other agencies who expose what is hidden in the interest of open governance. This would serve as a reminder to Mr. Harper that you can preach what ever you want, but open government will only exist when all information is available to the public.

I could go on, but I would rather see you add people or organizations that you feel deserve recognition for the creation of hope in the past year and will hopefully continue this trend in the new year.

Merry Festivous to all and to all a wonderful holiday season.

A little hope for the holidays

I am disappointed at the very angry tone of my last post, but the year has not felt like a very bright one. I have decided that today I will share one of my ideas for improving the style of government carried out in Canada. The focus of this suggestion resides in creating a more democratic government without changing the entire system. Let me know what you think.

The first thing I feel needs to occur is the disbanding of political parties. These powerful political entities make democratic practice almost impossible and must be removed from the equation. The house should be filled with many independents. This would cause confusion among voters for the at least the first election for they can no longer vote party over policy and it would put the initiative in the hands of the individual to find out more about their own candidates. It would also force a more open and honest vote in the house because each elected member would be working for its constituent and would not suffer the extreme pressures put on them by their party to tow the line. This would also save money for their would be no cross country campaigning for there is no national seat.

So how would the Prime Minster be chosen. Well once the house is sitting the first order of business for its members would be electing a Prime Minister from its members. This I believe is much more democratic then the leader of the party with the most seats getting to be PM since each member was an independently elected individual and it opens the floor to multiple nominations from a variety of political backgrounds.

Sure this system needs more work and I have much more to say on this in the new year, but I though it would be a nice follow up to my last past and a good precursor to my next post that will show up within the next week. Happy holidays, and here is three cheers to finding and alternative.

Teach those pricks a lesson

Well its another week of bleak and foreboding forecast for the future of our nation and our world. This economic hardship that the first world has had to endure has caused the people to focus inward, but in a very selfish and self-centered way. People should be concerned with their own survival of course and I don't want to fault anyone for taking the initiative to ensure a standard of living that allows them to eat regularly. What I can't stand is all those people, lets call them Friedmenites, who are taking advantage of these difficult times. It is in fact Milton Friedman's assertion that disaster and discord is great for a capitalist regime for people can make LOADS of money of the misfortune, fear, and misery of others. This is the system we seem hellbent on perpetuating and I have to stop and wonder what sane individual would wish this system on the future generations of their families. The conclusion I draw is either that we are for the most part not sane people or that sane people, even in abundance, are to sane for their own good. When city states ruled the lands, if a tyrant was so horrible the people rose up and removed him from power and his head from his body. Those were mad times of course, but if sanity dictates that we must deal with a mule by asking it nicely to move along, sanity begins to look rather insane.

So what must we do if we hope to achieve a better world for the future and prevent a modern "Dark Age" from consuming the globe? Well first of we need to make sure these bastards and bitches, who seem to think we are complacent little sheep willing to take what ever they dish out because we are principled, to know FEAR. Principles are good and all and I am glad that many people have them and are willing to try to live by them, but if you wish to out smart or just out last those people who would do anything for their own advantage then we really have to start considering the values of our principles. One thing we must consider is universal human rights. We have this idea that everyone has the right to life and to live their lives, but those in power show us clearly that it is not the case. We have the right to life in word more then in action and we only have a right to that life as long as it does no interfere with their plans.

Now I am not suggesting that the government is in the practice of assassinations, though no doubt some are, rather I am working off the idea that a right to life also means a right to live that life in a way we choose that does not hinder or harm the lives of another human being. The problem is, these people do not feel this way. Instead they feel that as long as they do not kill anyone they can do just about anything else for their own benefit. If it ends up killing someone they don't really care, because they know it is highly unlikely they will be taken to task.

As they know well fear is a powerful tool to keep people under control. We are still a very primal species and require primal reminders, maybe if these prick got the proper reminder, like they are not UNTOUCHABLE, (jail time or other consequences) then they might take an interest in what other people have to say and how they live...just a thought.

On Wikileaks and the dangers of keeping secrets

Well I think I have heard just about enough of how evil a thing wikileaks has done. Iran now knows that its neighbours wanted it bombed and those neighbours will have to deal with the consequences. The complaint is that now Saudi Arabia is in danger because it's secret desire to bring harm upon someone else is out and they will actually have to live with the consequences.

Well I have a simple solution to that, and no it is not the assassination of Assange. I would propose to actually hold open and honest relations between states. Sure you could respond that such a move would make international relations impossible. I would instead suggest that it forces states to consider their actions if the intimate details of their plans could be released to their enemies.

Yes this move is terrible for dictators, tyrants, and other oppressive regims (Canada, United States?) How bad is this for democratic countries like Canada and the United States (caught that did you). So I put forward to nations that maybe you should try to hold honest and well intentioned diplomatic relations with even your enemies, that way when the next release occurs you will look like the good guy you should be.

The fate of the sacred

I am not one to think much on religion for I have always found it distasteful. Don't mistake my disdain for religiosity as a disdain of the metaphysical. History is not kind to organized religion of any kind, mostly because by its very nature of being organized causes it to force the will of man on the metaphysical and transcendental, things the will of man have not affect upon. I have recently re-watched "The Kingdom of Heaven" and I have been reminded of the power of the individual not the group. I have also made note of the fate of things we call sacred and blessed.

Since the advent of religion all other peoples and beliefs are heretics. Since religious sites are of great importance to the culture who believes it makes them perfect targets. It also makes them sacred to those people and great targets for their enemies. For that reason I have witnessed that the holy becomes sacred and the sacred is doomed. Jerusalem is a great example for it is the center of many religious peoples and is a city of many masters and none. It has been sacked, beaten, conquered, and pillaged from at least Rome up to the modern age.

So I ask myself, what is this thing we call religion? It is one of the many truly undefinable and unknowable things. On earth it is most often the tool of bad men trying to gain dominance and supremacy, but that is more what man is then what religion is. I have always had the fault of looking to the big picture and I am often told that religion for the individual is a powerful motivator and an aid in understanding oneself. Since I am blessed and damned with the view of the big picture I still cannot see a value or even condone the organization of belief into a religion. The universal and the absolute have a way of eluding humans so we create falsities to make up for lack of knowledge.

As the first step to creating a united world I see the need, not for religious tolerance, but the abandonment of religious unity and the embracing of the individual religiosity. Faith without tenants will be the key to making one people out of many. The reason I suggest this is because I feel it is unrealistic and unfair to demand all people to live without faith and belief of this kind. My request is more reasonable, though not necessarily more attainable. If our world is to have a chance against our own stupidity, we must first become one people and taking on this new form of religiosity would be one step in fostering this unity.

This is my response to a post by Boris from the blog "The Galloping Beaver" on the subject of Wikileaks. I thought it could be a stand alone post so I posted it. Here is the link to the original post by the aformentioned blogger:

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-some-thoughts.html

I have always been of the mind that democracy is an untenable state of affairs, at least on the scale we claim to have them today. This does not mean that I support a dictatorial shift, though I have often stated the best form of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem with my argument, which I tend to point out myself, is that even if you had the most benevolent person at the head of your state, your period of freedom and prosperity would last only until that man or women became unfit to rule or die.

That leaves us with democracy, but what we have today is more a practice in selective oligarchy. This is not just Canada I am speaking of, but the majority of the "democratic" nations of the world. I often see it as a population issue, there are just too many people in the country to make each person matter and if we did then no one would ever be happy and consensus would take too long to reach or would never be reached. This is why we have our representative oligarchy, because individual democracy is not a tenable position either.

So back to Wikileaks, I see this as a force for good in the democratic world. I accept that people can and probably will die from information released by this site, but I also know that governments will have to start wondering if they will be held accountable for actions they thought silenced and sealed. For safety that may not be the ideal outcome, but for a more democratic process it is a necessary evil. Without government accountability you cannot have democracy. The people need to make a choice; you cannot have democracy with a sense of absolute safety for the only way to attain that is through ignorance.

So I ask instead, do you support democracy, or do you support centralized oligarchy. If the former then wikileaks is a god send, if the latter then take out your guns and hunt down those bastards so you can feel safe again. I make it sound like a simple one way or another and most things are not that simple. I will leave it up to the individual to decide if this issue is or not.