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.

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.