Friday, 23 September 2011

The State Will Rule You (Because You Can't Think For Yourself!)

Host a Bible Study, Get a Fine

San Juan Capistrano homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm were fined $300 for holding a Bible study in their own home and were told by officials that ongoing gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit. The Fromms were warned that they would be fined $500 per meeting if they continued to hold the Bible studies.

"We not only have the First Amendment of the Constitution on our side, but we also have the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which we at the Pacific Justice Institute have used effectively on many, many cases."

In order for the left to get your money, they must first undermine the rights you have with your property, articulating your beliefs and the fruit of your labour. Rights of the individual always get put behind the 'collective group'.

"These are uncertain times for the global
economy. These are challenging times
for our families. This is our plan to help.
This is our way forward, together.”

That's right, we move forward together. Your results don't matter to you, as much as they matter to Mr. McGuinty.  He needs the success of the free market to drive his agenda of a 'everyone loves everyone, share the wealth Ontario'.  Undermining our property rights, free speech and earnings is a basic way the left seeks to use slight of hand to build the economy.

And on that note, how are we doing Mr. McGuinty?
Need more taxpayer dollars and more then the 200 billion debt to peruse your agenda of togetherness?

Typically not a good idea to undermine capital and the free markets, Mr. McGuinty. 
A warning for Captain Togetherness: if you execute your plan of government propped up economic growth, the economy will suffer. Be warned. If you tease and poke at the free market like you are proposing to do, she will leave us and go elsewhere...don't annoy her with your 'togetherness' talk: it will have the opposite impact you intend. 

The two issues discussed are connected: we need to fundamentally understand our property rights and hold fast to our convictions of liberty.  Standing on that podium, we declare that we own the fruit of our labour and no government can force me to give up my earnings for excessive 'togetherness-utopia' spending.
Enough is enough.

"You Are Punished, Because You Are Wrong!"

Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality

At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.
“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”
"My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”
Given how wickedly my last entry on this subject was taken out of context, I will ensure I qualify and use simple language.

There has yet to be 1 logical (notice I did not use the word emotional) argument as to why it is acceptable to advocate for one position and not the other one. (seems like the school and teacher lacked the very tolerance they were demanding of the student.) Given this, why shut the boy down, and more disgustingly, why punish? 
The boy took a position and it ought to be respected, just as it is obvious the teacher demanded respect for his position (ironically, by disrespecting the boy by allegedly yelling at him).

The illogical 'myth' that we need to agree homosexuality is morally acceptable in order to 'love' others is no different then one saying, my wife has to agree, accept and find morally acceptable my occasional laziness, occasional attitude and occasional (alright...often...) selfishness.  This is a silly argument.  Abby can still passionately love me (thank goodness) AND encourage me to abandon my attitude and selfishness: because they are not morally acceptable in our household.  Likewise, I am simply saying, the boy and others can love someone, and think that an action or lifestyle is morally wrong. 

Second point: saying something is morally wrong does not mean there is a lack of love, anymore then thinking an action is wrong and therefore condemns/casts judgment on the person.  For example, I do not come home to 'hate signs' that Abby and the girls crafted during the day.  "Down with Ryan...he is selfish and going to burn in hell".  I could not live a day in that environment.  It is hate, and terrible at that.  I happen to come home to a wife who partners with me in my journey of life...we give each other time, encouragement, prayer and support to overcome (slowly) the issues we are working on.  I shared a few blogs ago, I am overcoming being lazy and a victim.  I do not want to be around people who judge me, but I do appreciate they called out the moral shortcommings of both the matters I was working on (in a loving way to help me). 

We can observe a moral short comming in me, you or anyone without judging them or lacking love in our relationship with them. If you don't think selfishness, being lazy, homosexuality are moral defects, fair enough. Then hopefully we agree that regardless of your positing on morality, there is an undercurrent of loving others without judging the person on condemning them

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Mr. Lorne Gunter's Got It "Bass-Ackwards" And Here's Why

Lorne Gunter: $90k-per-day too much to pay budget-cutting consultant

Mr. Gunter makes his point known:
"I don’t care how you try to explain it away, in this day and age of tight budgets and runaway deficits,  $90, 000 per day is way too much to pay an accounting firm for advice on how to cut $4 billion from Ottawa’s budget, particularly since the proposed cuts Deloitte comes up with are unlikely ever to be acted upon by FinMin Jim Flaherty."
This is a tall order to demonstrate Mr. Gunter.  The value needs to be determined by the results, not 'the times we are living in'. For if the value shows that incredible savings were achieved, then the expense would support your 'concern for the times', so we need to compare the value against the results which we expect to honor the 'times'. On this note, an MP personally told me, they expect $200 saved for every $1 spent.  I have been in business 11 years...and my experience says that sounds like good value. Now, we need to focus on the results of Deloitte's work in relation actual savings to know if this was a value based expense for the times.   There is no universal principle "spending to save money while in a bad economic times is simply wrong". Believe the best, and if the Conservatives flub this, I will join you in calling them out and demanding accountability for the millions invested. Furthermore, although possible that the gov. ignore suggestions, it is a fallacy to say that because something is unlikely, it therefore is wrong to expect follow-trough. On both points, we need to 'wait and see': it appears too early to make the call Mr. Gunter.

 "Mr. Flaherty has been Finance Minister since Feb. 6, 2006 — more than 5-1/2 years — if he doesn’t already know where the potential savings are buried, he never will."

It is fallacy to think the "CFO", or Finance Minister ought to be responsible for the horde of variables and inter workings of a multi-billion dollar complex organization called 'government'.  The Finance Minister is responsible for taking the data presented to him and making sound judgments that best govern and serve the people.  Getting help on determining how to arrive at sound logic via council of the wise (properly tendered bid of professionals) is a good thing and a sign of humility and wisdom...not incompetence. We should weigh the fruit of the recommendations and the initiatives taken before we presume getting wisdom from experts is weak, or not 'of the times'.

"Still, federal program spending has increased by at least 25% above and beyond the growth in the size of our economy during the Tories’ tenure."
Sadly, this is true.
"Since Jim Flaherty put far than $4 billion in spending there himself, he should be able to find a few billion in savings without the help of a very high-priced consultant."
Oversimplification Mr. Gunter. You sound frustrated.
"Yet if Deloitte’s analysts could come up with $4 billion in budget cuts that Mr. Flaherty could get through the House of Commons, their fee might be worth it."
Correct, therefore we wait and initial point.

"But here’s a better idea: Make the fee a percentage of the savings found and open the process to everyone — consultants, academics, members of the public, even civil servants."
This comes with a host of variables: who set's up a commission to receive, sort and process each request? What is the process that is used to determine the weight of each suggestion and how would they know the inner workings of both peoples lives and surrounding structures?  A tendered process makes sense, although it may not necessarily be the best option.

"Many bureaucrats, too, know how to make their departments more efficient, but are stymied by institutional inertia or internal politics. But if the budget-cutting process is opened up to all comers and if everyone proposing a useful solution is awarded 10% or even 5% of the savings their ideas generate, then sit back and watch the good ideas come from inside the public service itself."

This does not sound as efficient at the 0.5% fee Deloitte is working towards ($200 savings:$1 fee). Given your concerns for the 'times' Mr. Gunter you are proposing paying 10 - 20 times what the conservatives are proposing: that is bad value, please reconsider this suggestion :)  Also, suggestions 'from the trenches' are an invaluable source of feedback, learning and opportunity for improvement and this should continue. However, there is a difference between a seasoned specialist focusing on cost structures (clearly making lots of money) versus a hard working non-specialized worker. That's why we use such terms as 'specialists' and 'experts', to hone in on something narrow, and execute with excellence.
"When there is so much concern over out-of-control spending, it seems absurd to pay a consultant exorbitant fees for advice the government should be able to come up itself or get from others much, much more cheaply."
It is not absurd due to 1/2 a percent fee being incredibly low on money saved. Consider RIM who spent US118million on their similar 'cost optimization program'.  That exorbitant amount of money was invested to better RIM's position.  Time (and The Street) will judge if their investment was worth it through a simple but powerful word: RESULTS.  Likewise, we need to give the Conservatives the same: time, then view their results.  What if their program with Delloite proves to cost them $1 for every $200 saved? What if they demonstrate that fat is cut? What if the Finance Minister acknowledges the complexity of working with billions as beyond his (or any one's) scope of mind and uses the advice to somewhat simplify and discern these complex matters to many Canadians satisfaction?
Mr. Gunter, I issue you a challenge: Give the Conservatives time, then view their results.  Use this time to articulate your vision of what you expect to see from this investment.  What would make it worth it for you?
You mentioned trimming fat, reasonable offered 5%-10% to employees for their suggestions, why not 1/2 percent for Delloite?  Time may show them to be a flop or an incredible investment.  Let's make sure we are there to hold the Conservatives accountable by discussing their results.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Tic Tic Tic...."Ka-Boom": Time Is Running Out On Greece And Friends

I hope that Canadians are waking up to the world around them seeing what a European style tax and spend government would really do.

With Greece now discussing how they will have an orderly default--there's an oxymoron, and Eruo banks soon sticking their hands out (again) for more taxpayer money, they have a system of government debt under girded by the support of the over-leveraged lending markets.  With the banks all but insolvent, bond payments coming due and oops, no cash to pay, the Euro is simply scrambling to exist. I think the quasi-socialist utopia the Greeks and other Countries (Spain, Portugal et. al) were mindlessly building towards are now crumbling from within: to the chagrin of the people.

The message is clear: you need sound economic principles under girding a free market...the boring drum Harper has been beating for years is finally resounding in the hearts and minds of Canadians.
You see, it's easy to 'hate' Conservatism when all your commodities are selling at record levels putting billions into the coffers of governments for program spending...after all, they are leaving behind the poor unless the Conservatives spend it all.  It's quite another story for the Conservatives to not only be Conservatives, but be loved as Conservatives during tough times. 

The Conservative values work in the tough times (lower spending, logical and limited regulation, promote business and free market, limited government), but also the good times. 

Conversely, the values of left policy creates policies that implode when times get tough...i.e either the governments will continue its ridiculous spending until default, or they will cut back and there will be riots in the streets because of the embedded culture of entitlement in their people.  Left leaning policy is an unsustainable way to grow an economy.  Capital from Profit via sound economic and free policy is the best way to run our economy.  My hope is that Canadians understand the values they now support work well in good times and bad.

Monday, 19 September 2011

When Truth Fails: Run with "Agenda"

To all the crusaders for love, justice and mercy here on planet green, to my environmental zealots who love objectivity and truth, please consider the following:

Check out: C3 Headlines
Here's a small sample:
1955: 51 Los Angeles Residents Die from Heat Wave
1955: Europeans Suffer from Long Heat Wave - 70 Die
1955: 25 Million Indians & Pakistanis Lose Their Homes to Floods
1956: 400,000 Square Miles of Australia Threatened by Floods
1956: "Moisture Conditions Are the Worst in Recorded History"
1956: South Pole Iceberg Sighted that Is 3X the Size of Manhattan Island
1956: 30% of US Has Extreme Drought Conditions
1956: 150 Forest Fires Plague New Mexico & Arizona
1957: "Worst Heat Wave in 100 Years" Scorches Argentina
1957: Arctic Heat Wave Has Russian Scientists Sunbathing; Polar Thunderstorm

A 500+ million dollar governemnt 'whoops'.
 Obama blow's 1/2 billion on a solar company with bad loans and McGuinty attacks the free market and props up a loser solar company, so:

What do McGuinty and Obma have in common? 
They both love the environment--to death.

Saddle up and get ready for a ride, with Hudak blowing his lead (to McGuinty!?!...that's like losing a darts game to a blind-folded monkey) and Obama justifying his bad loans, we have a north south brotherhood that is furiously writing worship songs praising the earth...passing the songs into law with your tax dollars. That does not have a nice ring to any sense.

Perhaps a bit of irony would lessen the angst from "Team Solar Earth" (Obama-Mcguinty) imposing economy crushing 'investments'. Perhaps any small moral victory coming from Hudaks lagging polling numbers will give us some solace (not to be confused with solar). With all "Team Solar Earth's" verbal diarrhea and agenda imposing hog wash, we the people should petition for "Team Solar Earth" to get an Environmental Certificate for their Noise Pollution; at least then, there would be a ring of truth to this maddening Environmental debate.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain