Don't you love when logic runs as deep as an emotional urge?
Saturday, 12 November 2011
"I ran away from the explosion as fast as I could..."
Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base
On serious note, if this is how Iran handles its own weapons, what again is Israel's problem with letting them have a nuke?
Iran has every right to develop nukes for peaceful purposes, then lie about it...right? They also have every right to fall on their own sword, right? 1 Samuel 31:4 "Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it."
Twenty-seven soldiers have been killed in an explosion at a military base near Iran's capital Tehran, officials say. The blast occurred when weapons were being moved inside a Revolutionary Guards depot, a spokesman for the elite unit told state TV. Windows in nearby buildings were shattered and the blast was heard in central Tehran, 40 km (25 miles) away.In a time of heightened nuclear tensions, I am not surprised with Amadimejad's recent rant, "I am very disappointed with the loss of 27 soldiers as these weapons were intended for peaceful purposes". Right. We all buy that ;) A recent poll suggests most Israelites want to give free ammo to Iran citing, "at this rate, there will be no need for an external strike."
On serious note, if this is how Iran handles its own weapons, what again is Israel's problem with letting them have a nuke?
Iran has every right to develop nukes for peaceful purposes, then lie about it...right? They also have every right to fall on their own sword, right? 1 Samuel 31:4 "Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it."
Friday, 11 November 2011
Aaaaaawkward.....
It's not that he forgot, it's that he sounded like he actually did not know. I guess that happens when your ego is bigger then you knowledge base, it's just another day at the office. The funny part is, he still takes himself seriously enough to continue running. Our treat! I say he keeps in the race and fights it out to the bitter end...come on, admit it...we all need a good laugh every now and again.
3 tips for Governor Perry,
1. Obviously you have too many variables in your head. Dumb your message down so even you can understand it
2. Realize that in politics, you attack your opponents...not yourself
3. Run for president after you're ready
Rick, you write you own comedy when you heap on everyone a big declarative statement, over a multi-billion dollar issue and wham-o, the punch-line (with your finger pointed to your head)...."uuuhhhhh....what's the third one?"....
Rick, come clean...someone scripted that joke then paid you 1 million dollars to entertain us...
Rick Perry for President!
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Expert Analysis On A Blown Conservative Budget
Is it me, or does this cartoon remind you of how Jim sounded in his economic update speech?
Regarding the budget update:
They say he sounds like a liberal, with no accountability and that he delivered news of a failed Tory promise: to balance the books by the agreed upon time. Got it. What seems to be lacking in the analysis is the why behind sounding like a liberal, with no accountability who breaks promises. So here's a fun angle, let's put Jim Flaherty's budget update into another context. Join me for a brief moment and see if this does not make sense:
As noted, Jim delivered his update to a bunch of conservative friendly yuppies. He was the keynote speaker who cracked jokes, bragged about the awesomeness of Canada and diverted from the real issues. Let's pretend (stretch here...) he had to deliver his 'project' update to the CEO of a real life company with real life accountability to results...join in on how his tone would have carried over to the real world.
CEO: Hi Jim, the purpose of this meeting is to analyze the results you were hired to achieve as project manager of this key development our company is striving for.
Jim: I'm thankful to be here! Hey, Did you hear?
CEO: ....Pardon?
Jim: Did you hear about the rich rabbit?....He was a million-hare!
CEO: Please, we have limited time. Jim what are the results?
Jim: Well, funny you mention that. I would first like to point out a list of competitors who are struggling with the exact same project I am working on...and I really must say, we are doing quite well.
CEO: Jim, I asked for results, not diverting peripherals that detract from the essence of what I am paying you for. Again, what are the results?
Jim: uh...um, sure of course Mr. CEO. I have direct quotes from other business leaders who specifically told me that our team and I are doing a great job. We are making great progress! Although we blew the budget I promised to hold to, it's really kind of neat...we actually blew it for reasons beyond our control...the economy took a tumble so the productivity took a slide resulting in lower output and increased expenses.
CEO: You're kidding me. Are you telling me....
Jim: Sorry to interrupt...if I could make just one more point. If it were not for my management and our teams outstanding performance, we could have been way worse off. I mean...way! Our approach saved lots of money and we...
CEO: Silence Jim! Your telling me you blew the budget forecast and are shadowing that in a mix of bragging about variables irrelevant to the results I am paying you for?
Jim: Well, not really you see...
CEO: Yes, or No...?!?!
Jim: Yes with a really good reas,,,...
CEO: Jim, listen: you were hired to get results: productivity within the framework of a budget. You walked in here cracking jokes, bragging about how good you were and 'rescued' things from being worse...you cited other people who supported your efforts and you pointed to irrelevant factors all doing one simple thing: deferring from the obvious. You were paid to get results and you failed. Had you come in humility and put your cards on the table and said, "Mr. CEO, you gave me a mandate and I failed. Here's what I will do to restore trust..." I would have worked with you as you are a talented man. However, if you blow the result, and don't owe up to it but deflect, you become a detriment to my organization. Jim, thank you for your services, best of luck in the future. Your employment ends today.
By elevating his environment (chamber of commerce, standing behind a podium, addressing a crowd of laughing friendlies, packing his speech with fillers irrelevant to the results on hand) he comes off as what other say: liberal, no accountability and broken promises: aka arrogant.
Mr. Flaherty, you are a gifted man with lots of smarts. I implore you to take heed to the following:
1. Put yourself before a committee that asks tough questions. Give direct answers. Have them sit on higher ground (small platform??) so they appear to be the one you are serving (not vice versa). Answer directly and honestly.
2. Take responsibility and articulate how you will solve the problem. Keep it simple, clear and direct.
3. Take your bragging sideshow to another discussion. We all want to hear your opinion about the government's leadership...but not to soften the blow of missed results.
4. Send me a thank you card for this great advice.
 |
| Pic from book by Robert J. Ringer: Winning Through Intimidation |
Regarding the budget update:
They say he sounds like a liberal, with no accountability and that he delivered news of a failed Tory promise: to balance the books by the agreed upon time. Got it. What seems to be lacking in the analysis is the why behind sounding like a liberal, with no accountability who breaks promises. So here's a fun angle, let's put Jim Flaherty's budget update into another context. Join me for a brief moment and see if this does not make sense:
As noted, Jim delivered his update to a bunch of conservative friendly yuppies. He was the keynote speaker who cracked jokes, bragged about the awesomeness of Canada and diverted from the real issues. Let's pretend (stretch here...) he had to deliver his 'project' update to the CEO of a real life company with real life accountability to results...join in on how his tone would have carried over to the real world.
CEO: Hi Jim, the purpose of this meeting is to analyze the results you were hired to achieve as project manager of this key development our company is striving for.
Jim: I'm thankful to be here! Hey, Did you hear?
CEO: ....Pardon?
Jim: Did you hear about the rich rabbit?....He was a million-hare!
CEO: Please, we have limited time. Jim what are the results?
Jim: Well, funny you mention that. I would first like to point out a list of competitors who are struggling with the exact same project I am working on...and I really must say, we are doing quite well.
CEO: Jim, I asked for results, not diverting peripherals that detract from the essence of what I am paying you for. Again, what are the results?
Jim: uh...um, sure of course Mr. CEO. I have direct quotes from other business leaders who specifically told me that our team and I are doing a great job. We are making great progress! Although we blew the budget I promised to hold to, it's really kind of neat...we actually blew it for reasons beyond our control...the economy took a tumble so the productivity took a slide resulting in lower output and increased expenses.
CEO: You're kidding me. Are you telling me....
Jim: Sorry to interrupt...if I could make just one more point. If it were not for my management and our teams outstanding performance, we could have been way worse off. I mean...way! Our approach saved lots of money and we...
CEO: Silence Jim! Your telling me you blew the budget forecast and are shadowing that in a mix of bragging about variables irrelevant to the results I am paying you for?
Jim: Well, not really you see...
CEO: Yes, or No...?!?!
Jim: Yes with a really good reas,,,...
CEO: Jim, listen: you were hired to get results: productivity within the framework of a budget. You walked in here cracking jokes, bragging about how good you were and 'rescued' things from being worse...you cited other people who supported your efforts and you pointed to irrelevant factors all doing one simple thing: deferring from the obvious. You were paid to get results and you failed. Had you come in humility and put your cards on the table and said, "Mr. CEO, you gave me a mandate and I failed. Here's what I will do to restore trust..." I would have worked with you as you are a talented man. However, if you blow the result, and don't owe up to it but deflect, you become a detriment to my organization. Jim, thank you for your services, best of luck in the future. Your employment ends today.
By elevating his environment (chamber of commerce, standing behind a podium, addressing a crowd of laughing friendlies, packing his speech with fillers irrelevant to the results on hand) he comes off as what other say: liberal, no accountability and broken promises: aka arrogant.
Mr. Flaherty, you are a gifted man with lots of smarts. I implore you to take heed to the following:
1. Put yourself before a committee that asks tough questions. Give direct answers. Have them sit on higher ground (small platform??) so they appear to be the one you are serving (not vice versa). Answer directly and honestly.
2. Take responsibility and articulate how you will solve the problem. Keep it simple, clear and direct.
3. Take your bragging sideshow to another discussion. We all want to hear your opinion about the government's leadership...but not to soften the blow of missed results.
4. Send me a thank you card for this great advice.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Discrimination: Lots Of Moral Bark, No Bite
Christian hoteliers appeal against ruling on gay couple sharing a room
On one side, the Christan hotel owners think best not to allow their joint to be a hitch up place for unmarried couples. Regardless if you agree or not, they should be allowed to rent their rooms to people of their choice, right?
If not, I suspect the argument goes something like this: "That's discrimination. They are discriminating against those who want to have sex before marriage". Should the view have merit, would the opposite view not be equally valid? "That's discrimination against the Christians. You are discriminating against those who don't want people in their hotel rooms who practice sex before marriage". It's the same logic. Why does one often pass, but not the other?
When one group is discriminated* against, typically I see that we crush another groups beliefs...which is also discrimination. It's kinda like this: "All the people who wear blue go to the penalty box." Then, those who wear blue reply, "All those who don't wear blue go to the penalty box." Who wins? Blue or not-blue? The problem with many of today's discrimination laws is it picks either blue or not-blue and the one they don't pick is automatically branded the group that discriminates. Arbitrary at best.
How is it legitimate for a group to claim discrimination and yet discriminate against the values of another? Who cares if the Christian beliefs are passe or wrong...the issue is, it's their belief. Where is 'tolerence for the Christan hotel owners'?
What if in the broadly logical sense, the homosexual couple was morally correct? Should the hotel owners be obliged to comply because their views are morally wrong? If yes, then would it not follow that if (again in the broadly logical sense) the Christian couple was morally correct, then by that logic, they can oblige their potential clients to respect their wishes? My point is not the homosexual or Christan couple is morally superior therefore they get to choose. My point is that the debate is not a moral argument. I.E whoever can prove first their moral superiority gets to either stay or not stay at the hotel. It seems this is a legal argument. In which case, the issue is not discrimination, but the obeying of a law or by law: despite putting a moral 'tone' on the law by using words like discrimination. Legal or moral? The difference is significant.
The reality is that discrimination is a moral imperative often supported by a legal framework. This poses a problem for either the Christian couple, or the gay couple. If a legal framework is protecting people on a moral basis, then that moral basis needs to be: discussed and agreed upon. Is morality good and acceptable based on a transcendent rule (God says), majority population rule (man thinks and vote, dictator thinks and acts)?
Tolerance and discrimination are strong words. Few if any want to be branded 'intolerant'. No company wants to be one that discriminates. The strong words are supported by a murky, ill-defined, cloudy set of standards. If discrimination went up for a 'morality debate', it would be caught in at least 2 fatal self-contradicting positions.
It's tough to drop intolerance bombs and discrimination accusations when the definition is often self contradicting. In order to be discriminated against, I need to discriminate against you...but my type is cool...yours is evil...uh, says my big brother.
I observe that "moral relativism" partners with special interest groups to often create a selective and narrow (intolerant at that) set of standards for what constitutes an act of discrimination. No wonder we see it practiced as an incompatible term.
*I value all people as equal. I do not think we should place the value of one individual as higher then another. My argument is against the use of a bizarre, arbitrary term...not against loving people. Disagreeing with the use/practice of discrimination does not mean I don't love people equally. It means I disagree with an arbitrary use of a relative, self contradicting term.
Peter and Hazel Bull refused to allow Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Preddy, to stay in a double room at their hotel in Marazion, Cornwall.
He said the Bulls believed that "unmarried sexual behaviour was wrong" but were not prejudiced against gay people.
"[Their] beliefs may be considered outdated, uneconomic for those operating a private hotel, but, we respectfully submit, they are entitled to manifest those beliefs."
He said: "[The Bulls] have prevented hundreds of unmarried couples sharing double beds.
He said the Bulls had an "absolute right" to believe that "unmarried sexual behaviour is wrong" and a "qualified right" to "manifest that belief".
On one side, the Christan hotel owners think best not to allow their joint to be a hitch up place for unmarried couples. Regardless if you agree or not, they should be allowed to rent their rooms to people of their choice, right?
If not, I suspect the argument goes something like this: "That's discrimination. They are discriminating against those who want to have sex before marriage". Should the view have merit, would the opposite view not be equally valid? "That's discrimination against the Christians. You are discriminating against those who don't want people in their hotel rooms who practice sex before marriage". It's the same logic. Why does one often pass, but not the other?
When one group is discriminated* against, typically I see that we crush another groups beliefs...which is also discrimination. It's kinda like this: "All the people who wear blue go to the penalty box." Then, those who wear blue reply, "All those who don't wear blue go to the penalty box." Who wins? Blue or not-blue? The problem with many of today's discrimination laws is it picks either blue or not-blue and the one they don't pick is automatically branded the group that discriminates. Arbitrary at best.
How is it legitimate for a group to claim discrimination and yet discriminate against the values of another? Who cares if the Christian beliefs are passe or wrong...the issue is, it's their belief. Where is 'tolerence for the Christan hotel owners'?
What if in the broadly logical sense, the homosexual couple was morally correct? Should the hotel owners be obliged to comply because their views are morally wrong? If yes, then would it not follow that if (again in the broadly logical sense) the Christian couple was morally correct, then by that logic, they can oblige their potential clients to respect their wishes? My point is not the homosexual or Christan couple is morally superior therefore they get to choose. My point is that the debate is not a moral argument. I.E whoever can prove first their moral superiority gets to either stay or not stay at the hotel. It seems this is a legal argument. In which case, the issue is not discrimination, but the obeying of a law or by law: despite putting a moral 'tone' on the law by using words like discrimination. Legal or moral? The difference is significant.
The reality is that discrimination is a moral imperative often supported by a legal framework. This poses a problem for either the Christian couple, or the gay couple. If a legal framework is protecting people on a moral basis, then that moral basis needs to be: discussed and agreed upon. Is morality good and acceptable based on a transcendent rule (God says), majority population rule (man thinks and vote, dictator thinks and acts)?
Tolerance and discrimination are strong words. Few if any want to be branded 'intolerant'. No company wants to be one that discriminates. The strong words are supported by a murky, ill-defined, cloudy set of standards. If discrimination went up for a 'morality debate', it would be caught in at least 2 fatal self-contradicting positions.
It's tough to drop intolerance bombs and discrimination accusations when the definition is often self contradicting. In order to be discriminated against, I need to discriminate against you...but my type is cool...yours is evil...uh, says my big brother.
I observe that "moral relativism" partners with special interest groups to often create a selective and narrow (intolerant at that) set of standards for what constitutes an act of discrimination. No wonder we see it practiced as an incompatible term.
*I value all people as equal. I do not think we should place the value of one individual as higher then another. My argument is against the use of a bizarre, arbitrary term...not against loving people. Disagreeing with the use/practice of discrimination does not mean I don't love people equally. It means I disagree with an arbitrary use of a relative, self contradicting term.
The Illusion...Of Free Choice
If it's not painfully obvious already, hopefully this cow's quandary may enlighten us with respect to the vigor our Conservative government is showing with respect to spending and deficit reduction.
Dear Conservative government, your voter base gives up excitement and enthusiasm when there are umpteen places to cut waste and we are still wandering in the land of limbo. I humbly ask you re-articulate your (new?) values, or start acting like a Conservative government.
Conservatives, please get a handle on this pic, if you do we are off to the races!
Once you trim the bacon, we can get on with business. The principle Peter shares works just as well for Canada:
This direction is required for success and long term sustainability and competitiveness. Europe is reeling over their bond yields, shaky Euro and debt. Big government does not work. Conservatives, I thought you knew better. Waz-up?
Monday, 7 November 2011
Here's How I Help Close The Income Gap...And The Left?
US wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
So the left often decries the injustice of income gaps. Got it. We all want to close income gap's so people can earn more! What is the left's solution? Here's a fanatical-right-wing nut's crazy wacky idea in practic: invest in people. Here's the inside scoop as to what I have been trying to do with our (now 35) employees:
1. Value people. Assets have a value...how much more do people? We value people through focusing on results while providing means/training/thinking to get results. Work with people and recognize change is a process...where you are willing there is a way.
2. Handle conflict with humility and an open mind. The old days of monarchy ruling with an iron fist does not work. We set our standards clearly and encourage people to operate within them...for all our benefit. Help people give and receive feedback in a way that advances discussions, not points fingers/accuses and blames.
3. Articulate that giving raises actually helps our company, it does not hurt it. It is in my best interest to give employees a raise that is deserved! The free market will either pull them away, or I buck up. The good news is, the higher the wage of an employee, the more value they add (often)! I try to destroy the 'stigma' of cheap bosses by striving for results and being excited along with the employee when a raise recognizes their results. We also provide feedback, reviews and coaching to those who 'are strugglign' to get the results our customers demands.
4. Re-invest profits. Re-investing profits is sadly viewed as greedy by some (many?) on the left. Banks get made fun of for their 'windfall' profits. The reality is, they (in conjunction with profit) provide the capital required to invest in people, machines, structure and innovation...requirements within a free market. By reinvesting in profits, I have experienced that we create additional area's of responsibility that often require one at a higher pay to properly manage. By investing in people, we typically hire from within and are able to provide that job at a higher wage, get the results and still make a profit. It's an exciting win-win!.
Did you notice something that was missing? I did not cry for the government to be the solution for closing the income gap. I am practicing a solution (it's working) and that is powerful and exciting. Join me in being a better, more caring boss. Join me in being a better employee. Learn more. Think more. Help more. Serve more. We can close this income gap...we just have to work at it. Now tell me, what is so 'wing-nutty' about this?
This Is Typically Where Conservatives Fail
Flaherty set to confirm delayed deficit target in fiscal update
We talk the talk...less government, increased accountability and fiscal responsibility...but results suggest quirk in our step. The reality is we spend more then we take in. The 'fiscal conservatives' can't balance the books.
It seems like Conservatives often squirm in this situation. We deflect, blame and point. This obviously is not good.
If in fact the Conservatives are going to announce delayed deficit targets, here is what they should say, "We champion ourselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. We failed. We incorrectly mis-assessed the variables we were entrusted by the Canadian public to asses and handle. The results speak for themselves, and here is how we are going to fix the problem: 1. 2. and 3. We will not blame circumstance or others, but look to our failed efforts and move forward to eagerly improve in this area to remain your party of choice."
In business, it's natural to speak candidly about reality. Why do we often play games in politics? After all, the Conservative party is the 'personal responsibility party', right? We can't be: 'when it fits our discussion, we love personal responsibility...when it does not...we blame'. I will be watching closely the remarks with respect to these developments, and trust you will be too.
We talk the talk...less government, increased accountability and fiscal responsibility...but results suggest quirk in our step. The reality is we spend more then we take in. The 'fiscal conservatives' can't balance the books.
It seems like Conservatives often squirm in this situation. We deflect, blame and point. This obviously is not good.
If in fact the Conservatives are going to announce delayed deficit targets, here is what they should say, "We champion ourselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. We failed. We incorrectly mis-assessed the variables we were entrusted by the Canadian public to asses and handle. The results speak for themselves, and here is how we are going to fix the problem: 1. 2. and 3. We will not blame circumstance or others, but look to our failed efforts and move forward to eagerly improve in this area to remain your party of choice."
In business, it's natural to speak candidly about reality. Why do we often play games in politics? After all, the Conservative party is the 'personal responsibility party', right? We can't be: 'when it fits our discussion, we love personal responsibility...when it does not...we blame'. I will be watching closely the remarks with respect to these developments, and trust you will be too.
I Won't Vote Liberal: It's An Axiom Issue
With respect to recent comments and discussion from a previous entry, I found the thoughts on the compatibility of Catholicism and Liberalism interesting.
To weigh in on this, I acknowledge any party of any stripe could make a law in line with, or against your core religious beliefs. It is not logical to disavow a party (necessarily) on the strict merits of a particular policy: as every party is likely to disrupt your core beliefs...no party would ever suit you. Thus, compromise is inevitably required. The question then becomes, on what do you accept compromise? For this discussion, I argue that we should accept compromise on topical issues, and not on axiomatic values (you can argue for a new policy a lot easier then new values...so align yourself with values and policy should follow a bit closer, generally speaking).
The Liberal party of Canada is not 'incompatable with the Bible' because they want to do massive child care programs where (for sake of argument) Catholics think that's the families role, not governments. Just as one cannot argue the 'Conservatives are against the Bible' if people have needs and the government does not respond. We cannot say, "Jesus wants us to take care of the needy, and the Conservatives fail...therefore conservatism is against the bible". There is obviously more context to the discussion...on all sides of the isle. The topic of childcare is not axiomatic (although very important), just as the topic of looking after the poor is important, but not axiomatic.
The 'root of the issue' that oh so many Canadians do not seem to entertain is, "on what foundational grounds does my party govern?". Laws can be created and dropped...however the values that drives a decision is what we should be looking at.
I am not a Catholic. I attend an Evangelical Christian church. I have no problem sharing my opinion . (Note I did not say, 'corner on reality')
Read the Liberals philosophy from their hero Mr. Trudeau then I will weigh in:
You can find it here:
Liberal philosophy places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. The liberal is an optimist at heart who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man's inclination to good but knows it must be cultivated and supported. While understanding as well as any other man the limits of government and the law, the liberal knows that both are powerful forces for good, and does not hesitate to use them.
-The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, April 1974
I fundamentally, axiomatically and thoroughly have a significant problem with the Liberals view of reality. The law and government are not powerful 'forces for good' to help man towards moral progress as Trudeau states.
My view:
-man is essentially perverse
-relationships of love (family, friends, church, charities that focus on relationships) are the primary and powerful forces of good (not government) to watch 'moral progress' occur.
-prizing man's inclination to good (with cultivation and support) is something I am unable to do, or view as helpful. Our inclination is towards selfishness...remember, Eve ate the apple, then Adam had some...only to blame Eve? Remember they both hid from God? Man today is no different. You don't teach your children to hide away from you when they are scared. Nor do you teach them to say 'mine'. It's our sin nature to be selfish. Government will never replace the role of family, friends, church and charity no matter how resolute in their attempts.
-Seeing a need to 'cultivate and support' one's moral progress should drive us to personal responsibility...not the "powerful forces of good: laws and government" that Trudeau heralds.
-I have a problem with the starting point. Man is not 'kinda good' who through social re-conditioning of these powerful forces of laws and government can be saved, restored or made better. So when a long lineup of programs role out, I typically cringe because it's starting point is opposite to my axiomatic view on reality. Relationships of love should drive us within the context of family, friends and church (faith group, atheist group inserted here...if you don't like church). Personal responsibility should lead us to seek out such relationships and there we find our 'moral progress', not within the framework of government's "powerful forces". Child care: 'powerful foce' to condition man towards moral progress? "H" No! ("H" for heck). I do not think it is the governments role to declare laws and programs as powerful forces towards helping man achieve moral progress.
In summary, my axiomatic view is such that man pursuing relationships that matter (via family, friends, church, and charity) is the way we see moral progress...these are the cheap and efficient powerful forces that bring real change through real compassion. I view government manufactured social engineering as contrary to my core view of reality and thus not in alignment with my voting preference. I remain open to your comments:
To weigh in on this, I acknowledge any party of any stripe could make a law in line with, or against your core religious beliefs. It is not logical to disavow a party (necessarily) on the strict merits of a particular policy: as every party is likely to disrupt your core beliefs...no party would ever suit you. Thus, compromise is inevitably required. The question then becomes, on what do you accept compromise? For this discussion, I argue that we should accept compromise on topical issues, and not on axiomatic values (you can argue for a new policy a lot easier then new values...so align yourself with values and policy should follow a bit closer, generally speaking).
The Liberal party of Canada is not 'incompatable with the Bible' because they want to do massive child care programs where (for sake of argument) Catholics think that's the families role, not governments. Just as one cannot argue the 'Conservatives are against the Bible' if people have needs and the government does not respond. We cannot say, "Jesus wants us to take care of the needy, and the Conservatives fail...therefore conservatism is against the bible". There is obviously more context to the discussion...on all sides of the isle. The topic of childcare is not axiomatic (although very important), just as the topic of looking after the poor is important, but not axiomatic.
The 'root of the issue' that oh so many Canadians do not seem to entertain is, "on what foundational grounds does my party govern?". Laws can be created and dropped...however the values that drives a decision is what we should be looking at.
I am not a Catholic. I attend an Evangelical Christian church. I have no problem sharing my opinion . (Note I did not say, 'corner on reality')
Read the Liberals philosophy from their hero Mr. Trudeau then I will weigh in:
You can find it here:
Liberal philosophy places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. The liberal is an optimist at heart who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man's inclination to good but knows it must be cultivated and supported. While understanding as well as any other man the limits of government and the law, the liberal knows that both are powerful forces for good, and does not hesitate to use them.
-The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, April 1974
I fundamentally, axiomatically and thoroughly have a significant problem with the Liberals view of reality. The law and government are not powerful 'forces for good' to help man towards moral progress as Trudeau states.
My view:
-man is essentially perverse
-relationships of love (family, friends, church, charities that focus on relationships) are the primary and powerful forces of good (not government) to watch 'moral progress' occur.
-prizing man's inclination to good (with cultivation and support) is something I am unable to do, or view as helpful. Our inclination is towards selfishness...remember, Eve ate the apple, then Adam had some...only to blame Eve? Remember they both hid from God? Man today is no different. You don't teach your children to hide away from you when they are scared. Nor do you teach them to say 'mine'. It's our sin nature to be selfish. Government will never replace the role of family, friends, church and charity no matter how resolute in their attempts.
-Seeing a need to 'cultivate and support' one's moral progress should drive us to personal responsibility...not the "powerful forces of good: laws and government" that Trudeau heralds.
-I have a problem with the starting point. Man is not 'kinda good' who through social re-conditioning of these powerful forces of laws and government can be saved, restored or made better. So when a long lineup of programs role out, I typically cringe because it's starting point is opposite to my axiomatic view on reality. Relationships of love should drive us within the context of family, friends and church (faith group, atheist group inserted here...if you don't like church). Personal responsibility should lead us to seek out such relationships and there we find our 'moral progress', not within the framework of government's "powerful forces". Child care: 'powerful foce' to condition man towards moral progress? "H" No! ("H" for heck). I do not think it is the governments role to declare laws and programs as powerful forces towards helping man achieve moral progress.
In summary, my axiomatic view is such that man pursuing relationships that matter (via family, friends, church, and charity) is the way we see moral progress...these are the cheap and efficient powerful forces that bring real change through real compassion. I view government manufactured social engineering as contrary to my core view of reality and thus not in alignment with my voting preference. I remain open to your comments:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)