Where's Waldo Redux : ISIS style

Can you spot him? If so, I'm mega glad. Imagine playing this game in real life where hats cannot tip you off. You are with your kids at market along with thousands upon thousands of other innocents; you got 20 seconds to find him.  If you fail...we don't go "oh well" then turn to the next page.  Kaboom! You are either blown up, slit, raped (then shot) or hung. You just lost Where's ISIS. Not too fun. If you are wondering how Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (among others) became a bankrupt Islamist-controlled murderous hell hole, that is beyond the scope of this entry.  If you are disheartened with PARIS and other places where radical Islam is spreading with horrid consequence, then I urge you to take another look at political correctness and it's unintended consequences. 

We think we are champions of compassion...until our own are blown up.

Quite often when we place weight on one concept, we remove it from another.  Obama heralding the weakening of ISIS just hours before PARIS is a Chamberlin style oops (lower on the gigantic dopey scale...but still there) where we focus and argue for a desire; not reality or facts. Chamberlin, like Obama want peace and will look like complete fools to get it.  Political correctness is their weapon  of selection and the political elite use it to their embarrassment and the people's tragedy.



 "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." 

Enter CANADA:
Trudeau knows the following:
1. ISIS has vowed to mix in with Syrian refugees for the purpose of waging war on the target country.
2. ISIS has been linked to PARIS and other attacks
3. ISIS has threatened Canada
Will Trudeau be our Chamberlin? Will he stop the fighter jet's attacks on ISIS and then blitzkrieg 25000 refuges in, all before Christmas?  If so, please understand he has tipped the scales against protecting our boards in favor of a teeny-bopper intellectual level argument towards political correctness that fashions in ISIS without any salute of duty towards the first order of business: protecting our boarders. Anticipating he and his family is well sheltered from the consequences of his decisions, we the people are left to play Where's ISIS except without the book.



Reflection item:
-- For the love of God and humanity in peril; please call out the damage of political correctness
 (If this entry resonates, would you share this as a Hail Mary attempt to help others abandon their persistence of tomfoolery in thought?)

On Why Evangelicals Typically Vote Conservative

Evangelicals often view compassion differently then left of center voters.  Compassion, we believe, comes from our mind and will having a concern for the well-being of others and moving to action for their benefit.  We further believe this as an act of our free will.  We believe we are to live a life of compassion as a cornerstone to our relationships, finances and time.  We believe that by demonstrating this compassion, others will be loved and cared for.  We often believe (even if we don’t always articulate this), that left wing governments claim to have a heart of compassion, but skew the meaning and therefore debase the value of what they do.  Liberals at their core think compassion is an act of the collective state - not the individual; therefore, the finances, time and relational structures of acting compassion out should (they argue) be through a government planned body.  We don’t think this is compassion.  Forcing people to pay money for needs that a central planner thinks best is not what we are taught with the simplicity of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Seeing a need and personally using your own resources to meet that need is the basis of compassion; not forced giving to an inefficient central planner.  

Evangelicals view the household (aka. Oikos) being developed, restored and built as central to a healthy family which in turn leads to a strong economy. Conservative budgets (often but not always) look to reduce taxes on households, where liberal governments look for spending on state intervention to further run or control our household (ex: state run child care, state run graphic sex-ed, several social programs that intervenes or attempts to socially engineer and shape our household).  The family should develop our family; governments should not. Thus we often vote for those who stand in solidarity with this position.

Liberalism is fundamentally opposed with the Evangelical position of man’s “sin nature” and therefore misses entirely the problem and solution to many problems that arise (possibly at no fault of the one hurting): selfishness, broken homes, broken hearts, poverty, unemployment, income gaps and many more. You cannot legislate a man’s heart to wholeness…although Justin Trudeau’s dad thinks he can:

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

Man is not inclined to good; we are inclined to be those hellions in Lord Of The Flies. Tell me, did you teach your child to say “no” or did they kinda just pick it up?  We are bent towards evil: all of us.  We believe the Liberals are wrong to think that billions in state planned social expenditures will solve man’s broken heart. We believe the liberals use a flawed premise (government = powerful force for developing good in people) to further damage what is already hurting despite any good intentions. Conversely; we believe strengthening the family is the cornerstone to seeing social change for the better. Love is our “powerful force” not the government; therefore we seek to strengthen families by loving them best we can: not strengthen governments.  Governments are not our partner in building and strengthening our household through large programs and social planning and therefore are not at liberty to extract 100’s of billions of Canadians dollars for such estranged purposes. We typically vote unashamedly for a party that reflects this value.

We often believe a conservative vote best empowers us to love others without draining our resources into an inefficient and often disastrous outfit that is based on laws, programs, perpetual debt and gross neglect.  Our vote for conservativism does not suggest 100% agreement with a particular party, but it does reflect our desire to maintain our personal freedoms to love others as we have capacity and resources to do. We say vamoose to any government using our tax dollars to undue the message of compassion we are best trying to practice through a message of hope and love.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this note. If this blog speaks to your values, would you consider sharing it? If it does not, you are welcome to speak your mind in the comment section below. 

Trudeau: Le Master Of Disguise

Trudeau does a masterful job capturing the collective ignorance of the masses.  With the help of a wildly biased and determined left wing media, we are witnessing the withdrawal of reason and the impending emergence of a tired, tested and failed Keynesian model of economics.   In Trudeau’s naiveté we are beholding the “change” and billions this change costs without any mention of cost; other than Trudeau telling the reporter to whip out his calculator and do the math himself.  Sadly, no intelligent discussion is possible when the leader has no clue of the systemic damages caused by Keynesian economics.

The basic flaw of Trudeau’s economic model is he presupposes he and his team are smart enough to manage and strengthen the economy through debt based investment. The idea that the free market is either too evil, stupid or a breeding ground for tax cheats like those sneaky small business owners, Trudeau has a fundamental distrust in the choices of Canadians and therefore he proclaims a need to intervene in the economy and do the building himself (no wonder he likes China dictatorship; because they can turn their economy around on a dime).  This will invariably result in the malinvestments, cost over runs, nepotism in issuing bids and jobs to contractors (which Liberals have always been experts at) and misguided direction of investments that come with central planning.  An inevitable fallout from the nature of his investments will be: capital exiting our country, increased trade deficits (we will export less and be less competitive), sustained budget deficits that compile our debt and therefore damage our debt to GDP ratio; likely resulting in a downgrade of our AAA credit (as we have seen with the Ontario Liberals) which will result in higher borrowing costs and the opposite effect of the Liberals benevolent heart: a shrinking middle class.  Do you notice how Mr. Trudeau never compares his plan against a debt to GDP ratio or any set of economic key indicators?  Are the voters to stupid to process the data? Or, would voters then see the economic damage and be less interested in a spending frenzy that Trudeau heralds as the coming change?  I suspect a bit of both.  If you look at the economies of Greece and Ontario we can see what an unmeasured Keynesian approach to economics does to a region.

Make no mistake, Greece like damage wont hit right away; even Greece took decades for the wick to run out and the country to blow up.  My argument is that Trudeau’s promises of today will contribute to your children’s debt load, credit downgrade and smaller middle class of tomorrow.  All his promises will cost a lot of money.  All his promises will need a slew of bureaucrats to manage.  Who will pay for these promises? The promises will be paid for in part via bonds that our kids will eventually have called due, by large corporations, the tax cheating business owners and those rich people who have way too much money.  As frustrated as several Canadians are (and some bitter and jealous) with those who do well, there will be great damage if we manipulate the markets to the degree Trudeau is proposing. Trudeau controlling, monitoring, selecting which industries do well, regulating beyond measure and having his team decide how the economy will grow is likely going to result in the exit of many earners. Earners produce a return on their capital and time.  Trudeau will make this a very unwelcome place for those earners to get their return and they will eventually stop filling the piggy bank with tax revenue from their exploits. And when they do, who is going to pay for all the promises?  This is when things spiral out of control and the saying is more obvious than when times are good: socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Alberta is learning this the hard way. Pressing change by electing a central planning government isn't so cool now, eh?   A centrally planned Keynesian economy is at the heart of the Liberal plan and NOT the change Canada needs or can afford.  Don’t be fooled by the Obama mantra of change redux that Trudeau is recycling. We already got an idea of what that change meant in the USA: $7 trillion in new debt and an unstable currency.

  I will be demanding change for more freedoms, less taxes, more accountability and a stronger economy.  Pressing the Conservatives for this change is the best hope for our families and country.

My Plea For Canadians

Keynesian economics is based on the idea that the economy is not too complex for the government to analyze, figure out and ultimately fix. The sum total of the analysis is the collaboration between the central bank, large corporations and government to essentially tax massively, borrow blindly and spend incredibly all the while devaluing the dollar through inflation (lower purchasing power) in the name of telling we the people what is right; with our kids credit and our money.  The collusion of government, large corps and the central bank propels the Keynesian model of economics into the foray -that will invariably collide with an otherwise free market-  explaining how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer: a comedic unintended consequence of well intentioned political policy.  A "natural selection" process with the government as our economic and moral puppeteer creates a bubble based economy because the government is not smart enough to figure her out so their malinvestment's will eventually burst (via lack of confidence in carrying debt) and then crash; revealing the effects of their futile attempts to disrupt market forces. This inevitable 'reset' will destroy wealth on a massive scale and possibly threaten us on a level as rudimentary as our currency. This game will be propped up and avoided at all costs through a massive line of credit known as bonds as well as the sweat of you and me that converts to taxes.  If Canadians could implore charities to do their job and care for the poor with competence, get over our loathing of hard workers who win big and get over our fear of "personal responsibility" we could perhaps embrace an economic model of freedom within the context of rule of law. Then (and I would argue, only then) our country, middle class, national debt, poverty levels and personal freedoms would all be far better off.  I beg you: stop arguing for and begging governments to rob us blind, pillage our freedoms whilst championing the call of the downtrodden.  Personal freedom is the key to prosperity for all because it respects your choices, investments and right to give generously. 

Fairness: A Wolf In Sheep's Cloathing

Seattle CEO Dan Price (who announced a $70k min wage for his employees) and Mr. Trudeau have much in common: they both believe in a fairer world.  Like Price, Trudeau wants to make fairness a theme of his endeavors.  Let’s take a peek at Price's experiment to see how fairness is working out.

Money Experiment

 According to several reports, the credit card processor company is struggling to phase in every single employee to a $70,000 minimum wage; which appears to be the least of his problems.

Let’s be fair and pay everyone the same!! (Resounding cheers!)

Here are the highlights: the CEO took over a 90% pay cut and is under duress to make ends meet personally.  Most of the profits ($2.2 million from last year) were spent on the first phase of increasing wages. 

Reported ‘unintended consequences’ (that were entirely predictable to any sensible individual) are: people feel they are not earning their money as they are being ‘overpaid’; which is putting stress on them.  Others allegedly are not working hard because they make so much money they have no incentive to advance.  People are also complaining of income gaps citing their skills and contributions are higher than other people’s…yet the pay remains even. Finally, Mr. Price’s brother is suing for not respecting his minority rights within the company.

As I explain to my children; there are many aspects of life that are not fair.  Socially engineering your fairness doctrine (in this case, private) results in other aspects of unfairness…“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he complained. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

My grave concern with Mr. Trudeau is he views fairness in the same way Mr. Price does…with one caveat: Mr. Trudeau wants to explore this notion with your money…and my money as a politician!  This “central planning” agenda is far more irrational, disturbing then his views on asking students to re-think elements as basic as space and time because it deals with our money and our kids future and we are not talking about $2.2million either.

Defining fairness as ‘everyone gets the same result’ is a devastating approach to a real problem; meeting people’s needs.  Constraining free markets with labor laws, endless regulations and burdensome taxes is the problem that will hurt the middle and lower class as manipulation is a poor form of control.

A free market based on personal freedoms and liberty remains the only hope for a stronger middle class. Incentive to work, gaining skills and advancing based on increased productivity are at the core of a strong economy and weathering future recessions. Compassion from our free will remains the most effective way to help those less fortunate or those lacking higher value skills that command higher rates of pay.  

Given Mr. Trudeau wants us to rethink our capitalist system, I would argue we need to seriously constrain the government’s ability to interfere in choices the free market makes and then will see a blossoming of the middle class and hope for lower income Canadians.  Mr. Price gives us a really neat peak into Turdeau’s “space and time” world where fairness is at the core.  Benevolence does not generate profits…increased productivity does. Fairness under the guise of benevolence is the enemy of learning advancing and increased productivity.

I propose Mr. Trudeau should take his money and invest it in his own company with his perfect fairness doctrine controlling how things should run.  After he models the success of this operation…THEN (and only then) can he make an argument to all Canadians about fairness.  Until then, look to Mr. Price and decide for yourself if that’s what you want Canada to look like.

 

Mr. Trudeau, I have re-thought elements as basic as space and time.  Mr. Price is losing space and time is running out: fairness is the wolf in sheep’s clothing.  

Watch out for fairness.

Failing Can Be Helpful

In analyzing my approach to “taking a break from blogging”, I have tried to reduce my blogging inconsistency to laziness (for I am quite lazy), but my internal reductio ad absurdum argument had me conclude it’s a matter of intellectual honesty.  I am unable to go after my differences with the absurd left…when my own concepts of idealism are not reconciled to my own beliefs and more pointedly, aligned with the behavior of what I hold dear; my daily living and leadership within my company.

 

This blog spares the left and points the crosshairs of attack squarely on my own performance.  Here are the top 3 lessons I learned from my own business failures (2 of my 3 business closed down, last one hung on by a hair and now appears to be doing well), with a comment on how I plan to advance each lesson!

 

#1.  Stick to what you are good at.

-Having diversified and led the cavalry right off the cliff, I can say that in sticking to what our expertise is, we are able to open the door to radical improvement through a focused approach of containable problem solving.  The largest hindrance to this advancement is my own pride that wants to defend the status quo to salvage some image of perceived success.  In laying this down (and therefore exposing weakness) I find we can hold up the problem and after exposing it…solve it…to the benefit of the team.  Staying committed to what we are good at allows us to (often times) solve problems faster.

 

#2.  Proper Function:

-Creating an ideal within business is great.  If we can get past being intimidated by that ideal…we have the opportunity to relate to others and try to undo the status quo and go after that proper function aspect of our business.  Looking to see how something ought to function takes humility, courage and teamwork.  Dare to strive for the ideal…and learn along the way.  The hidden nuggets of advancement are found in such a dirty process.

 

#3. It’s not over until you give up.

-Society places huge weight of defining success on our behalf.  If we place our value on what society says (flash, money and winning) then we work to uphold that ideal…and internally collapse in the process.   In not giving up, we force our self to redefine success.  I have found “not giving up” is a form of success that empowers the sturdy vehicle of hope to draw in friends and family to stir you up to continue to fight the fight.

 

It is easy to lambaste the fool…for their foolishness places a giant target on them.  Moreover, I confess with abject honesty that my business failures have held me accountable to my own foolishness, therefore I am not unable to call out others foolishness, but I must do it with a degree of humility that says I too am a wandering nomad in the world of truth seeking.