Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Why are we less willing to come to the aid (or even be nice) of others?

The title touches on two different topics: One deals with the inaction's of people, the other their actions.

I think it's fair to say that people act primarily out of selfishness, and find that being an asshole is that fastest way to bully most people into doing/giving them what they want. Some go so far as to use physical violence, rather than only verbal abuse, to accomplish this. I also think it's fair that people act out of selfishness in their inaction's to help others that tend to be in these physical altercations. The difference comes with motivation: while a majority of people "would like" to help someone they see in need of it, there are 2 things that are going on: 1. self preservation, & 2. Fear of litigious reprisal by either the perpetrator OR the legal system itself!

Yes that's right, the assailant in physical confrontation cases have been pressing charges (usually after a successful defense) against their intended victim! And if the criminal doesn't do it, the LEGAL SYSTEM WILL!  Here are a couple examples: Assailants sue victims. Legal System re-victimizes victim through charges.  I also came across a conversation on twitter where my local constabulary was telling citizens that if they were to try and defend their homes from someone breaking in, they may face assault charges, and to only call the police. Here's a screen capture of said twitter conversation.

So let's be perfectly honest, why the hell would anyone help anyone else, when even helping yourself can get you in trouble?

This is the ridiculous state of affairs we have reached, when the most basic of Human rights (The right to defend ones self, family, and possessions from injury or theft) is being trampled on by Governments and their bureaucratic minions of idiocy in the courts and constabulary. However I come from a viewpoint where I am not allowed to assault you or steal your stuff, and you are not allowed to assault me or steal my stuff, and self defence of me and my stuff IS NOT is not assault.

But here lies the rub, the police CANNOT protect everyone, the simple fact is that they are a reactionary force dispatched after an event has already occurred. So who are REALLY first responders then? You and I are. If a private citizen is attacked, they should have the right to use any means they feel necessary to secure their person and/or possessions are secure! Not only that, if we see someone in need of assistance, we shouldn't have to fear reprisal by the system or the assailant if we help our fellow citizen's from succumbing to an attack!

This was the video that recently sparked my annoyance, where a 50 year old bus driver was attacked FOR A TRANSFER by some assclown who doesn't play by the rules that are force on "law abiding" citizens. Assclown attacks bus driver in Winnipeg.


Thursday, March 01, 2012

In Memorandum: Andrew Breitbart.

I often think that my blog life (which is sporadic at best) is just a place for me to put my thoughts out there, and although my topics are serious, I don't take blogging very seriously.  But then you come across someone like Andrew Brietbart, who started out just like any other blogger, with an idea and a passion to convey the thoughts and beliefs they had onto others through this medium. That's when you start to wonder if you couldn't make a difference somehow, just by getting more involved, more active.

The world has lost a great voice in the fight for truth, and Conservative values today.  Andrew Breitbart, founder of Big Journalism (and subsidiaries)  died at 43 today. Andrew leaves behind his Wife and four children. Innovative Genius of New Media Dies at Age 43

Although I did not know him personally, I admired him for the balance he brought to a lopsided world of Journalism. God bless you Andrew, Rest in Peace.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Just putting it out there.

A motivational poster I made, and a clarification of "women's rights" picture (which I modified slightly).

Sunday, February 19, 2012

The cult of Abortion.

I steal the title of this post from Kevin Eder on Twitter (@keder), but it is because I believe it to be an accurate description.
There have been issues in the news lately that have brought up questions about abortion cultists. One of them was When a Tory Senator said that the worst offenders should “have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.” (National Post Article.) This comment was hotly contested and attacked by the pro-abortion Left NDP and Liberals, which brought me to my current query.

Why are people that condone, accept, and fight for a woman's right to kill an unborn child, so opposed to someone saying that wasted unrepentant killers should be allowed to commit suicide? Can't we just consider this an extremely late term abortion, after the potential of the "victim" is already known? I mean honestly, if you are so willing to kill the unknown potential of an unborn child, why would you defend the indefensible convicted violent criminal from being allowed to kill themselves? (Or for that matter, how can you oppose Capital Punishment?)

Even further I have to wonder how and why these pro-deathers get so upset when anyone dies if they are so adamant that killing the unborn is ok? Really they seem to be all over the board with who they think should live, and who they want to die. Support for violent criminals, but disdain for unborn children. Yeah, sure, makes total NONsense to me too.

Obviously it's not as simple as that, because the ideology that they've been fed (and gladly swallowed) has them believing that they are justified in their beliefs. The problem is simply that they have had no one to teach them #1. How to logically reason. and #2. Morals. Obviously weak minds easily succumb to warped ideologies, unfortunately they tend to hang on to them without further thought like a dog to a bone.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Mental deceptions.

I was initially going to talk about the varied mental deceptions that we as humans perpetrate on ourselves, but it seems that I have focused more on that perpetrated on students who actually pay to have these deceptions carried out on them either unknowingly, and/or unwillingly.

It started with a conversation on Facebook where a college student is outraged that the Catholic Church doesn't want to be forced by the US Government to pay for contraception (via insurance), unfortunately (and all to commonly) however this individuals implies that this is somehow a violation of human rights and women’s health. I tried to explain that not only does this not violate any Human Rights, it also in no way jeopardizes women's health. What it was about, as I tried to point out, was how employers should not be forced to do something that goes against "company policy", even if that policy is based on moral beliefs. However the discussion came down to: "Religion was trying to repress the human right to contraceptives and damage women's health" on their side, and "an employer has the right to choose a benefits package for employees based on company values" on mine.
However I have noticed that trying to tell a University students that what they believe (or are being taught) might not be the most logical of interpretations, is like trying to push a camel through a keyhole.

Now I have a couple of thoughts I attribute this to:

1. These young people somehow see their ability to accept everything, no matter how appalling, as having intellectual superiority over those of us who may take issue with with moral or social items like abortion, or socialism.

2. The teachings they are receiving could be more along the lines of brainwashing, than that of opening their minds for advanced intelligent thought.

I tend to favour idea number two, “Indoctrination”, because of one noticeably disturbing trait from both University students and teachers I know display it. This trait is that they both seem to have no option for the possible validity of dissenting opinion, there appears to be no questioning on their part that they might be wrong (or for that matter that the other persons idea may be somewhat correct.). This more than often results in their dismissal of any dissenting opinion for no other reason than they don't like it or don't want to hear it. Sure I guess it could be confidence, a strong belief in the subject, or could it be unwillingness fostered by a mentality prevalent, and passed on to them, in our higher education system which forces beliefs on students because it is required knowledge to “pass” a course?

Arguments for and against the issue aside: the unfortunate conclusion is the underlying mentality that often won't allow “academics” to believe they might be mistaken. They can't seem to join in real open dialog with opposing/dissenting opinions, and then come to a conclusion, because they already enter a conversation assuming their conclusion is the only one valid. It disturbs me because I believe that Higher Education has become closed to ideas it dislikes, leading students down a narrow corridor guided by the prevailing ideology, instead of opening the students mind to think, reason, and rationalize every issue from every viewpoint.

I might be mistaken, but these are the attitudes and mentalities that I have recognized when talking to a number of people associated with Universities on multiple levels.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

The "poisonous" Native/Government relationship.

A fine list of examples of this "poisonous" relationship between First Nation Reserves and the Government is written by the National Post.  The one issue they fail to address in all their "The numbers you hear are incorrect, they only get 5.8 million in 2010-2011 for houses", is the fact that most people that read this will be paying for their own homes and upkeep themselves (and through their taxes obviously paying for First Nation Homes)! 

I agree with funding Education and Health care, everything that every Canadian expects already. But when you have to work for something you take pride in it and take care of it, and that is where handing out houses turns into a money pit because they expect it to be kept up for them too.  You want First Nation houses to last, let First Nations people buy them for themselves like the ROC.

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Attawapiskat First Nation.

One of my best childhood friends for a number of years was a native boy named Hubert. Now Hubert and I would sleep over at each others houses, and I even spent time on the band reservation that he and his family were a part of. I never gave a second thought that we were in any way different, he was just another kid that was one of my closest friends.  So when I talk about reserve life, I speak from someone with first hand experience having not just visited, but been a apart of their daily life.

Recently in the news the Attawapiskat First Nation has declared a "State of emergency" and has put out their hands to the Government to finance their recovery.  Here is where I start to question the dis-service we are doing to the Native population by continuing to assist them at every turn financially, instead of allowing them to grow in both pride and self reliance. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't be there to help, but I think some personal responsibility needs to be taken on the part of the Attawapiskat First Nation as to how and why they feel they NEED to delare this state of emergency.

I am going to regress for a moment, and look at the point of the "Reservation".  This was a place set aside for native peoples to manage and hold as their own, where they could raise their children in their traditional culture.  This seems to me to be a noble cause, worthy of a noble people.  I may be mistaken, but I believe Reservations falls outside any number of Federal Legislations, and is even given money and houses by the Government.  Which is why I question how they came to be in a state of emergency.  I really think the problem starts with the way a native mentality has changed to one of entitlement rather than self reliance, "you took our lands, now you owe us". Let's think for a moment about the state of being when the Europeans started settling Canada, are the native people better or worse off for it? Sure there were a number of problems that the settlers brought with them, but I would still have to say that European influences and settlement has improved life for most natives that have embraced it as also theirs.

I'm not saying don't help when it's needed, what I am saying is that the current relationship between the native community and Government is unhealthy, and it is primarily so for the Native community.  What I say to the First Nations people is simple; Don't give up your culture and heritage, but embrace the society around you to become healthy, proud, and self relient Canadians. I say this also after having read a disturbing stat that 80% of Prairie correctional inmates are Native, which I also believe is another disturbing effect of this unhealthy relationship, as well a number of factors/attitudes being handed down in native communities.

I don't have all the answers, but I find the problem serious enough to point out that it's been there too long.

** addition; The day after I write this I see an article in the National post is saying basically the same things I've said here, but it does touch on the subject of how some First Nations haven't any idea on how to govern themselves.  National Post Article.