Interesting meeting a couple weeks back Kanye West at the White House. Kanye is definitely an interesting person. He speaks thoughtfully and authoritatively and should be listened to.
Kanye West is definitely an exceptional. Everything Kanye chooses to focus on he greatly succeeds at. Kanye focused on music and produced numerous #1 hits and albums.
Then Kanye was interested in clothing and shoes. The result was sold out Yeezy sneakers selling for around $1,000. unheard of popularity and prices for sneakers and Kanye did it.
So everything, or at least a number of public things, Kanye gets serious about, he ends up on top. Given his proven track record, when West speaks it is wise to listen carefully. If Kanye says he is interested in something or may move into some area, then history proves he can succeed and dominate.
Which brings it to politics. If Kanye says he is interested in being elected President in 2024 I would take him at his word and take it seriously. As an exceptional, if Kanye focuses deeply on becoming President then he has the ability to make it happen.
Consider it in terms of probability. Kanye today in 2018 is more likely to become President in 2024, than Donald Trump was in 2015 to become President in 2016. And Trump achieved it. It can be done as Trump demonstrated, and Kanye could also do it.
--
About the 13th amendment. Kanye's thoughts on the 13th amendment are interesting. How often does anyone think about or discuss the 13th amendment. It's a good exercise to think about.
Kanye is basically right. The 13th amendment is no longer needed and thus should be abolished. Think about it this way. What would be the effect if it was repealed? The answer is no effect. Thus it should be repealed as its original purpose is served and continued existence has no effect. Also it could later be applied in detrimental ways that were not the original intent.
It's not the 13th got rid of slavery, or keeps slavery from returning. There are strong conventions now and there is no way any state would want to, or be able to, restore slavery. The notion is nonsensical thus there is no need for a law against something that would never happen.
Any modern nation and states within would never allow persons to be bought or sold, forced servitude, used as collateral or security on debts, etc. These contracts or arrangements would be void and unenforceable under convention and in law. So again it's not the 13th that is holding back those with bad intentions.
A problem with old obsolete law staying around is that it may be later repurposed in a way that was not intended. We see this today with the 14th amendment and birth citizenship. Today it is accepted, although recently rhetorically challenged by Trump, that persons born on US soil are considered US citizens, regardless of the status or lack thereof of the child's parents. So a foreign tourist visiting the United States, or someone who snuck across the border into the US and resides illegally, who gives birth in America; that child is a first-class US citizen with passport, SSN number, etc.
This is because of the 14th amendment that the child born in America is considered an American regardless of the status of the parents. Now in the history, the intent of the 14th was to settle any citizenship/status questions around freed former slaves. The 14th established the former slaves as proper American citizens. So it worked well for that.
It was never the intent of the 14th that foreign citizens who give birth on United States soil, that those children of foreigners would be hoisted up to US citizen solely because their mother arranged to give birth in the United States. Yet that has long been an accepted result of the 14th outliving its original purpose and being applied in novel or unexpected ways later on.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Monday, October 22, 2018
Software Update Bulletin: Antifa Action Pack Add-On
There is a new version available for the NPC Antifa Action Pack Add-On. NPCs running the optional Antifa Action Pack module are requested to update to software version 2.414 or higher at earliest opportunity.
Version 2.414 and higher fixes this issue
The defect can be observed in this video
The problem is in the ConfrontProudBoys.cpp module. Basically the GetFavorability() function had a bug where in some scenarios the score was calculated incorrectly. As a result of NPC-8689 the NpcFightGroup activated AttackMode incorrectly. From the video it can be seen the NPCs initiated the fight by throwing the bottle. So they were in AttackMode at that point.
This update fixes the heuristics behind GetFavorability() to give more weight to these factors in the calculation
The police proximity is also given increased weight in the calculation. In the Manhattan video the Proud Boys put it to the defeated NpcFightGroup for some time before the NYPD cops come in and break it up. Previous versions did not properly account for the fight not going as planned and requiring police intervention if they lost. Starting in version 2.414 fixes this and AttackMode will not activate without some police nearby in case things go sideways in the fight.
The fallback behavior for GetFavorability() returning a negative number remains the same. In StagingMode NPCs in the NpcFightGroup are programmed to seek toward these goals
Version 2.414 and higher fixes this issue
NPC-8689 NPCs in Manhattan enter AttackMode incorrectly. get beaten up
The defect can be observed in this video
The problem is in the ConfrontProudBoys.cpp module. Basically the GetFavorability() function had a bug where in some scenarios the score was calculated incorrectly. As a result of NPC-8689 the NpcFightGroup activated AttackMode incorrectly. From the video it can be seen the NPCs initiated the fight by throwing the bottle. So they were in AttackMode at that point.
This update fixes the heuristics behind GetFavorability() to give more weight to these factors in the calculation
- ratio of NpcFightGroup members to ProudBoysOpponent
- proximity of nearby police
The police proximity is also given increased weight in the calculation. In the Manhattan video the Proud Boys put it to the defeated NpcFightGroup for some time before the NYPD cops come in and break it up. Previous versions did not properly account for the fight not going as planned and requiring police intervention if they lost. Starting in version 2.414 fixes this and AttackMode will not activate without some police nearby in case things go sideways in the fight.
The fallback behavior for GetFavorability() returning a negative number remains the same. In StagingMode NPCs in the NpcFightGroup are programmed to seek toward these goals
- shout insults at ProudBoysOpponent from a safe distance using the standard canned list of slogans and insults
- recruit additional nearby NPCs to join the NpcFightGroup
Friday, October 19, 2018
Urgent Message for Jordan Hunt
Jordan, please immediately update your software to version 4.5019 or higher. This version fixes the defect
The manifestation of this defect can be observed in this video from Toronto
The problem is in the ConfrontProLife.cpp module. Basically there was a bug where if pro-life BadPerson has a reasonable response to "what if she was raped" (WISWR), then NPC does not have programming to continue the conversation. Instead a seg fault occurs in ConfrontProLife and npcOS panic reboots.
This can be observed in the video where Jordan was unable to verbalize a reply to the WISWR response and instead stands there with his tongue out for several seconds. The tongue out and silence demonstrates the crash and reboot.
Unfortunately due to another bug NPC-8618 the reboot is into FightMode. In FightMode NPC physically attacks the BadPerson previously conversing with. This can be observed in the video where Jordan irrationally roundhouse kicks the pro-life woman upon reboot in FightMode.
This bug is also fixed starting in 4.5019. Going forward an unhandled exception in ConfrontProLife.cpp will reset into WalkAwayAndWin mode. In this mode the NPC just calls the BadPerson a fascist and walks away to nearest nearby blue hair NPC for HighFive and PositiveFeedback, believing that he won the verbal confrontation with pro-life BadPerson.
NPC-8611 Unexpected counter to "what if she was raped" causes crash and violence
The manifestation of this defect can be observed in this video from Toronto
The problem is in the ConfrontProLife.cpp module. Basically there was a bug where if pro-life BadPerson has a reasonable response to "what if she was raped" (WISWR), then NPC does not have programming to continue the conversation. Instead a seg fault occurs in ConfrontProLife and npcOS panic reboots.
This can be observed in the video where Jordan was unable to verbalize a reply to the WISWR response and instead stands there with his tongue out for several seconds. The tongue out and silence demonstrates the crash and reboot.
Unfortunately due to another bug NPC-8618 the reboot is into FightMode. In FightMode NPC physically attacks the BadPerson previously conversing with. This can be observed in the video where Jordan irrationally roundhouse kicks the pro-life woman upon reboot in FightMode.
This bug is also fixed starting in 4.5019. Going forward an unhandled exception in ConfrontProLife.cpp will reset into WalkAwayAndWin mode. In this mode the NPC just calls the BadPerson a fascist and walks away to nearest nearby blue hair NPC for HighFive and PositiveFeedback, believing that he won the verbal confrontation with pro-life BadPerson.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Problematic Privacy Commissioner
Canada's Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has been in the news lately mobilesyrup, Ottawa Citizen. He has been advocating for Canada to adopt a European-style "right to be forgotten"
Canada does not have a right to be forgotten. Commissioner Therrien understands this. He admits "Therrien has said there’s no explicit right to be forgotten in any Canadian legislation"
It's good that there is no right to be forgotten for many reasons. The main problem is that it is a "positive right". That is, it compels other parties to take some action or provide some resources to satisfy the "right" of an individual.
Rights, properly defined, belong to the individual. Someone might have the right to free speech, but that does not compel the government or established media to provide a printing press or an audience. A person might have the right to live where he chooses in a country, but that does not require the state to provide a moving truck or damage deposit to enable someone to move to a new city.
The right to be forgotten inverts this. It compels search engines to take an action to "forget" something that they know about. They are forced to agree to keep something secret. To take action to conceal something. To knowingly mislead those using the search service by concealing public information. This is especially corrosive because the issues are actually public record. Criminal convictions, bankruptcies, divorces, lawsuits against, professional censure. In living memory these things were published in the daily newspapers of record.
In the Europe court case it was a lawyer who wanted to keep a past bankruptcy secret. hmmm as a potential client I might want to know if a lawyer I was thinking of hiring had a history of being irresponsible about money and mismanaging money. Lawyers are often asked to hold clients money in trust. Anyway it is the responsibility of the consumer of the search result to evaluate the information returned and weigh different data points. To decide what is material and relevant and what is not. An individual may like to wish away black marks from the past but that is his problem, not the search engine.
The major issue with Daniel Therrien is that he is attempting to bypass Parliament and use lawfare to get a judge to create a right to be forgotten out of thin air. From the Citizen article.
So that's wrong. Therrien concedes there is no right to be forgotten in legislation. Thus there is no such right. As privacy commissioner it's fine for Therrien to advocate for a right to be forgotten, or advise Parliament to enact such a right in legislation. It's not for the courts to decide. It's for the elected Parliament to establish rights.
Using the courts to bypass Parliament to advance his agenda is wrong and inappropriate to his office. Prime Minister Trudeau should fire Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.
Canada does not have a right to be forgotten. Commissioner Therrien understands this. He admits "Therrien has said there’s no explicit right to be forgotten in any Canadian legislation"
It's good that there is no right to be forgotten for many reasons. The main problem is that it is a "positive right". That is, it compels other parties to take some action or provide some resources to satisfy the "right" of an individual.
Rights, properly defined, belong to the individual. Someone might have the right to free speech, but that does not compel the government or established media to provide a printing press or an audience. A person might have the right to live where he chooses in a country, but that does not require the state to provide a moving truck or damage deposit to enable someone to move to a new city.
The right to be forgotten inverts this. It compels search engines to take an action to "forget" something that they know about. They are forced to agree to keep something secret. To take action to conceal something. To knowingly mislead those using the search service by concealing public information. This is especially corrosive because the issues are actually public record. Criminal convictions, bankruptcies, divorces, lawsuits against, professional censure. In living memory these things were published in the daily newspapers of record.
In the Europe court case it was a lawyer who wanted to keep a past bankruptcy secret. hmmm as a potential client I might want to know if a lawyer I was thinking of hiring had a history of being irresponsible about money and mismanaging money. Lawyers are often asked to hold clients money in trust. Anyway it is the responsibility of the consumer of the search result to evaluate the information returned and weigh different data points. To decide what is material and relevant and what is not. An individual may like to wish away black marks from the past but that is his problem, not the search engine.
The major issue with Daniel Therrien is that he is attempting to bypass Parliament and use lawfare to get a judge to create a right to be forgotten out of thin air. From the Citizen article.
The privacy commissioner wants the Federal Court of Canada to decide whether Canadians have the “right to be forgotten,” which would allow people to request that search engines remove old or embarrassing links about them.
Daniel Therrien is asking the court to decide whether Google falls under federal privacy laws when it displays search results about Canadians; if the court finds the search giant does, the company would have to remove some references when requested.
So that's wrong. Therrien concedes there is no right to be forgotten in legislation. Thus there is no such right. As privacy commissioner it's fine for Therrien to advocate for a right to be forgotten, or advise Parliament to enact such a right in legislation. It's not for the courts to decide. It's for the elected Parliament to establish rights.
Using the courts to bypass Parliament to advance his agenda is wrong and inappropriate to his office. Prime Minister Trudeau should fire Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Doug Ford and the notwithstanding clause
Some news out of Ontario. A court blocked a move by Ontario Premier Doug Ford to reduce Toronto city council from 47 to 25 members. Ford has responded by saying he will invoke the notwithstanding clause of the constitution to overrule the court ruling and proceed. This will be the first time Ontario has invoked notwithstanding since the constitution was enacted in 1982.
It's an interesting case to invoke notwithstanding on. The intent had always been that notwithstanding would be used very sparingly, only in egregious or important public interest cases. For example suppose some judge ruled that incarceration was unconstitutional. That's the type of case where notwithstanding would be called for. I'm not against a more active use of notwithstanding myself. On this site I've advocated it for some cases in the public interest and to maintain public confidence in government
Sally Campbell
Abdoul Abdi deportation
also in the Omar Khadr case the correct move was to appeal appeal appeal any adverse court decisions in the lawsuit and then finally if necessary invoke notwithstanding. in no case does Canada pay off those who fight on the enemy side in a war, or participate in terrorism. I like to believe that Stephen Harper if he had won; would have taken that tack and in no circumstance would the taxpayers of Canada pay off Khadr for what he participated in. Alas the people elected Justin Trudeau who saw things differently.
On the face of it, it won't make an ounce of difference anywhere if Toronto city council has 47 or 25 seats. So on its own it's not the type of case that calls for notwithstanding. So what's up? I believe there is something else there, something important that needs to be discussed.
What I believe Ford is doing, is reasserting the jurisdiction of the elected assembly over the activist courts. I don't believe it's about the 47/25 thing on its own. This is the first time activists tried to use lawfare to block and frustrate a legitimate act by the Premier. So Ford, early in his term, is sending a very clear message to the activist judges and their allies. Those seeking to use the courts to frustrate and overrule the elected legislature and impose their own agenda.
Ford saw what happened with Trump and the courts blocking the immigration ban. He saw what happened with judges and the Trans Mountain pipeline. In a larger sense Doug Ford is right. For a long time now, decades really, there has been gradually increasing aggressiveness from the courts. Some of the cases and arguments in recent years demonstrate this. Appeals and arguments to "right to enjoyment of life", "fairness", and other dubious claims not in the constitution or any statute. these aren't rights, it's just "feels good" law, judges overstepping their authority to "make things right" for favoured groups.
in the past a judge might hear a case, express sympathy for the appellant, then note that the court does not have jurisdiction, or it is up to the legislature to repeal or modify an unfair or onerous law. it isn't for judges to create new rights where convenient, or strike down laws or ministerial decisions they personally disagree with. judges exercised restraint and caution, and in general left it to the legislature to make things right in the law, rather than imposing their own concept of law. since judges generally did the right thing on their own, there was no need to use or threaten to use notwithstanding.
somewhere over the years this changed. unsurprising really. Dalhousie University has a law school. Plenty of students who took courses or majored in Communications at Laurier went on to law school. Inevitably at this point, 20-25-30 years on now, these same students have taken their place and world view into the judiciary. Doug Ford is taking an important step in the legitimate use of notwithstanding to make an important course correction against lawfare and judicial activism.
It's an interesting case to invoke notwithstanding on. The intent had always been that notwithstanding would be used very sparingly, only in egregious or important public interest cases. For example suppose some judge ruled that incarceration was unconstitutional. That's the type of case where notwithstanding would be called for. I'm not against a more active use of notwithstanding myself. On this site I've advocated it for some cases in the public interest and to maintain public confidence in government
Sally Campbell
Abdoul Abdi deportation
also in the Omar Khadr case the correct move was to appeal appeal appeal any adverse court decisions in the lawsuit and then finally if necessary invoke notwithstanding. in no case does Canada pay off those who fight on the enemy side in a war, or participate in terrorism. I like to believe that Stephen Harper if he had won; would have taken that tack and in no circumstance would the taxpayers of Canada pay off Khadr for what he participated in. Alas the people elected Justin Trudeau who saw things differently.
On the face of it, it won't make an ounce of difference anywhere if Toronto city council has 47 or 25 seats. So on its own it's not the type of case that calls for notwithstanding. So what's up? I believe there is something else there, something important that needs to be discussed.
What I believe Ford is doing, is reasserting the jurisdiction of the elected assembly over the activist courts. I don't believe it's about the 47/25 thing on its own. This is the first time activists tried to use lawfare to block and frustrate a legitimate act by the Premier. So Ford, early in his term, is sending a very clear message to the activist judges and their allies. Those seeking to use the courts to frustrate and overrule the elected legislature and impose their own agenda.
Ford saw what happened with Trump and the courts blocking the immigration ban. He saw what happened with judges and the Trans Mountain pipeline. In a larger sense Doug Ford is right. For a long time now, decades really, there has been gradually increasing aggressiveness from the courts. Some of the cases and arguments in recent years demonstrate this. Appeals and arguments to "right to enjoyment of life", "fairness", and other dubious claims not in the constitution or any statute. these aren't rights, it's just "feels good" law, judges overstepping their authority to "make things right" for favoured groups.
in the past a judge might hear a case, express sympathy for the appellant, then note that the court does not have jurisdiction, or it is up to the legislature to repeal or modify an unfair or onerous law. it isn't for judges to create new rights where convenient, or strike down laws or ministerial decisions they personally disagree with. judges exercised restraint and caution, and in general left it to the legislature to make things right in the law, rather than imposing their own concept of law. since judges generally did the right thing on their own, there was no need to use or threaten to use notwithstanding.
somewhere over the years this changed. unsurprising really. Dalhousie University has a law school. Plenty of students who took courses or majored in Communications at Laurier went on to law school. Inevitably at this point, 20-25-30 years on now, these same students have taken their place and world view into the judiciary. Doug Ford is taking an important step in the legitimate use of notwithstanding to make an important course correction against lawfare and judicial activism.
Friday, August 24, 2018
Andrew Scheer and Maxime Bernier
It's a bit funny I had a post in mind how well Andrew Scheer was doing. Just keeping quiet. Save your good stuff, hold it back, wait for the election campaign. A wise man keepeth his own counsel. Let Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh stumble and bumble along, stay out of that.
Well so much for that. Scheer's conservative rival Maxime Bernier has now left the Conservatives and launched his own political party. Well that sucks for Scheer. As the saying goes, with Bernier, "It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." Well now Bernier is outside the tent.
It's too bad. Bernier has a lot of supporters and very nearly won the race to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative leader. Honestly I didn't pay much attention to the Conservative leadership race and I didn't appreciate distinctions between the candidates. Though what I've learned of Bernier these last few weeks has made a positive impression. Pure laine Québécois. An energetic, patriotic Canadian who actually defended Canadian identity and culture (by insisting that Canadian culture is itself a real thing, which means that there is some optimum amount of multiculturalism beyond which we should not pass).
The thing about dairy and supply management. meh w/e to me. I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. It would be nice if milk was less expensive in the stores. Still, individual dairy farms and the supporting industry around them are vital to rural life. There is a goodness about the rural/agriculture/industrial economy. I guess supply management has always been there as long as I've been alive. There is a lot of inertia around it. Maybe it has run its course. People will still buy and drink milk. There will still be cows and farms. So again I'm fine either way with whatever the Prime Minister wants to do with supply management in dairy.
It is unfortunate Scheer couldn't keep Bernier in the fold. The Conservative party has to actually be conservative. It has to stand for something. The feel-good situation with media darling Rona Ambrose when she was interim leader. Gleefully embracing gay marriage and trans- everything. That wasn't right for an unelected interim leader Ambrose to make major policy changes.
Scheer has said he tends toward Stephen Harper for philosophy. For some Scheer is seen more as a Patrick Brown type, offering some kind of Trudeau-lite alternative, tweaks here and there, the checkboxes can go, a bit less virtue signaling on twitter, more competent administration. While Bernier is perceived more the Doug Ford type, wanting to aggressively repeal and rollback the Trudeau agenda.
So what might unfold. If we take Bernier at his word then it's a lot like the Reform Party situation a generation ago. The "real" conservatives left the Progressive Conservative party they felt had abandoned them and started their own party. One result was several Jean Chrétien majorities. Though it was eventually successful. Terms were negotiated, the Conservative party was forged from Reform/PC, Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and had a strong run.
So is Bernier right, are we today back at the PC/Reform divide? Is the current Ambrose/Scheer Conservative party hopelessly lost, unwilling to be unpopular with a leftist establishment media, seeking only to be in office and the personal gains of being in power.
We will see I guess. One result is that Trudeau is suddenly in better shape for the next election. If Bernier's new party becomes a real thing then their votes would come from largely the existing Conservative and to a lesser extent disaffected Liberal voters. That could make things difficult for Scheer. I think a realistic plan for Scheer before all this was the Stephen Harper playbook when faced with a Paul Martin majority.
Well so much for that. Scheer's conservative rival Maxime Bernier has now left the Conservatives and launched his own political party. Well that sucks for Scheer. As the saying goes, with Bernier, "It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." Well now Bernier is outside the tent.
It's too bad. Bernier has a lot of supporters and very nearly won the race to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative leader. Honestly I didn't pay much attention to the Conservative leadership race and I didn't appreciate distinctions between the candidates. Though what I've learned of Bernier these last few weeks has made a positive impression. Pure laine Québécois. An energetic, patriotic Canadian who actually defended Canadian identity and culture (by insisting that Canadian culture is itself a real thing, which means that there is some optimum amount of multiculturalism beyond which we should not pass).
The thing about dairy and supply management. meh w/e to me. I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. It would be nice if milk was less expensive in the stores. Still, individual dairy farms and the supporting industry around them are vital to rural life. There is a goodness about the rural/agriculture/industrial economy. I guess supply management has always been there as long as I've been alive. There is a lot of inertia around it. Maybe it has run its course. People will still buy and drink milk. There will still be cows and farms. So again I'm fine either way with whatever the Prime Minister wants to do with supply management in dairy.
It is unfortunate Scheer couldn't keep Bernier in the fold. The Conservative party has to actually be conservative. It has to stand for something. The feel-good situation with media darling Rona Ambrose when she was interim leader. Gleefully embracing gay marriage and trans- everything. That wasn't right for an unelected interim leader Ambrose to make major policy changes.
Scheer has said he tends toward Stephen Harper for philosophy. For some Scheer is seen more as a Patrick Brown type, offering some kind of Trudeau-lite alternative, tweaks here and there, the checkboxes can go, a bit less virtue signaling on twitter, more competent administration. While Bernier is perceived more the Doug Ford type, wanting to aggressively repeal and rollback the Trudeau agenda.
So what might unfold. If we take Bernier at his word then it's a lot like the Reform Party situation a generation ago. The "real" conservatives left the Progressive Conservative party they felt had abandoned them and started their own party. One result was several Jean Chrétien majorities. Though it was eventually successful. Terms were negotiated, the Conservative party was forged from Reform/PC, Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and had a strong run.
So is Bernier right, are we today back at the PC/Reform divide? Is the current Ambrose/Scheer Conservative party hopelessly lost, unwilling to be unpopular with a leftist establishment media, seeking only to be in office and the personal gains of being in power.
We will see I guess. One result is that Trudeau is suddenly in better shape for the next election. If Bernier's new party becomes a real thing then their votes would come from largely the existing Conservative and to a lesser extent disaffected Liberal voters. That could make things difficult for Scheer. I think a realistic plan for Scheer before all this was the Stephen Harper playbook when faced with a Paul Martin majority.
- hold Trudeau to a minority in 2019
- Scheer wins minority in the next election
- Scheer wins majority in the next election
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Nova Scotia novice hockey half ice games
Nova Scotia novice hockey now half ice games. The reasoning at link.
Well I don't agree with it. I've seen half ice novice first hand. Hockey is supposed to be about the players. Remember the old Timbits slogan the first rule is to have run.
So the players, the 7 and 8 year olds. Remember the players? The young players unquestionably want full ice games. period. full stop. I'm concerned this will put some young players out of hockey.
Where did I get my data about what the players want? first hand, that's where. about 12 years ago there was a lack of full ice play. some young players were discouraged, even some of the advanced players were finding hockey to be a chore. back then some corrections and adjustments were made (unfortunately the season was essentially over, but it was a good gesture) and there was an emphasis again on games and full-ice games like the players wanted.
Half ice hockey is not a swap substitute for full ice. to the players it feels like practice, drills. the kids are fine with practice and understand they need to work on hockey skills development. but they practice to get ready to play in the real games. there has to be the proper balance between practice/skills and actual game play.
I get the arguments for half ice. at the time years ago parents were told in full ice the average novice player has 8 seconds of puck on stick time per game. and yes better novice players sometimes can just skate away with the puck. yet that is what the players want, full ice play. they are willing to get up for 6 AM practice for that 8 seconds a game when the puck is on their stick.
Minor hockey players at all levels need to develop puck protection, passing, receive pass. still I feel forced half ice is losing the forest for the trees. like spending the whole season at practice and never actually playing a game. practice, drills, and skills development is fine. but there has to be balance between practice and play.
There can be a perception among some novice parents that there is overemphasis on identifying and developing elite players. also statistically just as many strong players will quit as mediocre players if the hockey experience is not enjoyable with the proper balance of practice and games.
I would suggest a sensible compromise would be every second game half ice. the rest full ice. though the decision of the right balance of half ice/full ice games at novice should be made at the local rink by the local coaches. they are closest to the situation. these coercive mandates from on high from Hockey Nova Scotia and Hockey Canada are wrong.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. make the information and data available to the novice coaches about half ice. listen to the novice players. and then trust the coaches to find the right mix that is best for the young players.
Well I don't agree with it. I've seen half ice novice first hand. Hockey is supposed to be about the players. Remember the old Timbits slogan the first rule is to have run.
So the players, the 7 and 8 year olds. Remember the players? The young players unquestionably want full ice games. period. full stop. I'm concerned this will put some young players out of hockey.
Where did I get my data about what the players want? first hand, that's where. about 12 years ago there was a lack of full ice play. some young players were discouraged, even some of the advanced players were finding hockey to be a chore. back then some corrections and adjustments were made (unfortunately the season was essentially over, but it was a good gesture) and there was an emphasis again on games and full-ice games like the players wanted.
Half ice hockey is not a swap substitute for full ice. to the players it feels like practice, drills. the kids are fine with practice and understand they need to work on hockey skills development. but they practice to get ready to play in the real games. there has to be the proper balance between practice/skills and actual game play.
I get the arguments for half ice. at the time years ago parents were told in full ice the average novice player has 8 seconds of puck on stick time per game. and yes better novice players sometimes can just skate away with the puck. yet that is what the players want, full ice play. they are willing to get up for 6 AM practice for that 8 seconds a game when the puck is on their stick.
Minor hockey players at all levels need to develop puck protection, passing, receive pass. still I feel forced half ice is losing the forest for the trees. like spending the whole season at practice and never actually playing a game. practice, drills, and skills development is fine. but there has to be balance between practice and play.
There can be a perception among some novice parents that there is overemphasis on identifying and developing elite players. also statistically just as many strong players will quit as mediocre players if the hockey experience is not enjoyable with the proper balance of practice and games.
I would suggest a sensible compromise would be every second game half ice. the rest full ice. though the decision of the right balance of half ice/full ice games at novice should be made at the local rink by the local coaches. they are closest to the situation. these coercive mandates from on high from Hockey Nova Scotia and Hockey Canada are wrong.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. make the information and data available to the novice coaches about half ice. listen to the novice players. and then trust the coaches to find the right mix that is best for the young players.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Canada Saudi Arabia Diplomatic spat
In the news lately there is a fight between Canada and Saudi Arabia. It seems to have started with a couple twitter jabs from Canada's foreign minister Chrystia Freeland against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
KSA responded by throwing a haymaker. Expelling the Canadian ambassador. Dumping Canadian securities. Recalling 15,000 Saudi students studying in Canada. Suspending new trade. Trade embargo on Saudi oil to Canada and Canadian wheat to Saudi Arabia. A $15 billion military contract for Canada to supply Saudi with light armoured vehicles may now be in doubt. Saudi may be holding onto that one for now for leverage. or they may wait until the election campaign to cancel it calculating to cause maximum damage to Freeland and her boss Justin Trudeau.
My first impression of the whole thing is what an unforced error it is. This whole situation was instigated by unprovoked reckless tweets by Freeland against Saudi Arabia.
The foreign minister of a middle power ought to be aware that diplomacy is about being diplomatic. and words matter in diplomacy, a lot.
If there is a problem or concern then be diplomatic. Raise your concerns privately, quietly, respectfully, through the proper channels. So publicly calling out KSA on twitter. using inflammatory and pejorative terms such as "immediate release". appearing to side with opponents of the regime. It was a crass unnecessary cheap shot by Freeland against KSA. At some level Saudi was right to be offended and to hit back.
maybe KSA and Canada are not exactly close allies but there was certainly a friendly working relationship between the nations. Saudi medical doctors received training in Canada, Saudi patients received medical care here. Canadian contractors, oil engineers, and nurses have worked in KSA for decades. There was normalized trade and diplomatic relations between the nations. it was in everyones interest to maintain a positive working relationship. We don't have to agree on everything, especially internal matters in each nation.
as foreign minister Freeland ought to have known that KSA can be thin-skinned, and prone to overreaction. this completely avoidable situation demonstrates her incompetence.
Margaret Thatcher noted back in the 1970s certain middle powers such as Canada and Sweden sought to strut on a larger international stage. Twitter in its way is a leveler. Allowing middle powers to feel they are the equals of the great powers. KSA shows that having a blue checkbox on your twitter does not make a great power out in the real world. Trump/USA can more afford to be antagonistic. Trump has the aircraft carriers, the nukes, the industrial economy to back up his tweets. Trudeau/Freeland not so much.
yes this is an overreaction by KSA. Perhaps a signal to other nations to stay out of public comment on internal Saudi affairs. For other nations, KSA may be holding far more of their debt, currency, or market assets, or they may be highly reliant on importing Saudi oil. A sudden disorderly Saudi unwinding of financial assets or oil supply interruption might be a far more difficult situation than what Canada is experiencing. A similar thing happened in 2015 Sweden got out of line with virtue signalling and KSA and were punished for it.
There was a public service in all this. Thank you KSA for reminding us again that 9/11 was a Saudi branded attack. 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi. The leader and financier of the attack bin Laden is Saudi. And nice visual touch showing the passenger airplane flying into the CN tower. Freudian slip. Good to know where your heart is KSA. You don't just lead the world in the export of oil.
The thing about the Federal cabinet is. Some cabinet posts matter and some don't. It's critical to have capable people leading the key departments that are important
Department of National Defence
Finance
External Affairs
Justice
The other posts, environment, status of women, department of abortion checkboxes, minister of scheduling attendance at gay pride parades, whatever. You can fill out your gender quota with whoever for those jobs. let them feel-good virtue signal on twitter to the activist and feminist base and it's all sunny ways. But the cabinet jobs that are important require competence.
Christia has fumbled the external affairs post and should be moved to a less prominent role. Perhaps Candadian Heritage would be good for Freeland considering Chrystia Freeland's heritage.
KSA responded by throwing a haymaker. Expelling the Canadian ambassador. Dumping Canadian securities. Recalling 15,000 Saudi students studying in Canada. Suspending new trade. Trade embargo on Saudi oil to Canada and Canadian wheat to Saudi Arabia. A $15 billion military contract for Canada to supply Saudi with light armoured vehicles may now be in doubt. Saudi may be holding onto that one for now for leverage. or they may wait until the election campaign to cancel it calculating to cause maximum damage to Freeland and her boss Justin Trudeau.
My first impression of the whole thing is what an unforced error it is. This whole situation was instigated by unprovoked reckless tweets by Freeland against Saudi Arabia.
The foreign minister of a middle power ought to be aware that diplomacy is about being diplomatic. and words matter in diplomacy, a lot.
If there is a problem or concern then be diplomatic. Raise your concerns privately, quietly, respectfully, through the proper channels. So publicly calling out KSA on twitter. using inflammatory and pejorative terms such as "immediate release". appearing to side with opponents of the regime. It was a crass unnecessary cheap shot by Freeland against KSA. At some level Saudi was right to be offended and to hit back.
maybe KSA and Canada are not exactly close allies but there was certainly a friendly working relationship between the nations. Saudi medical doctors received training in Canada, Saudi patients received medical care here. Canadian contractors, oil engineers, and nurses have worked in KSA for decades. There was normalized trade and diplomatic relations between the nations. it was in everyones interest to maintain a positive working relationship. We don't have to agree on everything, especially internal matters in each nation.
as foreign minister Freeland ought to have known that KSA can be thin-skinned, and prone to overreaction. this completely avoidable situation demonstrates her incompetence.
Margaret Thatcher noted back in the 1970s certain middle powers such as Canada and Sweden sought to strut on a larger international stage. Twitter in its way is a leveler. Allowing middle powers to feel they are the equals of the great powers. KSA shows that having a blue checkbox on your twitter does not make a great power out in the real world. Trump/USA can more afford to be antagonistic. Trump has the aircraft carriers, the nukes, the industrial economy to back up his tweets. Trudeau/Freeland not so much.
yes this is an overreaction by KSA. Perhaps a signal to other nations to stay out of public comment on internal Saudi affairs. For other nations, KSA may be holding far more of their debt, currency, or market assets, or they may be highly reliant on importing Saudi oil. A sudden disorderly Saudi unwinding of financial assets or oil supply interruption might be a far more difficult situation than what Canada is experiencing. A similar thing happened in 2015 Sweden got out of line with virtue signalling and KSA and were punished for it.
There was a public service in all this. Thank you KSA for reminding us again that 9/11 was a Saudi branded attack. 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi. The leader and financier of the attack bin Laden is Saudi. And nice visual touch showing the passenger airplane flying into the CN tower. Freudian slip. Good to know where your heart is KSA. You don't just lead the world in the export of oil.
The thing about the Federal cabinet is. Some cabinet posts matter and some don't. It's critical to have capable people leading the key departments that are important
Department of National Defence
Finance
External Affairs
Justice
The other posts, environment, status of women, department of abortion checkboxes, minister of scheduling attendance at gay pride parades, whatever. You can fill out your gender quota with whoever for those jobs. let them feel-good virtue signal on twitter to the activist and feminist base and it's all sunny ways. But the cabinet jobs that are important require competence.
Christia has fumbled the external affairs post and should be moved to a less prominent role. Perhaps Candadian Heritage would be good for Freeland considering Chrystia Freeland's heritage.
Wednesday, August 08, 2018
Glad to see Chris Hardwick back
Chris Hardwick looking good on America's Got Talent last night. I'm glad to see him back. I always liked him from the Walking Dead and Better Call Saul.
I'm glad justice seems to have prevailed for Chris. He's always seemed like a good guy. From the original story I guess if there's a lesson, then if you're somebody and you're a man, keep copies of everything, all your old emails and texts. Looks like good record keeping may get Harvey Weinstein off, and it greatly helped Jian Ghomeshi too. Though I'd hardly lump Hardwick in with Weinstein and Ghomeshi, these cases have shown it can be helpful to have a definitive record of what actually happened long ago. Nothing like the truth from the time to counter some self-serving oral recollection of events from years later.
What's comical about the allegations is that they were basically justified. If Chris is a recovering alcoholic then it is completely reasonable to mandate no alcohol in the home or when out together. If Chloe objected to the terms of the relationship then she was free to end the relationship and go drink her face off.
For the restrictions on Chloe. As it turns out the restrictions were right. because it seemed if Chris took his eye off her, when Chloe did go out by herself, she cheated on him. Chris was right to place restrictions to inhibit her ability to cheat. Again if she had a problem with the terms of the relationship, if Chris said no to an open relationship, then Chloe was free to end the relationship and leave. She could make her own way in life or find someone else's paycheques to live off who was more open minded.
Chloe Dykstra comes across as a horrible person. They broke up 2014. Chloe why didn't you say something 4 years ago if there was a problem. lol and it was Chris that dumped her after she cheated on him. Then Chris rejected her when she begged him to take her back. Handy having those old texts still.
By celebrity standards, or the WAGs at Chris Hardwick level, Chloe Dykstra is not much to look at. I'd never heard of her. At her peak she was maybe F list as Chris' girlfriend and her own negligible career. Today at Z list she tried to play some bogus MeToo card on Chris to catapult herself back up to the F or D list. Not happening Chloe. Bye Felicia.
I'm glad justice seems to have prevailed for Chris. He's always seemed like a good guy. From the original story I guess if there's a lesson, then if you're somebody and you're a man, keep copies of everything, all your old emails and texts. Looks like good record keeping may get Harvey Weinstein off, and it greatly helped Jian Ghomeshi too. Though I'd hardly lump Hardwick in with Weinstein and Ghomeshi, these cases have shown it can be helpful to have a definitive record of what actually happened long ago. Nothing like the truth from the time to counter some self-serving oral recollection of events from years later.
What's comical about the allegations is that they were basically justified. If Chris is a recovering alcoholic then it is completely reasonable to mandate no alcohol in the home or when out together. If Chloe objected to the terms of the relationship then she was free to end the relationship and go drink her face off.
For the restrictions on Chloe. As it turns out the restrictions were right. because it seemed if Chris took his eye off her, when Chloe did go out by herself, she cheated on him. Chris was right to place restrictions to inhibit her ability to cheat. Again if she had a problem with the terms of the relationship, if Chris said no to an open relationship, then Chloe was free to end the relationship and leave. She could make her own way in life or find someone else's paycheques to live off who was more open minded.
Chloe Dykstra comes across as a horrible person. They broke up 2014. Chloe why didn't you say something 4 years ago if there was a problem. lol and it was Chris that dumped her after she cheated on him. Then Chris rejected her when she begged him to take her back. Handy having those old texts still.
By celebrity standards, or the WAGs at Chris Hardwick level, Chloe Dykstra is not much to look at. I'd never heard of her. At her peak she was maybe F list as Chris' girlfriend and her own negligible career. Today at Z list she tried to play some bogus MeToo card on Chris to catapult herself back up to the F or D list. Not happening Chloe. Bye Felicia.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
When the Music Stops
Hedley band member charged. meh rock stars aren't exactly known for being diligent about checking ID backstage. by going backstage or to the hotel after the show, the understanding is the person is confirming they are of age, and agreeing to participate in what is very well known to happen partying with rock stars backstage. a convention that has been in place for decades. Hedley seems to find themselves suddenly afoul of some new rules that weren't there before and they weren't told of. in a way it's unfair to Hedley as backstage antics are long part of the lore of rock star life. so I guess Hedley is perhaps unlucky that a long tour bus ride seems to have suddenly ended when they happened to be on. oh well I guess the results will play out in court as they will.
Hunter Tootoo loses job for office flings. hmmm I think it's safe to say that as long as women have been working on Parliament Hill in numbers, going back to the 1970s, there have been office affairs between cabinet members, senators, and other powerful persons, and their staff members. Sure it looks bad, it's tawdry. But if you unpack and expose every other Ottawa affair between powerful men and women and staff members, all of them would look bad too. The mother/daughter thing, yeah it's bad. But not especially worse than what has been the norm for decades now. Really the worst that should have happened to Tootoo for it should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a cabinet member. But nothing more.
Massimo Pacetti ons. Liberal MP kicked out over one night stand with fellow MP. hmmm, again as long as there have been women in numbers in Parliament, going to the 1970s, there have been drunken one night stands between MPs in hotel rooms. nothing to be proud of, not the type of thing you would include in the quarterly letter to constituents back home, but something that has long been accepted as part of the culture. to the details Frank link, the evidence is they went to the hotel room and did hotel room things voluntarily. uh it was her who provided the protection. the intent seems pretty clear. if there was an issue or changed mind then should have said so and made it clear. Pacetti cannot be expected to read minds. so again the worst for Pacetti should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament. nothing more
--
So the social revolution of the last 50 years or so is ending or at least changing. When I was younger we were told coming out of the 1970s the standards are "if it feels good it's okay". That is not quite compatible with the new norms emerging today. Some like those discussed above have been caught up in this changeover. It's clear that the new standards or today's norms, are similar yet somehow different.
meh the social revolution is turning out to be a house built upon the sand. perhaps it always was. it's not clear what will emerge. maybe for the better in some ways. clearly the men of today have to be much more careful than in the past two generations. avoid these types of dubious situations. the wise man should avoid situations where there is an imbalance of power or resources, or where he is relying on the discretion of the other party.
Hunter Tootoo loses job for office flings. hmmm I think it's safe to say that as long as women have been working on Parliament Hill in numbers, going back to the 1970s, there have been office affairs between cabinet members, senators, and other powerful persons, and their staff members. Sure it looks bad, it's tawdry. But if you unpack and expose every other Ottawa affair between powerful men and women and staff members, all of them would look bad too. The mother/daughter thing, yeah it's bad. But not especially worse than what has been the norm for decades now. Really the worst that should have happened to Tootoo for it should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a cabinet member. But nothing more.
Massimo Pacetti ons. Liberal MP kicked out over one night stand with fellow MP. hmmm, again as long as there have been women in numbers in Parliament, going to the 1970s, there have been drunken one night stands between MPs in hotel rooms. nothing to be proud of, not the type of thing you would include in the quarterly letter to constituents back home, but something that has long been accepted as part of the culture. to the details Frank link, the evidence is they went to the hotel room and did hotel room things voluntarily. uh it was her who provided the protection. the intent seems pretty clear. if there was an issue or changed mind then should have said so and made it clear. Pacetti cannot be expected to read minds. so again the worst for Pacetti should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament. nothing more
--
So the social revolution of the last 50 years or so is ending or at least changing. When I was younger we were told coming out of the 1970s the standards are "if it feels good it's okay". That is not quite compatible with the new norms emerging today. Some like those discussed above have been caught up in this changeover. It's clear that the new standards or today's norms, are similar yet somehow different.
meh the social revolution is turning out to be a house built upon the sand. perhaps it always was. it's not clear what will emerge. maybe for the better in some ways. clearly the men of today have to be much more careful than in the past two generations. avoid these types of dubious situations. the wise man should avoid situations where there is an imbalance of power or resources, or where he is relying on the discretion of the other party.
Monday, July 16, 2018
Bad Behaviour in Cape Breton Lotteries
So there is yet another lottery dispute in Cape Breton. In Margaree Forks, Barb Reddick is trying to get Tyrone MacInnis' share of a $1.2 million Chase the Ace Jackpot winner.
She doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Trying to split hairs and say nephew only had equity on the 50/50 part and not the chase the Ace draw. Good luck with that.
The only other case would seem that nephew added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent. hmmm, so was Tyrone's name on the ticket through fraud, or "theft" of her equity by surreptitiously adding his name. Again good luck with that. If he added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent, were the police called? Barb's own verbal accounting of events she seems to concede that she allowed him to put his name on the ticket. from the Global story
Plus the winning cheque has been issued now. $600k+ each to Barb and Tyrone. It would be quite difficult at this point to put the $1.2 million money into some kind of escrow pending resolution of a dispute over ownership of the winning ticket. I'm sure some lawyers will be happy to take her case and bill Barb for the satisfaction of denying Tyrone all or as much as possible of his $600k, regardless of how much she also loses in the pursuit. Quite possibly they will both lose all of it. Serves her right, but too bad for Tyrone.
It's not the first time there has been controversy around winning tickets in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. In 2017 there was a dispute about a reneged verbal agreement to split a $100,000 prize. In this case it was again pretty clear cut legally. Kimberly Seymour was not the legal owner of the ticket (her husband Darin was), and so was not authorized to make any deal to split the equity in the ticket.
Sad, again a lotto win turns sour.
Also on this site I wrote back in 2007 there was some let's say suspicious silence about an $80k win from the husband's ticket of the nurse who was the hospital office pool ticker organizer. why did the nurse co-workers only find out about this big lottery win long after, and through other sources?
--
So yeah it's basically bad. Gambling, especially lottery, is inherently self-destructive. Even the rare win brings strife and destruction, sheesh. It's sad, lottery manages to bring out the worst in people whether you win or you lose. I suggest stay away from lotteries.
but if you are going to play, here's some lottery advice. get off your fat ass and go buy your own lottery tickets.
consider the old sayings
"if you want it done right then do it yourself"
"if you didn't want to do it yourself, then don't bitch afterward if someone else didn't do it the way you wanted"
don't delegate your lotto purchase to others. also don't make foolish promises giving away your pre-draw equity in exchange for little or nothing in return. protect your own lotto tickets. don't make deals, especially verbal deals, giving away your pre-draw equity in your tickets. protect your property. and stay away from lotteries, they are toxic.
She doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Trying to split hairs and say nephew only had equity on the 50/50 part and not the chase the Ace draw. Good luck with that.
The only other case would seem that nephew added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent. hmmm, so was Tyrone's name on the ticket through fraud, or "theft" of her equity by surreptitiously adding his name. Again good luck with that. If he added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent, were the police called? Barb's own verbal accounting of events she seems to concede that she allowed him to put his name on the ticket. from the Global story
Reddick, 57, said Friday she sent MacInnis money to buy $100 worth of tickets and told him to put his name on them for “good luck.”Recent events and rulings have made longstanding rules around lotto tickets very clear. It is the players, Barb's, responsibility to protect the integrity of her lotto tickets. Make sure that her own name was the only one on the ticket. If Barb carelessly or foolishly regrettably gave away half her equity, perhaps as consideration to Tyrone doing the real work of actually purchasing the tickets, then that is her loss and she should have no recourse through the courts. Barb should call the police if she thinks Tyrone put his name on her ticket without her knowledge or consent.
Plus the winning cheque has been issued now. $600k+ each to Barb and Tyrone. It would be quite difficult at this point to put the $1.2 million money into some kind of escrow pending resolution of a dispute over ownership of the winning ticket. I'm sure some lawyers will be happy to take her case and bill Barb for the satisfaction of denying Tyrone all or as much as possible of his $600k, regardless of how much she also loses in the pursuit. Quite possibly they will both lose all of it. Serves her right, but too bad for Tyrone.
It's not the first time there has been controversy around winning tickets in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. In 2017 there was a dispute about a reneged verbal agreement to split a $100,000 prize. In this case it was again pretty clear cut legally. Kimberly Seymour was not the legal owner of the ticket (her husband Darin was), and so was not authorized to make any deal to split the equity in the ticket.
Kimberly Seymour had said she has been emotionally distraught and on stress leave since the ordeal, as people had started confronting her at her workplace and at her home.
Sad, again a lotto win turns sour.
Also on this site I wrote back in 2007 there was some let's say suspicious silence about an $80k win from the husband's ticket of the nurse who was the hospital office pool ticker organizer. why did the nurse co-workers only find out about this big lottery win long after, and through other sources?
--
So yeah it's basically bad. Gambling, especially lottery, is inherently self-destructive. Even the rare win brings strife and destruction, sheesh. It's sad, lottery manages to bring out the worst in people whether you win or you lose. I suggest stay away from lotteries.
but if you are going to play, here's some lottery advice. get off your fat ass and go buy your own lottery tickets.
consider the old sayings
"if you want it done right then do it yourself"
"if you didn't want to do it yourself, then don't bitch afterward if someone else didn't do it the way you wanted"
don't delegate your lotto purchase to others. also don't make foolish promises giving away your pre-draw equity in exchange for little or nothing in return. protect your own lotto tickets. don't make deals, especially verbal deals, giving away your pre-draw equity in your tickets. protect your property. and stay away from lotteries, they are toxic.
Saturday, July 07, 2018
Adventist Summer Conference
There's been a bit of a flap lately about some Seventh Day Adventist youth summer conference out around Pugwash Nova Scotia. When this first made the news, my reaction was disbelief. How or why would an activist possibly care about activities or guest speakers at some church summer camp.
Here are some questions a good reporter would have asked the activist or anyone publicly challenging the Adventist camp
are you a personally a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church?
when if ever was the last time you set foot in an Adventist church?
how much of your own money have you put into Adventist coffers in your lifetime?
If the answer to the above questions is not affirmative, then I would be extremely skeptical and suspicious of the activists sudden interest in the Adventist church. There are some who would be happy to see it destroyed. They have seized this as a wedge issue.
This is a private Adventist matter. nobody is forced to send children to the camp. nobody is obligated to be a member of that church. what do the troublemakers care anyway? don't send your children to the camp if you don't want them there, or you have a problem with the activities, curriculum or guests.
It's basically the logical extension, the next step, of the checkboxes I wrote about before and the persecution of the Christian faith. First the checkboxes were brought in to attempt to deny funding, and transfer wealth from the taxes of church members to the opponents of the church. Now, emboldened by the checkboxes, there is harassment and "review" of private church camp guest speakers by outsiders who have nothing to do with the church. Attempting to establish authority over the church, demanding that the church answer to their agenda regarding camp curriculum and guest speakers.
The correct move for Adventist is to ignore the outsiders. Do not acknowledge them, do not respond. Stay on the path. Do not swerve to the left or the right. See the objectors for what they are. Recognize they do not have the interests of the church or the overall Christian faith at heart.
--
The thing is, it should be noted Michael Carducci and Danielle Harrison, are basically essentially right. Any reading of the New Testament, Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, the message is pretty clear and consistent about turning away from the ways of the flesh which is death. The Christians are constantly instructed in the Bible to give up the paganism, idolatry, deviance and immorality and turn to Christ. just saying.
--
To the activists. why don't you also object to harmful degenerate materials youth are bombarded with. for one example of many the Riverdale show. I watched one episode it was one too many. where is the protest around that side of the degeneracy. kids bombarded with degenerate messages and images and one small lone voice on the other side. if these activists are supposedly so concerned about youths being corrupted, exposed to damaging messages and images.
Here are some questions a good reporter would have asked the activist or anyone publicly challenging the Adventist camp
are you a personally a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church?
when if ever was the last time you set foot in an Adventist church?
how much of your own money have you put into Adventist coffers in your lifetime?
If the answer to the above questions is not affirmative, then I would be extremely skeptical and suspicious of the activists sudden interest in the Adventist church. There are some who would be happy to see it destroyed. They have seized this as a wedge issue.
This is a private Adventist matter. nobody is forced to send children to the camp. nobody is obligated to be a member of that church. what do the troublemakers care anyway? don't send your children to the camp if you don't want them there, or you have a problem with the activities, curriculum or guests.
It's basically the logical extension, the next step, of the checkboxes I wrote about before and the persecution of the Christian faith. First the checkboxes were brought in to attempt to deny funding, and transfer wealth from the taxes of church members to the opponents of the church. Now, emboldened by the checkboxes, there is harassment and "review" of private church camp guest speakers by outsiders who have nothing to do with the church. Attempting to establish authority over the church, demanding that the church answer to their agenda regarding camp curriculum and guest speakers.
The correct move for Adventist is to ignore the outsiders. Do not acknowledge them, do not respond. Stay on the path. Do not swerve to the left or the right. See the objectors for what they are. Recognize they do not have the interests of the church or the overall Christian faith at heart.
--
The thing is, it should be noted Michael Carducci and Danielle Harrison, are basically essentially right. Any reading of the New Testament, Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, the message is pretty clear and consistent about turning away from the ways of the flesh which is death. The Christians are constantly instructed in the Bible to give up the paganism, idolatry, deviance and immorality and turn to Christ. just saying.
--
To the activists. why don't you also object to harmful degenerate materials youth are bombarded with. for one example of many the Riverdale show. I watched one episode it was one too many. where is the protest around that side of the degeneracy. kids bombarded with degenerate messages and images and one small lone voice on the other side. if these activists are supposedly so concerned about youths being corrupted, exposed to damaging messages and images.
Thursday, July 05, 2018
Justin Trudeau could just call an election
Sheila Copps might be a close relevant precedent. about a generation ago Copps found herself painted into a corner around the hated GST tax, reminded of a campaign promise she made to resign if the GST was not repealed. When first reminded of her pledge she attempted to be breezy about it. Alas it became clear her commitment could not be brushed off, that every time she stood in Parliament or opened her mouth there would be a loud chorus of calls to resign. Sheila did resign and of course easily won the byelection in Hamilton. So in a way the resignation was moot, it didn't change or accomplish anything for Sheila or her opponents. but it did allow her to clear the slate, face the consequences of her foolish campaign promise, and put the matter behind her.
Today Justin Trudeau finds himself painted into a corner. Facing credible allegations that he groped a reporter in Creston B.C. in August 2000 at a festival. The exact details are unclear at this time but Trudeau, then 28 and not in politics, did apologize to the reporter the next day over something. Now the problem isn't as much the allegation, but the well established precedent established and enforced by Trudeau around misconduct. These people have all lost their jobs in politics due to usually anonymous allegations of some kind of sexual misconduct. In these cases Trudeau either was the final decision maker, or supported a decision someone else made.
Hunter Tootoo
Scott Andrews
Massimo Pacetti
Patrick Brown
Erin Weir
Christine Moore
Kent Hehr
Like Sheila Copps, Justin Trudeau would be expected to hold himself to the same standard he has imposed on others. It would be very difficult for Trudeau to try to split hairs and say his misconduct is further in the past, combined with lesser enough degree, along with not a public figure at that time, to say he should avoid the fate he imposed on others for broadly similar alleged misdeeds. When Parliament resumes Trudeau would likely face the Copps treatment, a loud chorus of calls to resign every time he rises and speaks in Parliament.
Now Trudeau does have an option as Prime Minister. He can dissolve Parliament and just call an election. Thus like Sheila, get credit for taking ownership and stepping down, without having to really back down or give up much. The polls aren't that bad for the Liberals right now. The NDP especially seems weak. Others have noted the removal of unpopular Kathleen Wynne in Ontario is actually a benefit as she was dragging all Liberals down. There was going to be an election next year anyway so it's just one year early. It would then close the matter, Trudeau gets credit for "resigning", allows everyone to move forward. Perhaps after the election if he wins there may be some rethinking of what is the appropriate response to these types of non-criminal, often anonymous, often years in the past, allegations.
--
The whole Trudeau thing reminds me of something that some Twitter user posted
isn't it ironic. the worlds greatest male feminist. the self appointed leader of listen and believe. well well well.
normally on it's own this is a non-issue. some minor matter from long ago that was resolved with an unenthusiastic, next-day, perhaps hung over, arrogant, insincere, possibly forced or requested, apology. police weren't called, no evidence that any crime was committed. but then again were the cops called in any of the cases above? but alas Trudeau took a rigid stance and made it an issue. now its an issue. oh well let it be his Robespierre moment.
Today Justin Trudeau finds himself painted into a corner. Facing credible allegations that he groped a reporter in Creston B.C. in August 2000 at a festival. The exact details are unclear at this time but Trudeau, then 28 and not in politics, did apologize to the reporter the next day over something. Now the problem isn't as much the allegation, but the well established precedent established and enforced by Trudeau around misconduct. These people have all lost their jobs in politics due to usually anonymous allegations of some kind of sexual misconduct. In these cases Trudeau either was the final decision maker, or supported a decision someone else made.
Hunter Tootoo
Scott Andrews
Massimo Pacetti
Patrick Brown
Erin Weir
Kent Hehr
Like Sheila Copps, Justin Trudeau would be expected to hold himself to the same standard he has imposed on others. It would be very difficult for Trudeau to try to split hairs and say his misconduct is further in the past, combined with lesser enough degree, along with not a public figure at that time, to say he should avoid the fate he imposed on others for broadly similar alleged misdeeds. When Parliament resumes Trudeau would likely face the Copps treatment, a loud chorus of calls to resign every time he rises and speaks in Parliament.
Now Trudeau does have an option as Prime Minister. He can dissolve Parliament and just call an election. Thus like Sheila, get credit for taking ownership and stepping down, without having to really back down or give up much. The polls aren't that bad for the Liberals right now. The NDP especially seems weak. Others have noted the removal of unpopular Kathleen Wynne in Ontario is actually a benefit as she was dragging all Liberals down. There was going to be an election next year anyway so it's just one year early. It would then close the matter, Trudeau gets credit for "resigning", allows everyone to move forward. Perhaps after the election if he wins there may be some rethinking of what is the appropriate response to these types of non-criminal, often anonymous, often years in the past, allegations.
--
The whole Trudeau thing reminds me of something that some Twitter user posted
the male feminist— Rob Grandy (@tookalito) January 4, 2018
in public acts like Bill Clinton
in private acts like Bill Clinton
isn't it ironic. the worlds greatest male feminist. the self appointed leader of listen and believe. well well well.
normally on it's own this is a non-issue. some minor matter from long ago that was resolved with an unenthusiastic, next-day, perhaps hung over, arrogant, insincere, possibly forced or requested, apology. police weren't called, no evidence that any crime was committed. but then again were the cops called in any of the cases above? but alas Trudeau took a rigid stance and made it an issue. now its an issue. oh well let it be his Robespierre moment.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Implementing a Thanos process
Avengers Infinity War was an interesting movie. Pretty well done. You think about it a bit afterwards. Which is a bit unusual for superhero movies. I've seen a number of superhero movies over the years and there is a kind of sameness and forgetability about them afterwards. Some are more memorable like the original spider man trilogy, the dark night batman trilogy.
The villain in Avengers was Thanos. Now Thanos had an interesting plan to deal with human caused problems such as overpopulation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. The Thanos process is that in one swoop half of the population of a planet is eliminated. Also the choosing of which half is done totally by random chance. Thanos makes it clear that everyone is subject to the "coin flip" that decides each persons fate. There are no exemptions or appeals afterward. On his own planet when he came up with the plan Thanos made it very clear that he too would be subject to the risk of the coin flip.
After the choice of the coin flip is made the implementation of the elimination is actually pretty clean. The unlucky just turn to dust simultaneously on the spot. No messiness, no pain, no ruined landscape from war, it just happens, it's done, it's over. Everyone else gets to continue on for 25, 50, 100, however many years until the next Thanos process is necessary to apply again.
twice times a half
If you think about it a bit you will realize there is a problem with the Thanos process. The issue is about the "half the population" requirement. Everyone faces the coin flip, the half risk, which is guaranteed to be random. However in aggregate it is unknown and not guaranteed that the total unlucky coin flips will turn out to be half the population. A simple example with a population of 4 will demonstrate, with tails as the unlucky coin flip result.
So while 2 tails is the most likely outcome (37.5% of the time), Thanos is going to have a problem 62.5% of the time, since the total tails is something other than half the population. When the population gets larger such as millions or billions this problem gets even worse, so although half tails is the most likely total, on its own it is not a likely result.
So what to do? How to make the total also come out to half the population.
I thought about it a bit and figured two possible solutions for Thanos. One not too interesting and one a bit more interesting. The more interesting one involves creating new guiding principles and allows Thanos to be a bit lenient in the process due to those principles.
I will get the less interesting one out of the way first. In the less interesting one, Thanos checks the total of the coin flips. If the total tails is not exactly half the population, the process is discarded. The coin flip process runs repeatedly until the overall total of tails is exactly half the population. So in the population=4 above, if the total tails is not 2, then the whole process resets and repeats until the result is total tails=2. For a large population such as Earth at over 7 billion, the process may have to run a large number of times (like in the thousands or millions) to get the desired aggregate result.
The first solution isn't bad I guess. It does meet the requirement that everyone face the coin flip. It also meets the second requirement that the total number eliminated is half the population. Somehow though the idea of running trails repeatedly isn't quite to the spirit of one time coin flip. I tried to think of an approach that would better meet the requirement to eliminate half overall. Adding a new principle may help. This one might help.
So then Thanos after applying the initial coin flips only has a problem if the total tails is more than half. Here I think there is a way to respect the two principles and get the result down to a (now) maximum of half eliminated in total.
Basically take the group of tails, draw a new random number to adjust down the unlucky to a maximum of half the population. For example suppose the population is 100. After the coin flips there are 56 tails. Take the 56 tails, and for each draw a new random number between 1 and 56. Anyone who draws 51-56 is now safe.
So after the second iteration there should be pretty close to half still unlucky even after the second draw. Check the number remaining at risk. If it is more than half continue the process until the result is half or less. For example suppose in the 100 example, of the 56, 8 of them draw 51-56 and are now safe. That means the final result will be 48 still unlucky who are eliminated.
Or suppose only 4 drew 51-56 (remember it is random, it is not known in advance what the result of a fair random draw will be). In that case 4 are now safe, and the process continues now with 52 at risk, everyone getting a new number 1-52. Eventually and it wouldn't take too long to get a final group who was unlucky repeatedly who are then eliminated and vaporized.
It wasn't directly stated, but there is another principle here
The villain in Avengers was Thanos. Now Thanos had an interesting plan to deal with human caused problems such as overpopulation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. The Thanos process is that in one swoop half of the population of a planet is eliminated. Also the choosing of which half is done totally by random chance. Thanos makes it clear that everyone is subject to the "coin flip" that decides each persons fate. There are no exemptions or appeals afterward. On his own planet when he came up with the plan Thanos made it very clear that he too would be subject to the risk of the coin flip.
After the choice of the coin flip is made the implementation of the elimination is actually pretty clean. The unlucky just turn to dust simultaneously on the spot. No messiness, no pain, no ruined landscape from war, it just happens, it's done, it's over. Everyone else gets to continue on for 25, 50, 100, however many years until the next Thanos process is necessary to apply again.
twice times a half
If you think about it a bit you will realize there is a problem with the Thanos process. The issue is about the "half the population" requirement. Everyone faces the coin flip, the half risk, which is guaranteed to be random. However in aggregate it is unknown and not guaranteed that the total unlucky coin flips will turn out to be half the population. A simple example with a population of 4 will demonstrate, with tails as the unlucky coin flip result.
| Number of Tails | Percent Chance this could happen |
|---|---|
| 0 | 6.25 |
| 1 | 25 |
| 2 | 37.5 |
| 3 | 25 |
| 4 | 6.25 |
So while 2 tails is the most likely outcome (37.5% of the time), Thanos is going to have a problem 62.5% of the time, since the total tails is something other than half the population. When the population gets larger such as millions or billions this problem gets even worse, so although half tails is the most likely total, on its own it is not a likely result.
So what to do? How to make the total also come out to half the population.
I thought about it a bit and figured two possible solutions for Thanos. One not too interesting and one a bit more interesting. The more interesting one involves creating new guiding principles and allows Thanos to be a bit lenient in the process due to those principles.
I will get the less interesting one out of the way first. In the less interesting one, Thanos checks the total of the coin flips. If the total tails is not exactly half the population, the process is discarded. The coin flip process runs repeatedly until the overall total of tails is exactly half the population. So in the population=4 above, if the total tails is not 2, then the whole process resets and repeats until the result is total tails=2. For a large population such as Earth at over 7 billion, the process may have to run a large number of times (like in the thousands or millions) to get the desired aggregate result.
The first solution isn't bad I guess. It does meet the requirement that everyone face the coin flip. It also meets the second requirement that the total number eliminated is half the population. Somehow though the idea of running trails repeatedly isn't quite to the spirit of one time coin flip. I tried to think of an approach that would better meet the requirement to eliminate half overall. Adding a new principle may help. This one might help.
if you survive a coin flip you are safeThat does seem fair to the individual. A one-off coin flip and if you draw heads you're safe, that's it. no further risk. so in that case a Thanos process would actually only eliminate half the population in one case. any overall result of half, or fewer than half, would have to be accepted by the "heads you are safe" principle. so in the example of 4 above, of the total tails comes up 0,1,2 then that's it. in 31.25% of the cases fewer than half were eliminated.
So then Thanos after applying the initial coin flips only has a problem if the total tails is more than half. Here I think there is a way to respect the two principles and get the result down to a (now) maximum of half eliminated in total.
Basically take the group of tails, draw a new random number to adjust down the unlucky to a maximum of half the population. For example suppose the population is 100. After the coin flips there are 56 tails. Take the 56 tails, and for each draw a new random number between 1 and 56. Anyone who draws 51-56 is now safe.
So after the second iteration there should be pretty close to half still unlucky even after the second draw. Check the number remaining at risk. If it is more than half continue the process until the result is half or less. For example suppose in the 100 example, of the 56, 8 of them draw 51-56 and are now safe. That means the final result will be 48 still unlucky who are eliminated.
Or suppose only 4 drew 51-56 (remember it is random, it is not known in advance what the result of a fair random draw will be). In that case 4 are now safe, and the process continues now with 52 at risk, everyone getting a new number 1-52. Eventually and it wouldn't take too long to get a final group who was unlucky repeatedly who are then eliminated and vaporized.
It wasn't directly stated, but there is another principle here
everyone in the at risk group faces the same chance of elimination
At the beginning the at risk group is everyone and the chance of elimination is the coin flip. At it progresses the principle (which is the original Thanos rule that the coin flip applies to everyone) remains in place. Everyone at risk faces the same risk.
I like the second approach. It allows Thanos to be a bit lenient in that usually the overall amount eliminated is less than half. And I think it is the fairest in that the process runs just once overall, and once anyone survives any iteration they are safe and face no further risk.
I think it's an interesting problem. How to both expose everyone to a separate individual coin flip, and also achieve a desired aggregate result that the number eliminated is half the population. I will call it the Thanos problem.
I think it could be a high school applied math problem. My niece said she had a math assignment a few weeks ago to find a situation where they could apply math to solve a problem. I think the Thanos problem would have made a good submission for her high school assignment. It's also useful because it shows how the use of principles can simplify a problem, guide the solution to a problem, and allow a defensible solution to emerge.
--
Update I realized I was overthinking this. This is not at all a difficult problem. The problem can be greatly simplified by posing it this way
how would you implement a Thanos process on a deck of cards?
Well that's pretty easy. Shuffle the deck. Select the top 26 cards as the victims. Done.
So on a larger data set, such as a city or planet. You have access to computing resources and a random number generator. A Thanos process could be implemented as follows:
write the population into some kind of a list. use the random number generator to select one person from the list. the selected person is removed from the list and vaporized. repeat this process until half of the original population has been selected.
so it meets the requirements of a Thanos process. it's fair, the random number generator assures that everyone faces the same equal risk of being selected on each iteration. the total number selected is half of the original population. from start to finish as a whole, each person in the original group faced a coin flip on being selected.
Friday, June 22, 2018
B.C. Place streaker tackled
So now the B.C. Place streaker I guess known only as "Surrey Man", let's call him SM, has hired Preszler Law Firm in Vancouver. Real classy case to link your reputation to Preszler. sheesh, disgraceful. Stringing out his 15 seconds of fame, hiring a lawyer to see if it can be monetized, attempting an inversion by bizarrely now representing that he is the victim. What an embarrassment. SM should seek to lay low, keep quiet, make this shameful episode in his life pass over. Notice that SM per CBC story
Did the player Marcell Young do anything wrong? Clearly the answer to this is no. He acted appropriately. In video from an angle in the stands, SM walks straight past security. Only a single security guard comes out on the field from that stands angle to confront or impede SM. The guard is large and slow moving. The guard waves ineffectually as SM goes by, making no real effort to give chase, lunge in his way, or stop him.
So to player Young, it was clear that security had abdicated their responsibility to protect the players. They were on their own. Now was there any threat to respond to? Who knows, Young had no way to know if SM was armed or dangerous. He was certainly acting dangerously by being on the field, apparently under the influence of some kind of drugs or alcohol, moving toward the players and Young personally.
Also there have been cases recently with fentanyl where paramedics have become seriously ill and died, just by being touched by it. So there is that new risk now just off someone's hands can basically be a weapon from fentanyl. It was reasonable for Young to believe in this circumstance there may have been a danger.
So Young did what he had to to protect himself and his teammates. Where security failed, he used appropriate but not excessive force to counter a real, uncertain, and unpredictable threat. Young exercised quick thinking and watched out for his teammates and himself.
A spokesman for Preszler Law Firm said their client did not want to be identified.why doesn't he want to be identified if he did nothing wrong? is there something to hide or be ashamed of? state your name (his face is pretty visible from the pics and video) if you are an innocent victim and want to sue.
Did the player Marcell Young do anything wrong? Clearly the answer to this is no. He acted appropriately. In video from an angle in the stands, SM walks straight past security. Only a single security guard comes out on the field from that stands angle to confront or impede SM. The guard is large and slow moving. The guard waves ineffectually as SM goes by, making no real effort to give chase, lunge in his way, or stop him.
So to player Young, it was clear that security had abdicated their responsibility to protect the players. They were on their own. Now was there any threat to respond to? Who knows, Young had no way to know if SM was armed or dangerous. He was certainly acting dangerously by being on the field, apparently under the influence of some kind of drugs or alcohol, moving toward the players and Young personally.
Also there have been cases recently with fentanyl where paramedics have become seriously ill and died, just by being touched by it. So there is that new risk now just off someone's hands can basically be a weapon from fentanyl. It was reasonable for Young to believe in this circumstance there may have been a danger.
So Young did what he had to to protect himself and his teammates. Where security failed, he used appropriate but not excessive force to counter a real, uncertain, and unpredictable threat. Young exercised quick thinking and watched out for his teammates and himself.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Bill Clinton and today's standards
So Bill Clinton was in the news recently promoting a new book. Interesting Bill Clinton drawing attention to himself at this time. Apparently at age 71 he is not considering the quiet retirement he was graciously offered in the wake of me too events and revelations.
Bill had an interesting take on it in the USA Today article. Noting that 'norms have changed'
However Bill does not seem too consistent in this judge not by the standards of today appeal. There was a thing in Charlottesville about civil war statues Bill didn't say too much.
A few years ago Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech in Halifax Nova Scotia. Recently a statue of Halifax founder Edward Cornwallis was torn down under activist pressure. Did Bill object or say anything about that? Nope.
How about Bill Clinton's fellow 1980s man Bill Cosby. Has Bill Clinton defended Bill Cosby by noting that the allegations from the 1980s should be judged by the "norms" and standards of the 1980s. Not that I've heard.
So I will conclude then that the judge not by the standards of today request is intended to have limited and selective application. I will speculate that Bill intended it to apply to:
Bill had an interesting take on it in the USA Today article. Noting that 'norms have changed'
Clinton, who made headlines last week for saying he did not owe Monica Lewinsky a personal apology, defended former Minnesota senator Al Franken and said "norms have changed" in terms of "what you can do to somebody against their will," during an interview Judy Woodruff on PBS "News Hour."hmmm interesting theory there. 'judge not by the standards of today the actions of the past'. as a standalone thing it actually makes sense and seems pretty reasonable.
However Bill does not seem too consistent in this judge not by the standards of today appeal. There was a thing in Charlottesville about civil war statues Bill didn't say too much.
A few years ago Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech in Halifax Nova Scotia. Recently a statue of Halifax founder Edward Cornwallis was torn down under activist pressure. Did Bill object or say anything about that? Nope.
How about Bill Clinton's fellow 1980s man Bill Cosby. Has Bill Clinton defended Bill Cosby by noting that the allegations from the 1980s should be judged by the "norms" and standards of the 1980s. Not that I've heard.
So I will conclude then that the judge not by the standards of today request is intended to have limited and selective application. I will speculate that Bill intended it to apply to:
- Bill Clinton and Al Franken
- the Clinton family, and Al Franken
- the Clinton family, the Kennedy family, and Al Franken
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Jordan Peterson 12 Rules for Life
I hadn't thought I would do another book review on this site. But this book is important enough and worth a review. I recently read 12 Rules for Life by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. It was a very good book. I got a lot out of it. I wish it had been around and I'd read it 10, 20, 30 years ago. I bought my copy at Chapters. It was marked down on special, I had some Chapters next purchase limited time promo, and I had a gift card. So I got a good deal too.
Dr. Peterson is a great thinker of our times. Right up there with David Sklansky and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I'd been hearing stuff about Peterson so I was keen when this title came out. I knew I had to read this book after the infamous Channel 4 Newman crushing by Peterson.
The book opens strong with the famous discussion on lobsters and hierarchies. The whole book is full of great stuff. There is a lot in there and Peterson, a practicing clinical psychologist and academic from Harvard and University of Toronto, makes pretty much every paragraph work. So it can read a bit dense but definitely keeps the reader engaged and is worth reading every sentence, pausing to think, and perhaps reread some paragraphs, maybe read 1-2 pages at a time and absorb. So it's a worthwhile read, personally challenging in parts, manageable but I would not call it a quick read if you are motivated to benefit from it.
So definite recommend really for anyone, especially younger people with most of their lives still in front of them. There is a lot of misinformation in our society and culture. Peterson cuts through it and exposes it and offers solutions. 12 Rules is a great counter, an actual realistic positive way forward.
Dr. Peterson is a great thinker of our times. Right up there with David Sklansky and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I'd been hearing stuff about Peterson so I was keen when this title came out. I knew I had to read this book after the infamous Channel 4 Newman crushing by Peterson.
The book opens strong with the famous discussion on lobsters and hierarchies. The whole book is full of great stuff. There is a lot in there and Peterson, a practicing clinical psychologist and academic from Harvard and University of Toronto, makes pretty much every paragraph work. So it can read a bit dense but definitely keeps the reader engaged and is worth reading every sentence, pausing to think, and perhaps reread some paragraphs, maybe read 1-2 pages at a time and absorb. So it's a worthwhile read, personally challenging in parts, manageable but I would not call it a quick read if you are motivated to benefit from it.
So definite recommend really for anyone, especially younger people with most of their lives still in front of them. There is a lot of misinformation in our society and culture. Peterson cuts through it and exposes it and offers solutions. 12 Rules is a great counter, an actual realistic positive way forward.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Youth Action Now
I was sad to hear that former NDP MP Paul Dewar is dying. Too bad, he seems like a decent fellow.
One of Paul's last initiatives is to launch a Youth Action Now initiative. Obviously aimed at Canada's youth.
Paul has been admirably interested in children and youth in Canada for some time. He launched a Canada Youth Plan back in 2011 when he was running for leadership of the NDP party.
I wrote about children in Canada and Dewar's plan back then on this site. Over 6 years later, my take on it has stood up pretty well and is still relevant today.
One of Paul's last initiatives is to launch a Youth Action Now initiative. Obviously aimed at Canada's youth.
Paul has been admirably interested in children and youth in Canada for some time. He launched a Canada Youth Plan back in 2011 when he was running for leadership of the NDP party.
I wrote about children in Canada and Dewar's plan back then on this site. Over 6 years later, my take on it has stood up pretty well and is still relevant today.
Thursday, June 07, 2018
Lucas Glover PGA incident
Seems there was an unfortunate incident recently involving PGA pro Lucas Glover, his wife Krista Glover, and his mother.
This from USA today story the PGA tour response.
Many PGA WAGS are younger and prettier than Krista Glover.
If Krista Glover thinks hitting a golf ball far and straight is easy then let her demonstrate how easy it is by making a living herself playing golf. Lucas can stay home with the kids, allow himself to get drunk during the daytime while she is at work, and they can all live off her paycheques for a few years. Just like she has been allowed to live and live well off his ability to play golf for all these years. Then berate her if she dares have a stray bad round. See how mouthy she is then about playing golf at the highest level.
Also of course Lucas should leave her, kids or no kids. She is a terrible wife, an embarrassment to him.
How would the PGA be responding if it was reversed and Lucas as arrested for being an abuser? Would they be so respectful of personal privacy? Would the PGA insist it's a "personal" or "private" matter, an "off field problems" issue not the concern of the PGA? hardly. If things were reversed Lucas Glover would be getting the Ray Rice treatment.
I understand Krista herself is not a member of the PGA and thus not under a PGA code of conduct. Still the PGA in the interest of equality should do a lot more to support Lucas, and come down hard against domestic abuse. There are some real steps the PGA could choose to take.
Make a strong public statement against domestic abuse and violence. Make Krista non grata with the PGA. She is not to show her face. Disinvite from the WAG social and charity wing. Disinvite from the 18th green on Sunday when Lucas is in the final group.
--
It should be noted self defense is a right. Defending yourself and your mother from physical attack is a right. Gender, spousal status, physical size is not an issue. It is the responsibility of the attacker to use good judgment in choosing who to bully, physically attack, and attempt to beat up. If an abuser gets hit back while attacking another then that's just tough. Any individual under attack has the right to use reasonable and appropriate force in self defense.
Abuse can drag on for years cycling through a usual list of excuses "clinical depression", "alcoholism", "bipolar", "uncontrollable temper", "was provoked/just reacting", "exhausted", "drank too much", "bad childhood". Yet in the face of determined self defense the excuses magically evaporate, self control emerges, and the abuse ends. An abuser understands force very well. If an abuser knows an attack will be equally self defended going forward then the attacks will abruptly end.
This from USA today story the PGA tour response.
"We are aware of the situation and Lucas informed us of his statement, which has since been posted to his Twitter account," the PGA Tour said in a statement. "Of course, we are here to provide support to Lucas and his family if needed; however, we are also respecting their request for privacy during this time."Here are some of my thoughts on all this.
Many PGA WAGS are younger and prettier than Krista Glover.
If Krista Glover thinks hitting a golf ball far and straight is easy then let her demonstrate how easy it is by making a living herself playing golf. Lucas can stay home with the kids, allow himself to get drunk during the daytime while she is at work, and they can all live off her paycheques for a few years. Just like she has been allowed to live and live well off his ability to play golf for all these years. Then berate her if she dares have a stray bad round. See how mouthy she is then about playing golf at the highest level.
Also of course Lucas should leave her, kids or no kids. She is a terrible wife, an embarrassment to him.
How would the PGA be responding if it was reversed and Lucas as arrested for being an abuser? Would they be so respectful of personal privacy? Would the PGA insist it's a "personal" or "private" matter, an "off field problems" issue not the concern of the PGA? hardly. If things were reversed Lucas Glover would be getting the Ray Rice treatment.
I understand Krista herself is not a member of the PGA and thus not under a PGA code of conduct. Still the PGA in the interest of equality should do a lot more to support Lucas, and come down hard against domestic abuse. There are some real steps the PGA could choose to take.
Make a strong public statement against domestic abuse and violence. Make Krista non grata with the PGA. She is not to show her face. Disinvite from the WAG social and charity wing. Disinvite from the 18th green on Sunday when Lucas is in the final group.
--
It should be noted self defense is a right. Defending yourself and your mother from physical attack is a right. Gender, spousal status, physical size is not an issue. It is the responsibility of the attacker to use good judgment in choosing who to bully, physically attack, and attempt to beat up. If an abuser gets hit back while attacking another then that's just tough. Any individual under attack has the right to use reasonable and appropriate force in self defense.
Abuse can drag on for years cycling through a usual list of excuses "clinical depression", "alcoholism", "bipolar", "uncontrollable temper", "was provoked/just reacting", "exhausted", "drank too much", "bad childhood". Yet in the face of determined self defense the excuses magically evaporate, self control emerges, and the abuse ends. An abuser understands force very well. If an abuser knows an attack will be equally self defended going forward then the attacks will abruptly end.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Why do bad things happen to good people
An old question. If you think about it a bit you can come to understand it. It's actually not a rhetorical or unanswerable question.
Anyone asking the question I think would agree that these are all true
From there it should be immediately clear that these must all be true
Can it be fixed?
Can the fact that bad things happen be fixed? Could it be that bad things no longer happen.
Alas, probably not on the Earthly realm where we all live. Lifespan is finite. Resources are finite. We have to compete with others both as individuals and in groups to navigate through life.
There is large variance in the natural world and how events unfold. Luck is a major factor, which means bad luck must also be a factor. A rising tide lifts every boat. Rain falls on the just and the unjust.
The human body is an incredibly complex machine. Generally it is pretty robust for several decades. However it can malfunction resulting in major illness or death in your prime or well before. Bad luck and natural variance.
Then there's free will. People are able to choose their own actions through life. That means people can choose or intentionally cause bad things to happen to others. Bad people and bad things happening also go together. So as long as there is free will then there is a reality that bad things can happen.
Anyone asking the question I think would agree that these are all true
- there are good people
- there are bad people
- good things happen
- bad things happen
From there it should be immediately clear that these must all be true
- good things happen to good people
- good things happen to bad people
- bad things happen to bad people
- bad things happen to good people
Can it be fixed?
Can the fact that bad things happen be fixed? Could it be that bad things no longer happen.
Alas, probably not on the Earthly realm where we all live. Lifespan is finite. Resources are finite. We have to compete with others both as individuals and in groups to navigate through life.
There is large variance in the natural world and how events unfold. Luck is a major factor, which means bad luck must also be a factor. A rising tide lifts every boat. Rain falls on the just and the unjust.
The human body is an incredibly complex machine. Generally it is pretty robust for several decades. However it can malfunction resulting in major illness or death in your prime or well before. Bad luck and natural variance.
Then there's free will. People are able to choose their own actions through life. That means people can choose or intentionally cause bad things to happen to others. Bad people and bad things happening also go together. So as long as there is free will then there is a reality that bad things can happen.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Prince Charles had a good weekend
It was a sight at the royal wedding last weekend. After a series of events, Prince Charles, the father of the groom Prince Harry, walked the bride Meghan Markle down the aisle. It was a classy and versatile gesture by the crown prince. At weddings sometimes you have to improvise a bit and cheerfully make the best of things. Charles performed admirably in this impromptu role.
How would you describe Charles' role? Father of the bride for a day? meh he's already the father of the groom. Perhaps husband of the mother of the bride for the day would work. It was good for the bride, surely it made her mom feel welcome and look good there. Charles actions generously lent a lot of credibility to mom Markle, a nice gesture at Harry's wedding that could be remembered into the future.
There seemed a kind of zeal to Charles on Saturday in his ad hoc role. He seemed chuffed up coming out of the church. Smiling and pleased with himself with a woman on each arm.
And with this the rehabilitation of Prince Charles is now complete. To the extent that Charles ever required rehabilitation. After the divorce and Diana died it was a black mark on Charles. He's worked hard over the years on his image. He's conducted himself well in public since at least 2000. The thing is, through history the crown prince has always had a discreet mistress. Charles understood his prerogative. It was Diana who rejected centuries of tradition and precedent about her role and upset everything. A lot of good it did her. It is what it is for Charles, he took his reversals around this fairly in stride, kept a thick skin, and fairly regrouped and kept going.
Charles has aged well. Along with some of his contemporaries from about a generation ago, maligned at the time, who have also aged pretty well from then to now. That is Homer Simpson and Murphy Brown. By today's standards, Charles, Homer and Murphy are just regular folks with regular lives. They could have done a lot worse for their kids and spouses we recognize now by contemporary standards.
Diana will always be the people's princess. Charles will have to live the rest of his days in that shadow. However Charles comes across pretty well as a regular guy prince. ahem, compared to the Markle family trainwreck Charles looks good by comparison, not such a bad guy or bad father after all. I suspect Harry understands that, especially after dealing with the Markle clan up close.
How would you describe Charles' role? Father of the bride for a day? meh he's already the father of the groom. Perhaps husband of the mother of the bride for the day would work. It was good for the bride, surely it made her mom feel welcome and look good there. Charles actions generously lent a lot of credibility to mom Markle, a nice gesture at Harry's wedding that could be remembered into the future.
There seemed a kind of zeal to Charles on Saturday in his ad hoc role. He seemed chuffed up coming out of the church. Smiling and pleased with himself with a woman on each arm.
And with this the rehabilitation of Prince Charles is now complete. To the extent that Charles ever required rehabilitation. After the divorce and Diana died it was a black mark on Charles. He's worked hard over the years on his image. He's conducted himself well in public since at least 2000. The thing is, through history the crown prince has always had a discreet mistress. Charles understood his prerogative. It was Diana who rejected centuries of tradition and precedent about her role and upset everything. A lot of good it did her. It is what it is for Charles, he took his reversals around this fairly in stride, kept a thick skin, and fairly regrouped and kept going.
Charles has aged well. Along with some of his contemporaries from about a generation ago, maligned at the time, who have also aged pretty well from then to now. That is Homer Simpson and Murphy Brown. By today's standards, Charles, Homer and Murphy are just regular folks with regular lives. They could have done a lot worse for their kids and spouses we recognize now by contemporary standards.
Diana will always be the people's princess. Charles will have to live the rest of his days in that shadow. However Charles comes across pretty well as a regular guy prince. ahem, compared to the Markle family trainwreck Charles looks good by comparison, not such a bad guy or bad father after all. I suspect Harry understands that, especially after dealing with the Markle clan up close.
Friday, May 18, 2018
Thoughts about Bitcoin
It is an interesting phenomena the rise of Bitcoin. In many ways Bitcoin questions and challenges how we have thought about money, banks, and government the last several decades at least. As long as I've been around.
Like many I wish I'd thrown $100 into Bitcoin back when you could buy them for $1 each. Oh well.
One concept is there's no "they" with Bitcoin. No central bank. No ultimate federal government authority. That takes some getting used to. With traditional currency, money and state tend to be pretty closely tied. Also with traditional money we accept there is some kind of central bank authority somehow controlling some unseen money supply with interest rates or whatever. We accept the state, perhaps in conjunction with a central bank, can as it deems necessary print money, aka "quantitative easing" to use a more polite term.
Bitcoin is more like true property. To own Bitcoin is to truly own it. Bitcoin cannot be frozen, zeroed out, seized, transferred to another, garnished, blocked access. Also if you have network, you can have access to your Bitcoin wherever you are. Unlike traditional money in a bank, a central authority can access your funds, or block your access, without your consent. With no intermediary such as banks, you can both direct access your Bitcoin, and prevent third party access through the intermediary.
Speaking of property. Banks are required to report cash withdrawals over $10,000 to the government. The individual is required to fill out forms saying what the withdraw is for. No wiretap, warrant, or court order is required. Why is this? Is the balance in your bank account not your own private property? Apparently not entirely. And yet nobody questions this, it's just passively accepted.
The withdraw reporting rule just shows that with traditional currency, in a real way it isn't entirely your property. In a way it's akin to a passport. You can hold it and use it within certain boundaries, but underneath it is the property of the nation state that issued it.
From its mathematical structure, Bitcoin cannot be created by a central authority. That is a powerful concept. It basically cuts "them" out of the picture from the outset, with no way to muscle in. With traditional money, we have to trust and rely on the national government and central banks to guard and maintain the integrity of the national currency. However there's nothing really preventing a government or central bank from creating raw new money out of thin air. So if you come to own a Bitcoin you don't have to be concerned that an identical Bitcoin could be legally counterfeited by a government or central bank straight off a printing press, thus diluting and devaluing your property.
--
A note on how bad and corrosive printing money can be. A short tale. Suppose a businessman owns two apartment buildings side by side in a lower middle class neighborhood. There's a fair size lawn around and in between the buildings. The landlord wants the grass mowed so that his site looks good and the tenants are happy. You agree to mow the lawn for $100. He provides the lawn mower and gas.
On the agreed day you arrive at 9 AM. You spend several hours mowing the lawn. About 5 PM you are finished and packed up. He hands you a $100 bill as agreed. You take the $100 you earned and decide to go to a local bar for a $20 burger and beer deal.
Now at the same time a government truck rolls by with a printing press producing $100 bills. The government hands your neighbor a $100 bill hot off the printing press, just for being fabulous. He takes his $100 and goes to the same local bar.
Now at the bar your $100 spends identically to the printed $100, there's no difference. The difference is that you had to do physical work in the sun all day to obtain your $100, while the other did not have to do anything to get an identical $100.
Like many I wish I'd thrown $100 into Bitcoin back when you could buy them for $1 each. Oh well.
One concept is there's no "they" with Bitcoin. No central bank. No ultimate federal government authority. That takes some getting used to. With traditional currency, money and state tend to be pretty closely tied. Also with traditional money we accept there is some kind of central bank authority somehow controlling some unseen money supply with interest rates or whatever. We accept the state, perhaps in conjunction with a central bank, can as it deems necessary print money, aka "quantitative easing" to use a more polite term.
Bitcoin is more like true property. To own Bitcoin is to truly own it. Bitcoin cannot be frozen, zeroed out, seized, transferred to another, garnished, blocked access. Also if you have network, you can have access to your Bitcoin wherever you are. Unlike traditional money in a bank, a central authority can access your funds, or block your access, without your consent. With no intermediary such as banks, you can both direct access your Bitcoin, and prevent third party access through the intermediary.
Speaking of property. Banks are required to report cash withdrawals over $10,000 to the government. The individual is required to fill out forms saying what the withdraw is for. No wiretap, warrant, or court order is required. Why is this? Is the balance in your bank account not your own private property? Apparently not entirely. And yet nobody questions this, it's just passively accepted.
The withdraw reporting rule just shows that with traditional currency, in a real way it isn't entirely your property. In a way it's akin to a passport. You can hold it and use it within certain boundaries, but underneath it is the property of the nation state that issued it.
From its mathematical structure, Bitcoin cannot be created by a central authority. That is a powerful concept. It basically cuts "them" out of the picture from the outset, with no way to muscle in. With traditional money, we have to trust and rely on the national government and central banks to guard and maintain the integrity of the national currency. However there's nothing really preventing a government or central bank from creating raw new money out of thin air. So if you come to own a Bitcoin you don't have to be concerned that an identical Bitcoin could be legally counterfeited by a government or central bank straight off a printing press, thus diluting and devaluing your property.
--
A note on how bad and corrosive printing money can be. A short tale. Suppose a businessman owns two apartment buildings side by side in a lower middle class neighborhood. There's a fair size lawn around and in between the buildings. The landlord wants the grass mowed so that his site looks good and the tenants are happy. You agree to mow the lawn for $100. He provides the lawn mower and gas.
On the agreed day you arrive at 9 AM. You spend several hours mowing the lawn. About 5 PM you are finished and packed up. He hands you a $100 bill as agreed. You take the $100 you earned and decide to go to a local bar for a $20 burger and beer deal.
Now at the same time a government truck rolls by with a printing press producing $100 bills. The government hands your neighbor a $100 bill hot off the printing press, just for being fabulous. He takes his $100 and goes to the same local bar.
Now at the bar your $100 spends identically to the printed $100, there's no difference. The difference is that you had to do physical work in the sun all day to obtain your $100, while the other did not have to do anything to get an identical $100.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Alek Minassian and incel
It was a sad story coming out of Toronto about Alek Minassian and a van attack that killed 10 people.
Apparently Minassian was part of something called incel, or involuntarily celibate. Like most, I'd never heard the term incel before. So if I understand, Alek, 25, wanted to be part of the Toronto dating scene but I guess didn't get any traction. He was apparently angry, frustrated, jealous, and resentful about his lack of success in the dating market. He may have been most angry with women specifically. In the dating scene he found himself shut out of, it was women who were not interested in him. He ended up taking out his rage in a murderous van attack against random civilians in Toronto.
Well what to make of it. It's sad how it all ended with the mass terror and killing of innocents. They personally didn't do anything wrong to Alex. meh the dating scene is like a market. In the long term the market is rational. Looking at Alex life, it is not surprising his lack of success at dating. socially awkward, 7 years at Seneca college and not able to complete a basic community college technical program, not much to look at. The market, the women on the market, don't owe Alex anything. Why would they want him? he had little going for him and an oversize sense of entitlement.
The thing about this "nice guy/gentleman" act. Alex's actions demonstrate he wasn't such a nice guy or gentleman after all. So perhaps the women saw right through his nice guy facade and what was underneath was dark and sinister. The nice guy thing is a waste anyway. Just be yourself. Women don't respect or want a male who lowers himself or treats himself as lesser or inferior to them.
I will divide the dating market for men and women into 4 groups ABCD from top to bottom. A is the alphas, the Chads and Staceys. The tall, good looking, fit, confident guys with money. The most attractive, socially connected, ladies in the prime of their looks. B can be generally regular folks. Regular guys with pretty good jobs in trades or white collar. Presentable and likeable women. C is the marginals, maybe not much to look at, some baggage or personality issues, lack financial resources. D is undateable.
So in reality Alex was basically a D. 7 years out of high school couldn't finish community college. living with parents at 25. socially awkward. no career, no car. below average height. There's a cognitive dissonance with Alex and incel. If Alex really wanted to date women he could have tried a lot harder to get out of group D and into group C. Finish school, or quit school and take any kind of steady work. Work untiringly on your career for several years and build up financial resources. Move out of your mom's basement. Work out and get some muscles. Take a Carnegie or heck even pua course and learn how to fake it to better talk to women and navigate socially.
Alex didn't seem to actually do any of these things to improve his ranking and status to the point that women would talk to him and he could get dates. Given that, I question whether he really wanted to have a girlfriend. Perhaps he was lazy and didn't want to do those things because they would have required hard work, personal sacrifice, and self discipline. Perhaps he resented the hand he was dealt in life that stuff that comes fairly naturally to the A-B-C guys he has to work for. He and incel seems to have this entitled attitude that if they affect a gentlemen image at least to themselves, that alone will vault them from group D to group A. It doesn't work like that.
Another thing Alex could have done was recognize his status as a marginal C-D player in the market, and focus his efforts there in meeting C-D women, if he actually wanted a girlfriend as incel claims. Forget about the beautiful Staceys, they earned their way into the A group, and have luxury of only talking to or dating the A group Chads. That is their option, nothing a C-D player can do about it. The market is broadly rational and A's will generally tend to pair off with A's.
So for the group C male, focus on your peers in the C group females. That means that even after Alex self improved to the C group, the women available to his group will be: a lot of single mothers, perhaps on welfare or making under $30k (a $40k tech job out of Seneca could be attractive to these ladies), maybe more than 1 child (but 3+ kids is group D), tattoos (though covered in tats is group D), a bit pudgy or a few extra pounds, they may weigh more than you do (but twice your weight or more is group D), maybe a bit jagged or a handful personality (but BPD is group D).
If he adjusted his sights a bit off the unattainable A group, was realistic and focused on his own C group of women, focus on self improvement, drop the attitude, Alex or any incel would have a reasonable chance of success in a dating scene. Also be careful about putting too many ladies into group D. The more Ds there are chokes off the supply of Cs, and can have the effect of dropping the incel from C into D himself.
Apparently Minassian was part of something called incel, or involuntarily celibate. Like most, I'd never heard the term incel before. So if I understand, Alek, 25, wanted to be part of the Toronto dating scene but I guess didn't get any traction. He was apparently angry, frustrated, jealous, and resentful about his lack of success in the dating market. He may have been most angry with women specifically. In the dating scene he found himself shut out of, it was women who were not interested in him. He ended up taking out his rage in a murderous van attack against random civilians in Toronto.
Well what to make of it. It's sad how it all ended with the mass terror and killing of innocents. They personally didn't do anything wrong to Alex. meh the dating scene is like a market. In the long term the market is rational. Looking at Alex life, it is not surprising his lack of success at dating. socially awkward, 7 years at Seneca college and not able to complete a basic community college technical program, not much to look at. The market, the women on the market, don't owe Alex anything. Why would they want him? he had little going for him and an oversize sense of entitlement.
The thing about this "nice guy/gentleman" act. Alex's actions demonstrate he wasn't such a nice guy or gentleman after all. So perhaps the women saw right through his nice guy facade and what was underneath was dark and sinister. The nice guy thing is a waste anyway. Just be yourself. Women don't respect or want a male who lowers himself or treats himself as lesser or inferior to them.
I will divide the dating market for men and women into 4 groups ABCD from top to bottom. A is the alphas, the Chads and Staceys. The tall, good looking, fit, confident guys with money. The most attractive, socially connected, ladies in the prime of their looks. B can be generally regular folks. Regular guys with pretty good jobs in trades or white collar. Presentable and likeable women. C is the marginals, maybe not much to look at, some baggage or personality issues, lack financial resources. D is undateable.
So in reality Alex was basically a D. 7 years out of high school couldn't finish community college. living with parents at 25. socially awkward. no career, no car. below average height. There's a cognitive dissonance with Alex and incel. If Alex really wanted to date women he could have tried a lot harder to get out of group D and into group C. Finish school, or quit school and take any kind of steady work. Work untiringly on your career for several years and build up financial resources. Move out of your mom's basement. Work out and get some muscles. Take a Carnegie or heck even pua course and learn how to fake it to better talk to women and navigate socially.
Alex didn't seem to actually do any of these things to improve his ranking and status to the point that women would talk to him and he could get dates. Given that, I question whether he really wanted to have a girlfriend. Perhaps he was lazy and didn't want to do those things because they would have required hard work, personal sacrifice, and self discipline. Perhaps he resented the hand he was dealt in life that stuff that comes fairly naturally to the A-B-C guys he has to work for. He and incel seems to have this entitled attitude that if they affect a gentlemen image at least to themselves, that alone will vault them from group D to group A. It doesn't work like that.
Another thing Alex could have done was recognize his status as a marginal C-D player in the market, and focus his efforts there in meeting C-D women, if he actually wanted a girlfriend as incel claims. Forget about the beautiful Staceys, they earned their way into the A group, and have luxury of only talking to or dating the A group Chads. That is their option, nothing a C-D player can do about it. The market is broadly rational and A's will generally tend to pair off with A's.
So for the group C male, focus on your peers in the C group females. That means that even after Alex self improved to the C group, the women available to his group will be: a lot of single mothers, perhaps on welfare or making under $30k (a $40k tech job out of Seneca could be attractive to these ladies), maybe more than 1 child (but 3+ kids is group D), tattoos (though covered in tats is group D), a bit pudgy or a few extra pounds, they may weigh more than you do (but twice your weight or more is group D), maybe a bit jagged or a handful personality (but BPD is group D).
If he adjusted his sights a bit off the unattainable A group, was realistic and focused on his own C group of women, focus on self improvement, drop the attitude, Alex or any incel would have a reasonable chance of success in a dating scene. Also be careful about putting too many ladies into group D. The more Ds there are chokes off the supply of Cs, and can have the effect of dropping the incel from C into D himself.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
The truth in between
Sometimes something happens, something bad or controversial. After the fact, someone who wasn't there is presented with conflicting versions of events. When faced with differing accounts, the third party has a dilemma. After all if stories conflict then they cannot both be right. It can be convenient to use a guideline to start out. There are different sayings but one variant goes
There's one side. There's the other side. There's the truth in between.
Another variant is "three sides to every story". One side, the other side, the truth.
Now this might seem a reasonable approach to being presented with conflicting accounts of things. But it can be a bit dangerous. The problematic part is the "in between", or insisting that there are 3 sides.
The issue is that there might actually only be two sides. It is possible that one side is in fact the accurate account, and the "other" side is either mistaken or intentionally attempting to mislead or obfuscate about what happened. The "three sides" up front conclusion can give undue credibility to the side which is presenting a false account. It also basically accuses both sides of "lying" to make themselves look better, or at least having a mistaken memory. That may not be true.
So to an honest person, just being involved in some factual dispute, they can be branded a liar under the "three sides" doctrine due to there being a conflicting account. That's not fair to the honest person, and allows the dishonest side (who may not care so much about his reputation) to smear the honest person by presenting a contrary account and then insisting they are both wrong/mistaken/lying, as "the truth is somewhere in between". It also invalidates the honest side if the third party insists up front that both accounts are inaccurate, and there is some unknown/unknowable truth in between.
I suspect the issue is, it may be impossible for a third party to determine after the fact what really happened when the events are in dispute. However it is better to just go with "we can't know for certain", or "there are differing accounts", than to reach a possibly false conclusion of three sides. There may not necessarily be a third side.
There's one side. There's the other side. There's the truth in between.
Another variant is "three sides to every story". One side, the other side, the truth.
Now this might seem a reasonable approach to being presented with conflicting accounts of things. But it can be a bit dangerous. The problematic part is the "in between", or insisting that there are 3 sides.
The issue is that there might actually only be two sides. It is possible that one side is in fact the accurate account, and the "other" side is either mistaken or intentionally attempting to mislead or obfuscate about what happened. The "three sides" up front conclusion can give undue credibility to the side which is presenting a false account. It also basically accuses both sides of "lying" to make themselves look better, or at least having a mistaken memory. That may not be true.
So to an honest person, just being involved in some factual dispute, they can be branded a liar under the "three sides" doctrine due to there being a conflicting account. That's not fair to the honest person, and allows the dishonest side (who may not care so much about his reputation) to smear the honest person by presenting a contrary account and then insisting they are both wrong/mistaken/lying, as "the truth is somewhere in between". It also invalidates the honest side if the third party insists up front that both accounts are inaccurate, and there is some unknown/unknowable truth in between.
I suspect the issue is, it may be impossible for a third party to determine after the fact what really happened when the events are in dispute. However it is better to just go with "we can't know for certain", or "there are differing accounts", than to reach a possibly false conclusion of three sides. There may not necessarily be a third side.
Monday, April 30, 2018
The Abdoul Abdi deportation case
The case of the Abdoul Abdi deportation is quite unbelievable. The background is Abdi came to Canada from Somalia with his sister at about age 6 in 1999. He was taken into the care of the Province of Nova Scotia and into the foster system. Importantly during this time in childhood, neither his foster parents nor the province applied for Abdoul Abdi to become a citizen of Canada. He never gained official status as a Canadian, although he had been living in Canada since he was brought here in 1999. So officially he is a foreigner, a Somali residing in Canada.
So fast forward to 2016. Abdi is now grown up and a convicted violent criminal. He has served time as an adult for crimes including aggravated assault. Due to his crime and violence, and his status as a foreigner residing in Canada, he has been ordered deported. Now some activists are fighting in court to keep Abdi in Canada for some unknown reason, and have been able to delay his removal from Canada.
The court argument is apparently that when Abdi was a ward of the state as a child, Nova Scotia failed in its duty to file the paperwork to make him a permanent resident or citizen of Canada. Now with such status, especially citizenship, Abdi would be considered a Canadian, protected from deportation regardless of being a violent criminal.
This whole thing is absurd on so many levels. Suppose Nova Scotia did fail in it's fiduciary duty to Abdi regarding his status in Canada. What does that have to do with the current deportation case. He doesn't have status and thus has no protection against deportation. His supporters seem to be arguing, bizarrely, that status should be retroactively applied for and granted - though granting status is from the Federal government, not the province, and we can't know if in this hypothetical case it would have been granted. So they are asking the court to intentionally disregard the actual facts of the case, set that aside, and instead indulge some pretend fantasy world where Abdi or his youth guardians applied for and was granted status, prior to committing the violent crime and incarceration that now has him ordered deported from Canada.
I reject the claim that there is a fiduciary duty on the part of Nova Scotia Community Services to even take care of these immigration papers for these wards of the state. The Province's role for these children is to ensure, via the foster care system, things like food, shelter and basic safety. Anything above that is extra, nice to have, best effort, but not specifically required. The immigration thing, services to non-Canadians, is not an expected role of Nova Scotia Community Services. So if the province fails to meet these extras in some cases then there is no liability on the province after the fact.
Further, it was Abdi's personal responsibility to be aware of his own immigration status. He was free to inquire or apply on his own. He was not prevented in any way from taking care of his status on his own. Also he should have considered his status or lack of status before committing crime and being incarcerated. He could have considered that deportation was a likely outcome if he committed serious crime.
The deportation situation Abdi is in is the result of his own actions. He has to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions, including deportation. It was not the responsibility of the people of Nova Scotia to provide Abdi some kind of legal cover to commit serious crime in the future in Canada, as his advocates seem to be arguing.
The whole court case is just nonsensical. Does the plaintiff really expect Abdi will be awarded citizenship as damages? The courts have no such authority to make such an award. Citizenship, and humanitarian exemption, cannot be awarded at this point due to the violent crime conviction. So do the plaintiffs seriously expect we will all suspend disbelief, just pretend the last 5 years didn't happen, backdate an application and approval to before the crime spree, and then magically have this status in place, then replay the last 5 years, but now with the cover of residency status. That seems to be what they are asking.
Even if it is determined that Abdi was wronged by the Nova Scotia Community Services? Well so what. That in itself does not create status. If Abdi, like any foreigner, feels he was wronged by the people of Nova Scotia, then he is free, from his own country, to hire a Nova Scotia lawyer and seek damages in Canadian court. So fine, like any foreigner with a grievance, hire a Nova Scotia lawyer from your own country, and the lawyer will seek damages on your behalf and wire you whatever they can collect on your behalf. However being a foreigner with a grievance certainly does not imply the individual can stay in Canada to pursue this claim. Hire a lawyer from afar like any other foreigner would have to.
Abdoul Abdi is not a Canadian. He is a foreigner residing in Canada with no status to be here. He should have been deported from Canada long ago. If he wants to seek damages against Nova Scotia from his own country he is certainly free to. In order to maintain confidence in the courts and the immigration system the government should deport Abdoul Abdi immediately "in the public interest", invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
The thing about checkboxes
So there's a flap in Canada recently about a federal government summer jobs funding program. Apparently now to get funded, the applicant organization has to attest to some pro-abortion statement by checking on some checkbox.
When I first heard of it I was struck by how bizarre it was, this linkage. What could abortion possibly have to do with summer jobs for students? Anyway this is a straight out attack on Christians and pro-life, demanding that they renounce their beliefs in order to get this money. It is extremely scummy and cowardly to target the children. After all it is the youth, the students, who would be affected by these summer jobs being canceled due to their parents being pro-life. The kids didn't do anything wrong. Be a man Justin Trudeau and have the courage and character to confront your ideological enemies directly; instead of indirectly victimizing their children.
Now some might say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Tell the federal government to keep their 30 pieces of silver. I guess that's fine for some summer jobs grant. The real issue here isn't about federal funding for summer jobs. It's about establishing a precedent where receipt of government services and benefits is conditional on expressing a particular view. There is no right to remain silent or keep your opinion to yourself, let alone openly hold a contrary opinion. You either attest to a government mandated viewpoint (a record of this attestation is kept permanently) or go without the government service.
Now there is government monopoly health care in Canada. Suppose someone arrives at their hospital emergency department with chest pain and shortness of breath. Upon arrival at triage, the patient is told to either check an abortion checkbox, or be refused health care service, go home and die. Why not, now that a precedent has been established these abortion checkboxes can start popping up everywhere.
Even more corrosive would be like the summer jobs checkbox. Imagine if the checkboxes show up at the emergency of the children's hospital. That would put the parents to a very severe test, faced with having to refuse to attest on behalf of their children and accept the consequences.
If Trudeau is re-elected then it's pretty much a lock that prescription drugs will be nationalized effectively under federal government control. So after 2019 you could go to your pharmacy for your heart or diabetes medicine you need to stay alive, and be told to check this abortion checkbox or go home empty handed. Now by Phillipians 1:19-21 the correct decision is to go home and die. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Well this is what happens when the state is allowed to take control over so much of personal life and the economy. Trudeau demonstrates the government can prove to be a cruel and capricious puppet master. The government giveth, the government taketh away.
--
I will say this about abortion and Trudeau's apparent intent to pick a fight on the abortion issue. The thing about war is, the war only ends when both sides agree to stop fighting. Trudeau may have had the prerogative to start the fight, but it won't be for him to say, okay enough we're not going to talk or fight about abortion any more.
Another thing about war is, you might lose. So you might want to be circumspect and keep the peace, especially if the status quo is favourable to your side. Pick fights carefully. Don't poke a sleeping bear.
Trudeau may feel smug that the courts have been on his side for at least the last 30 years. However judges and supreme court judges can change. Elected governments can change. Laws can be changed. The constitution can be changed. The notwithstanding clause is available.
--
Previous Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper pretty much had it right. They accepted the courts decisions, perhaps with disappointment, and were resistant to having a public fight on such a divisive issue. Another politician who had it right was actually Bill Clinton with the doctrine of "safe legal and rare".
What's interesting and powerful about that is the third part, the "rare". Because it is actually common ground between pro-life and pro-choice. Something both sides can commit to achieving, perhaps in different ways. I believe the best strategy for pro-life is to leave aside the safe and legal part and focus on making abortion rare. After all if it is extremely rare then it would be moot if it was safe and legal. So pro-life can win by winning on rare, that part that matters most.
It's unfortunate that safe legal and rare is hardly talked about any more. In this current abortion fight there is no mention of rare in the attestation checkbox text. Instead it is now so common and accepted in our culture that it is part of applying for some summer job.
I suspect rare can be achieved. It requires cultural change, which is hard but I think achievable. Figure out how to change the culture so that these situations are seldom conceived in the first place. That would help, head off the problem at the source. Also change the culture so that if someone is in a difficult situation, then actually having the child is a less-bad option than abortion. Culturally, some type of Anna Karenina social stigma where someone who does the wrong thing and chooses abortion is then unable to rejoin polite society afterward.
When I first heard of it I was struck by how bizarre it was, this linkage. What could abortion possibly have to do with summer jobs for students? Anyway this is a straight out attack on Christians and pro-life, demanding that they renounce their beliefs in order to get this money. It is extremely scummy and cowardly to target the children. After all it is the youth, the students, who would be affected by these summer jobs being canceled due to their parents being pro-life. The kids didn't do anything wrong. Be a man Justin Trudeau and have the courage and character to confront your ideological enemies directly; instead of indirectly victimizing their children.
Now some might say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Tell the federal government to keep their 30 pieces of silver. I guess that's fine for some summer jobs grant. The real issue here isn't about federal funding for summer jobs. It's about establishing a precedent where receipt of government services and benefits is conditional on expressing a particular view. There is no right to remain silent or keep your opinion to yourself, let alone openly hold a contrary opinion. You either attest to a government mandated viewpoint (a record of this attestation is kept permanently) or go without the government service.
Now there is government monopoly health care in Canada. Suppose someone arrives at their hospital emergency department with chest pain and shortness of breath. Upon arrival at triage, the patient is told to either check an abortion checkbox, or be refused health care service, go home and die. Why not, now that a precedent has been established these abortion checkboxes can start popping up everywhere.
Even more corrosive would be like the summer jobs checkbox. Imagine if the checkboxes show up at the emergency of the children's hospital. That would put the parents to a very severe test, faced with having to refuse to attest on behalf of their children and accept the consequences.
If Trudeau is re-elected then it's pretty much a lock that prescription drugs will be nationalized effectively under federal government control. So after 2019 you could go to your pharmacy for your heart or diabetes medicine you need to stay alive, and be told to check this abortion checkbox or go home empty handed. Now by Phillipians 1:19-21 the correct decision is to go home and die. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Well this is what happens when the state is allowed to take control over so much of personal life and the economy. Trudeau demonstrates the government can prove to be a cruel and capricious puppet master. The government giveth, the government taketh away.
--
I will say this about abortion and Trudeau's apparent intent to pick a fight on the abortion issue. The thing about war is, the war only ends when both sides agree to stop fighting. Trudeau may have had the prerogative to start the fight, but it won't be for him to say, okay enough we're not going to talk or fight about abortion any more.
Another thing about war is, you might lose. So you might want to be circumspect and keep the peace, especially if the status quo is favourable to your side. Pick fights carefully. Don't poke a sleeping bear.
Trudeau may feel smug that the courts have been on his side for at least the last 30 years. However judges and supreme court judges can change. Elected governments can change. Laws can be changed. The constitution can be changed. The notwithstanding clause is available.
--
Previous Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper pretty much had it right. They accepted the courts decisions, perhaps with disappointment, and were resistant to having a public fight on such a divisive issue. Another politician who had it right was actually Bill Clinton with the doctrine of "safe legal and rare".
What's interesting and powerful about that is the third part, the "rare". Because it is actually common ground between pro-life and pro-choice. Something both sides can commit to achieving, perhaps in different ways. I believe the best strategy for pro-life is to leave aside the safe and legal part and focus on making abortion rare. After all if it is extremely rare then it would be moot if it was safe and legal. So pro-life can win by winning on rare, that part that matters most.
It's unfortunate that safe legal and rare is hardly talked about any more. In this current abortion fight there is no mention of rare in the attestation checkbox text. Instead it is now so common and accepted in our culture that it is part of applying for some summer job.
I suspect rare can be achieved. It requires cultural change, which is hard but I think achievable. Figure out how to change the culture so that these situations are seldom conceived in the first place. That would help, head off the problem at the source. Also change the culture so that if someone is in a difficult situation, then actually having the child is a less-bad option than abortion. Culturally, some type of Anna Karenina social stigma where someone who does the wrong thing and chooses abortion is then unable to rejoin polite society afterward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)