Oh No!

I was thinking the protests of the seal hunts weren't a big deal until I found out that Morrissey was refusing to come to Canada! I mean, Morrissey, come on! Wait, I had to actually click on his bio to find out who he was, and I still am not sure (is Morrissey a first name, a stage name, a last name, is he actually famous?). Any boycotts of Canadian goods seem to be so minor and overstated. I was watching a Canadian news network (either CBC Newsworld or CTV Newsnet) and they went to restaurants that supposedly banned Canadian fish and the people working there had no idea what they were talking about. So let the seal hunt go on and let's boycott Morrissey! (yes the boycott will be really easy for me since I never heard of him until today)

Peer Pressure

Greg just quit smoking in the past couple days, so to add extra peer pressure I am making this post. If he starts up again, he has to make a shameful post, so you better not start up again! Good luck

Western Standard

Once the whole cartoon thing happened, I decided to subscribe to the Western Standard. I just wanted to say I am completely happy with my decision and urge others to do the same. I didn't subscribe just to reward them for reporting a major news story, but because they were the only one willing to do so. Every major media outlet in Canada should have done the same. It is hard to get perspective on a story about cartoons without showing the cartoons. The Standard has a lot of great articles written from people with great perspectives (from the right to the further right at least!). They don't pander to the Conservative Party either, if the CPC is wrong, they are not afraid to call them out, such as with the recent article by David Warren in the March 27th issue being highly critical of Peter MacKay. I am certainly Conservative, but I am more loyal to advancing freedom than I am to a political party, and the Western Standard does a great job holding the Conservative Party to this. After this year is over, I plan to renew my subscription. My only regret is that I missed out on the first two years of the publication!

Americans Hate Me

Disclaimer: I usually don't talk about atheism here as this is not a blog about that sort of thing, but many other bloggers talk about their faith in some way or another. I feel I'm allowed to do one post on atheism in the 1.5 years this blog has existed.

Atheists seems to be the most hated group in America, according to the new study talked about here and here. Atheists are the least trusted group in all of the US. They even found that Americans are least likely to let their children marry atheists, even less likely than homosexuals! I have nothing at all against gay people, but 5% (or something) people being gay, those 95% of parents with straight kids would be happier with their child marrying someone of the same sex than atheists. As well, if you think about it, an atheist is closer to a Christian than a Muslim is. Christians are atheist for all gods that aren't theirs, Muslims are atheists for all gods that aren't theirs, while the atheist is in the middle of the believing both are wrong. So it takes two steps to go from Christian to Muslim, but just one step from either to go to atheist!

Penny Edgell, the lead researcher, said atheists are viewed as, "ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves." I do not understand how because I do not believe in anysupernaturall activities, I am viewed as selfish. I am not atheist for any other reason than there is no god. This has nothing to do with not being able to think about anything but myself, that is just a silly argument.

While Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship, said he does not agree with the above statement from Edgell, saying, "Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good." But then he said, "I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god." However, this 2nd quote is the type of reasoning people would use to think atheists are selfish. If you truly believe there is a god, and then you keep saying you are atheist, someone could conclude that you only want to think about yourself instead of ignoring the obvious reality. But trust me, there are people that do not agree there is a god. When I say there is no god, it is true that I am not 100% confident, I think of god as the same as the invisible pink unicorn, in that I cannot prove either does not exist. This is not the same as saying I believe it does exist.

Guns, Dope, and Equality for Ostriches

Does that title just sound like a perfect campaign slogan? Well a party has it, the Guns and Dope Party!

We advocate
[1] guns for those who want them, no guns forced on those who don't want them (pacfists, Quakers etc.)
[2] drugs for those who want them, no drugs forced on those who don't want them (Christian Scientists etc.)
[3] an end to Tsarism and a return to constitutional democracy
[4] equal rights for ostriches.

Those are some solid core principals. You may be saying, "Well I'm all good with the guns and dope, but ostriches?" Well think about it, one third of all elected officials randomly replaced by ostriches could be good for this, or any, country. Not counting the possibility of an ostrich attack in parliament (which should be good enough reason on its own, but you aren't convinced read on), but this limits the power a politician can have. They may be replaced by an ostrich at any time! It will always keep them trying to fight for the people that elected them at all times since they may be randomly selected to be gone.

Going back to the ostrich attacks. The potential for ostrich attacks will make CPAC the highest rated channel on TV. Networks will be scrambling to provide live coverage of everything from committee meetings to budget readings. This means more accountability! The average Canadian doesn't know what these politicians actually do, but this won't be the case here. Upset about people watching too much American Idol or Survivor, well now citizens will be informed!

I'm not sure how this relates to policy, but I do enjoy this:

GUNS AND DOPE PARTY POSITION PAPER #23

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another.
After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

McCartney Makes My Blood Boil!

I'm watching Larry King with Paul McCartney on it, and I am more upset now than I have ever been watching a stupid celebrity come out against any issue. This may be because it is about my country when he isn't even from here, or maybe it is just the sheer stupidity of McCartney and his wife.

Danny Williams did a very good job defending the seal hunt, but he has everything stacked against him. The McCartney's had about half the show completely uninterrupted, then when Williams comes on you get the McCartney's chiming in after every one of his sentences. Williams is truly showing them to be ignorant of this situation, I'm hoping all viewers can see this.

All of the arguments the McCartney's say are simply ridiculous, and Danny Williams tried to combat a lot of them, but it was hard when they get over twice his time plus they are arguing things that are simply facts. What I take offense to is when the McCartney's say the federal government should be buying out the sealers so they will stop doing it. He is promising our money for his cause. He has a billion dollars, if he feels so strongly about this, why doesn't he buy out the sealers? He claims each sealer barley makes more than a $1000 anyways (and yes, this figure is crap, but he believes it), so he can clearly afford this, at least in his mind.

Goodbye Harry Browne

Freedom lost a great leader this week, former Libertarian Presidental candidate Harry Brown. I won't write much about him because I could never come close to sounding as good as he did. Here are some of my favourite quotes from Harry Browne, I'm sure there are many others I may have missed though:

In my experience, people who are truly compassionate rarely use the word 'compassion' Those who do talk compassion generally intend to be compassionate with your money, not their own. It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that 'compassion.'

You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad - in fact, to do anything it wants.

The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do - by yourself, upon your own initiative.

The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.

Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free.

You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose.

The first step in freeing yourself from social restrictions is the realization that there is no such thing as a "safe" code of conduct - one that would earn everyone's approval. Your actions can always be condemned by someone - for being too bold or too apathetic, for being too conformist or too nonconformist, for being too liberal or too conservative. So it's necessary to decide whose approval is important to you.

You are where you are today because you have chosen to be there.

If you own a business you should be able to hire whoever you choose. And if you don’t, what should happen? Absolutely nothing. Race as an issue in hiring usually backfires - you’re closing off potential talent. If a company is stupid enough to follow that policy, have at it.

A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.

Everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his act are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it.

A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot -because the first leads inevitably to the second.

The government is good at one thing...it knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say 'see if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk.'

Some people say that Libertarians want anarchy. But anarchy is what we have now. Our cities aren't safe, our schools are centers of violence, the politicians have turned the rule of law into a chaotic web of millions of regulations and mandates. Libertarians want to restore order by removing, wherever possible, the destabilizing influence of government.

The problem with politics isn't the money, it's the power. So long as politicians have the power to grant favors, exemptions, and business protection, people will find some way to subvert them -- if not with money now, then with promises to take care of them later. The only way we will clean up campaign financing is by taking power away from the politicians -- reducing the federal government to just the functions specified in the Constitution.

Conservatives say the government can't end poverty by force, but they believe it can use force to make people moral. Liberals say government can't make people be moral, but they believe it can end poverty. Neither group attempts to explain why government is so clumsy and destructive in one area but a paragon of efficiency and benevolence in the other.

There are no violent gangs fighting over aspirin territories. There are no violent gangs fighting over whisky territories or computer territories or anything else that's legal. There are only criminal gangs fighting over territories covering drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. Making a non-violent activity a crime creates a black market, which attracts criminals and gangs, which turns what was once a relatively harmless activity affecting a small group of people into a widespread epidemic of drug use and gang warfare.

The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.

Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free.

Robert Bork has said that Libertarians have an unrealistic "sweet view of human nature," and that is why they oppose government attempts to impose morality. He has this matter precisely backward. It is because there are evil, incompetent people in the world that we must never give government the power to enforce morality, economic equality, or any other social goal. The coercive power of government is always a beacon to those who want to dominate others -- summoning the worst dregs of society to Washington to use that power to impose their will upon others.

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself.

I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience.

It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion."

Whatever the issue, let freedom offer us a hundred choices, instead of having government force one answer on everyone.

I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.

Immigrants used to come to America seeking freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from government. Now they come looking for free health care, free education, and a free lunch.

Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats.

In almost all matters, the real question should be: why are we letting government handle this?

The seeds of today's runaway government were planted when it was decided that government should help those who can't help themselves. From that modest, compassionate beginning to today's out-of-control mega-state, there's a straight, unbroken line. Once the door was open, once it was settled that the government should help some people at the expense of others, there was no stopping it.

The problem is big government. If whoever controls government can impose his way upon you, you have to fight constantly to prevent the control from being harmful. With small, limited government, it doesn’t much matter who controls it, because it can’t do you much harm.

Jeopardy Stupidity

The one game show that annoys me the most is Jeopardy. These people are all supposed to be smart, yet they are so stupid when they bet in Final Jeopardy. People are just as stupid in the Price Is Right, but at least we expect them to not be potential Mensa members.

Today's show, the amount each contestant has is $4600, $8000, $9500.

Here is how each one should bet: If you have $4600, you have no chance to win if the others get the answer correct, so there is no point to bet anything here. He got the question right, but bet it all. He was lucky here. If the others get the question right, he still doesn't win, but he risked way too much.

The guy in 2nd place, with $8000, should be betting enough to double the 3rd place contestant as long as it is still higher than 1st place. He bet $6600, which was also too much. The 3rd place contestant could have, at best, got to $9200 so he should be betting $1201. He got question wrong anyways, but still a stupid bet.

The lady in first place, with $9500, should be betting enough to double the 2nd place contestant in case he gets the answer right and bets it all. She bet $6499, which would give her $15999 if she was right. This is stupid! She needed to bet $2 more than that. The extra $2 would probably not cost her anything if everyone was wrong, but if they both were right she'd lose. She got answer wrong, so it didn't end up mattering.

Three contestants, three wagers that do not make any sense. Only the smartest people on Jeopardy!