Saturday, February 21, 2015

What is an Extremest?

Much loved in there day.
What is an Extremest?

Bill C-51 tries to answer that in a generic way. It calls or outlines anyone who is against the government's wishes an extremest. That makes me an extremest. Harper is just out to lunch, but he does not have the funding to identify all the people who are against his "belief system and values". We are just too many. What he need to limit himself to is those who have the capacity and willingness, even the inclination to become violent, and more importantly anyone who councils violence, or even descent from his expressed values.  Reference:

So what are his values? Certainly not for the common man, but for his employer and big business. Those control the economy and government. Small business, where most people are employed, are so regulated that it has chocked out many, and is making life difficult for more. It needs to either be medium sized and growing or gone. That is just not right. Many specialty business just do not have the market.

This suggest Bill C-51 can be used against anyone the government dislikes. Not good situation.

Is anyone who wears a head or face covering an extremest?
Harper seems to think so. It certainly displays distrust, and contributes to self isolation. They hold themselves separate from our society. That is an open display of prejudice against the masses. It is that isolation that makes, we the people, nervous.They are the unknown and want to keep it that way. There beliefs and values have ossified. These people are unknown, and keeping them separate from the masses. This can lead nowhere but to violence. 

But what do I know?

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Generation of possibilities

Peace River, a hill on the move.

I need to do something more. Most of what I know has been written about somewhere. I could put together articles on various little soils related subjects. Would anyone read it? Does that matter? It would be the right thing to do, to pass on the accumulated knowledge specific subjects. There is nothing new, not written about elsewhere, just one more version of the same thing.

Would anybody care?

Tuesday, February 3, 2015


Fake pigeons, I do not know why. Is it a statement of what someone (the artist) things of the US Washington Monument? 

Seligman makes the case that in order to flourish in life, we needs positive emotion, but ignores a mission(s) or purpose(s). (Be aware of the newfiism) An expressed mission provide positive emotion so that we may know without any uncertainty if we are on track. The expression of that positive emotion and mission may help. That mission must have meaning to us and we are therefore engaged in it. We have commitment. Achievement, if fate permits, with accompanying satisfaction and stoic mental joy is typical. He also says we need positive relationships. So how does one have a positive relationship with a negative person? And what to do if it is a familiar relationship that we cannot run from?

The Stoics think "virtue" is a suitable mission, or to develop virtue in life. Most any virtues will do. The typical virtues are grouped as wisdom, self control, courage, and justice or prudence, temperance, justice, courage, persistence, compassion to produce orthogonal space sort of. That is all that is necessary and sufficient for a good life.

Is it enough that we have a plan and we are moving toward something rather than away? I was raised poor, and my first objective was to get out. Then, I started to move toward a career. Now that career is over, but I still need something to move toward. 

It is all good to separate positive relationships out, active or passive responses, constructive or destructive responses, but how do we deal with a general negative person, or negative toward me at least? Abandon and walk away? Just shut down around them? Ignore them, shut them out? Avoid prolonged contact? I do not know. We cannot abandon these negative people and consider ourselves to be compassionate, but we cannot let them drag us down either. It is what it is.