Politics, elections have become Picking the Lesser Weevil. Here in Alberta, we are likely to vote for provincial and federal elections this year. It is much cleaner here than the US gong show, but it is not that great either.
Provincially, the issue could be pipelines, access to markets for the oil. It is all about convincing others to allow a pipeline to tide water to be built. Beyond our control, so we can do much, but we cannot force. Additional capacity is required to fund the governments, to provide the economic drivers. So who will do the best at this? Well, who knows? Anyway, they will try, but what should the issue be? Overpopulation of the world, carbon dioxide rise, or maintaining our economic place in the world? It will take tremendous political will to address this real issue, but I do not see anyone stepping up to lead the fight. It will be a losing battle, an information battle, for many years, until things get much worse. Nobody cares. It is seen either as just false or a battle no one can win, so it is unable to get much traction. Oh well, it is real.
So carbon tax may be the big new revenue source for the province. It is a tax on a physical need, so consumption is not heavily dependent on the price. Well, except in rare cases, is there a choice. It is not about identifying the actual issue and addressing that issue, but keeping the governments going. Not even about the economy. It is about funding the government now. Government by the rich for the rich, both at the provincial level and the federal level.
Trudeau II, got into power by claiming to support natives, immigrants, government reform, political reform. Although he has done government, he is short on delivery of much real change, much real reform. He has been up to his neck in administration, and little in taking the country to be a world leader in anything, but he has kept us out of conflicts... well sort of. He has not communicated his version of what Canada should look like; and what he has, like native and immigrants, has not been well received. He has lost support in these areas, but will that translate into loss of votes? There is not a viable choice.
Multiculturalism is crap according to many. Everyone is bigoted to some extent. So what are the chances of a identifiable minority leader gaining support? Considering Trudeau II is the best the liberals have to offer, the Conservative is an asshole, and the NDP is a trubin wearing individual, we are likely to be stuck with more Trudeau II, perhaps a minority though.
Most of the time the election will have been decided before the poles close here, but oh well, we will have a bit of a say. We are left with what I feel is a poor choices... who among the good would want to take the abuse that politicians get. It is just ugly. So what do I suggest... Speak out, speak up, and perhaps someone can be found. It is done. Hail All.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
US Train Wreck
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/23/sarah-huckabee-sanders-dismisses-climate-change-in-favor-of-a-higher-authority/
Just for reference.
As we watch this US train wreck happening, can you imagine a worse voice than Sanders... Well I can, Miss Trileven (sp?) in grade seven, eight, nine. She was gone one year and came back on the other side of the desk. Such a screechy voice... like Sanders, but higher. The screech hawk.
Well, Sanders world view, god centered ignore climate change, deal with the imaginary crisis, rather than defining and addressing the real problem, overpopulation both world and the US. It is the ego of Trump that will not listen to advice of those in the know, that is producing this current problem. Oh well, there will be another election in 21 months or so... And I do not live in the US, so there. But Trump is causing issues with immigration in Canada, which is also full.
So if she is so far out to lunch on these two issues, why would I even try to make sense of what she has to say?
Just for reference.
As we watch this US train wreck happening, can you imagine a worse voice than Sanders... Well I can, Miss Trileven (sp?) in grade seven, eight, nine. She was gone one year and came back on the other side of the desk. Such a screechy voice... like Sanders, but higher. The screech hawk.
Well, Sanders world view, god centered ignore climate change, deal with the imaginary crisis, rather than defining and addressing the real problem, overpopulation both world and the US. It is the ego of Trump that will not listen to advice of those in the know, that is producing this current problem. Oh well, there will be another election in 21 months or so... And I do not live in the US, so there. But Trump is causing issues with immigration in Canada, which is also full.
So if she is so far out to lunch on these two issues, why would I even try to make sense of what she has to say?
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Is Trump a Russian Asset?
The FBI seem to think that he is behaving like one and opened an investigation. Meetings with Putin, of unknown content, do not reduce the questions. Calling on Russia to find Hillary's emails, and aid with the election. It is specious. NATO beating, also better for Russia than the US. Pull out of Syria, letting Russia in. The question "is Trump a Russian Asset" must be asked.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
What is Truth?
What is truth? Reflection for my own self clarification...
The question arises form how do we tell if something is true. Religions, all of them claim to be true, yet there is much that is mutually exclusive. We therefore need to separate being true from the claim. An objective test for truth would be ideal, but that is not likely; science is as close as it comes, the evidence said so, or it must be that way for x to happen, unless you have a better explanation for all the data. One negative negates. It takes many positives to confirm, until a better concept comes along. We ratchet toward facts and truth, in a similar way as we ratchet toward better designs.
It is the criteria that we judge a design by that we test against. But with designs, the criteria changes. Truth should be long lasting. We can make a Chretien type proof, if it is true it is because we have proof that it is true, then it is true because we have proof. Not helpful. It is all about criteria.
When we here a statement perhaps it should be placed into abayence first, and then tested. Is it important? If yes, consider it more, if no, than ignore it or keep it in abayence. It does not matter. Back to important; does it conflict with present beliefs? That is the big sticker, for if it comes down to conflict/mutual exclusion/cognitive dissonance situation, most of the time the individual will stick with what they know, even if it is wrong. It is their loss.
If we start with the basic principal of equality, even the wrong have the right to believe wrong shit, even when it is damaging to themselves. Do they have the right to spread their misconceptions to others? In our current environment, yes. Philosophically, they should not have such a right. That is almost obvious. It is obvious that false information should not be spread to future generations. That is one reason why it is important to come to know the truth. The big issue is how do we test for truth?
Traditionally, we have accepted historical/cultural norms, but when these norms become mutually exclusive, one or both is just wrong. We are left with levering off some principal, or random generation/test for best against some criteria, or we can take a new look at the evidence.
When we place this argument in front of the religious, they usually walk off in a huff. Oh well. Shunning has long been a religious practice, mainly to protect the group. There was no concern for the out of group people. No understanding, no compassion, no contact. But government cannot do that, for the disenfranchised and never were franchised still live here, and must be cared fore, else they band together and rise up and smite a might blow on the government. Sorry, but you get the drift. We, the shunned, also have voice. If those about us do not change, we can move on to a new group... well until we run out of people.
Philosophy does not provide answers but it frequently changes the questions, or moves the discussion along. We should not teach the young wrong stuff, so we must examine what we teach, and teach the questions along with the possible choices. Teachers do not like those who question too much, so philosophy is not taught in schools. It should be taught in high school; logic in 10, ethics in 11, epistemology in 12. But life goes on. It is done. Hail all.
The question arises form how do we tell if something is true. Religions, all of them claim to be true, yet there is much that is mutually exclusive. We therefore need to separate being true from the claim. An objective test for truth would be ideal, but that is not likely; science is as close as it comes, the evidence said so, or it must be that way for x to happen, unless you have a better explanation for all the data. One negative negates. It takes many positives to confirm, until a better concept comes along. We ratchet toward facts and truth, in a similar way as we ratchet toward better designs.
It is the criteria that we judge a design by that we test against. But with designs, the criteria changes. Truth should be long lasting. We can make a Chretien type proof, if it is true it is because we have proof that it is true, then it is true because we have proof. Not helpful. It is all about criteria.
When we here a statement perhaps it should be placed into abayence first, and then tested. Is it important? If yes, consider it more, if no, than ignore it or keep it in abayence. It does not matter. Back to important; does it conflict with present beliefs? That is the big sticker, for if it comes down to conflict/mutual exclusion/cognitive dissonance situation, most of the time the individual will stick with what they know, even if it is wrong. It is their loss.
If we start with the basic principal of equality, even the wrong have the right to believe wrong shit, even when it is damaging to themselves. Do they have the right to spread their misconceptions to others? In our current environment, yes. Philosophically, they should not have such a right. That is almost obvious. It is obvious that false information should not be spread to future generations. That is one reason why it is important to come to know the truth. The big issue is how do we test for truth?
Traditionally, we have accepted historical/cultural norms, but when these norms become mutually exclusive, one or both is just wrong. We are left with levering off some principal, or random generation/test for best against some criteria, or we can take a new look at the evidence.
When we place this argument in front of the religious, they usually walk off in a huff. Oh well. Shunning has long been a religious practice, mainly to protect the group. There was no concern for the out of group people. No understanding, no compassion, no contact. But government cannot do that, for the disenfranchised and never were franchised still live here, and must be cared fore, else they band together and rise up and smite a might blow on the government. Sorry, but you get the drift. We, the shunned, also have voice. If those about us do not change, we can move on to a new group... well until we run out of people.
Philosophy does not provide answers but it frequently changes the questions, or moves the discussion along. We should not teach the young wrong stuff, so we must examine what we teach, and teach the questions along with the possible choices. Teachers do not like those who question too much, so philosophy is not taught in schools. It should be taught in high school; logic in 10, ethics in 11, epistemology in 12. But life goes on. It is done. Hail all.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
By Choice or Indecision
As Seneca said so long ago, wherever he went, voluntarily or in exile, he found people living by choice or indecision. So not making a decision is in a way a decision; but realty it suggest a false dichotomy, for really it is a trichotomy, to not make a decision, aka never consider the question, is not the same as making a considered decision to leave or to stay, not the same as to go a specific place. Split hairs... is the way of philosophy... western culture since the Greeks invented philosophy.
Buddha handled this all differently; he left everything up to the individual to decide. Examine it, turn it over in your own mind, and if it stands up, adopt it and live up to it. The individual was responsible, and thereby had a duty to self, within their own society. Forms and consciousness was not of concern; life was, physical life that is.
Great philosophers live in the shadow of their own cultures, just as we live in our current electronic-internet-isolationist-mixed tradition- jumbled- impermanent- rapid change- electronic communication- political motivated- irrational -erratic -confused culture. Try to make sense of our culture is not just moving goal posts, but multiple goal post, that change after the goal is made. We have no fixed culture, no common goals, no common ideology, no coherent national direction. We have a mesh-mash of liberal/conservative views, living on borrowed money, depending on others to pay it back, in a society and economy that is not rationally sustainable. The only question is, like death, when will all this coming crashing down.
So the Greeks were great talkers/writers/academics and the Buddhist lived in a monastical environment. So what is in common, and why does it fit together so nicely. It all comes down to the individual is left making the decisions about how they are going to live, because, despite all the discussion and analysis, in the end, philosophy seems to never really come to a conclusion on so many things.
Consider ethics. The philosophers have though of a bunch of different ways to make the decisions, and we are left with nothing better, clearer nor more in any way then the Buddhist compassion, equality, and consideration. Virtues, categorical imperatives, existentialism, utilitarianism, whatever, results in nothing better, as ultimately, it is the individual that must decide. Ideology cannot prescribe, that is just one human lording it over another. That cannot work if we are all equal. It is just one more ideology. Consider the situation in the US with the "pledge of alliance" in schools. One group of asshats lording it over another equal group. There is no equality there.
So they can decide to stay or go, and in an overpopulated world, it does not matter where they go, there will be conflict, as we all strive for our space. There is not a solution beyond a one child policy that can equatable reduce population to a reasonable level, constant to slightly declining Co2 level, then a two child policy. It is done. In the end we all just die anyway. Hail all.
Buddha handled this all differently; he left everything up to the individual to decide. Examine it, turn it over in your own mind, and if it stands up, adopt it and live up to it. The individual was responsible, and thereby had a duty to self, within their own society. Forms and consciousness was not of concern; life was, physical life that is.
Great philosophers live in the shadow of their own cultures, just as we live in our current electronic-internet-isolationist-mixed tradition- jumbled- impermanent- rapid change- electronic communication- political motivated- irrational -erratic -confused culture. Try to make sense of our culture is not just moving goal posts, but multiple goal post, that change after the goal is made. We have no fixed culture, no common goals, no common ideology, no coherent national direction. We have a mesh-mash of liberal/conservative views, living on borrowed money, depending on others to pay it back, in a society and economy that is not rationally sustainable. The only question is, like death, when will all this coming crashing down.
So the Greeks were great talkers/writers/academics and the Buddhist lived in a monastical environment. So what is in common, and why does it fit together so nicely. It all comes down to the individual is left making the decisions about how they are going to live, because, despite all the discussion and analysis, in the end, philosophy seems to never really come to a conclusion on so many things.
Consider ethics. The philosophers have though of a bunch of different ways to make the decisions, and we are left with nothing better, clearer nor more in any way then the Buddhist compassion, equality, and consideration. Virtues, categorical imperatives, existentialism, utilitarianism, whatever, results in nothing better, as ultimately, it is the individual that must decide. Ideology cannot prescribe, that is just one human lording it over another. That cannot work if we are all equal. It is just one more ideology. Consider the situation in the US with the "pledge of alliance" in schools. One group of asshats lording it over another equal group. There is no equality there.
So they can decide to stay or go, and in an overpopulated world, it does not matter where they go, there will be conflict, as we all strive for our space. There is not a solution beyond a one child policy that can equatable reduce population to a reasonable level, constant to slightly declining Co2 level, then a two child policy. It is done. In the end we all just die anyway. Hail all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)