Environmental Idea #1

If Canada is serious about making environmentally-friendly changes to its economy, and fulfilling its Kyoto "commitments" - which is about as likely as China going Green in the 21st century - it needs to make changes rather more drastic than simply a carbon tax. Alberta and Saskatchewan produce 40% of greenhouse gases, sure; but the other 60% has to do something too. Carbon taxes do not decrease our depedency on energy or replace our CO2-producing energy sources. Perhaps we should look at replacing the coal energy in Alberta and Ontario with nuclear or something.

I propose the greatest recycling facility ever built. It will appease the mother-factory instinct in socialist Canadians and enjoy the benefit of turning a profit from garbage the only way one can: in large doses. It should be a universal facility with the ability to smelt and process any material, and then it should make hybrid and hydrogen cars out of recycled materials, creating the world's most environmental - and oh so fashionable - car. How about adding furniture and building materials to the list of recycled products. If you make the facility big enough, you can reduce the impact of waste and improve the carbon footprint of vehicles on the road more tha by any other means currently proposed. Such products would surely have appeal all over the world, wherever they are affordable.

If liberals - who rarely come up with ideas like this - could embrace attempting to turn a profit and preserving aspects of our economy that make us rich, they might be able to get everyone to care about the environment, all the time. In fact, if it is not Canada's policy to make Canadians' dollars go as far as possible with every decision, then they are squandering public wealth and violatingtheir fiduciary duty, as far as I'm concerned. That's why we should pay off the debt and then use the $35 billion/year we get back to invest in products like recycling plants - if we ever intend to make a real difference, as opposed to simply attacking oil in this country, out of jealousy or environmental spite.

How are Religion and Science Compatible?

You should read a book by DeDuve called life evolving. It describes how the evolution of RNA was an extended process involving reactions between amino acids and common elements over 150 millions years or so. Hardly an accident. I admit that feel that Christianity has become shortsighted in not embracing a rather obvious theology - that God created the laws of the universe to create life, which naturally results in evolution and eventually intelligence. It would be a brilliant design, and provide for the development of life anywhere in the universe.

It also allows for an explanation of humanity that can be embraced by atheists, which gives people a choice about whether they want to believe or not. If there was evidence of instant human creation, the required courageous leap of faith to believe in God wouldn't be necessary - there would be evidence. By my understanding, God doesn't want you to know of his existence except for in your heart. If you knew God existed, it would destroy free will, because you would feel compelled to be good. It has to be a choice borne of noble sentiment. This is how the worthy are separated from the unworthy.

Some Priority Ideas for Canada and the World, While We're Rich

1. Get the Provinces and the Feds to team up to conquer provincial and national debt. Start with the provinces, and then take their debt service payments and apply them to the federal debt. If we keep the budget steady, and apply all increases in the economy (providing our manufacturing sector doesn't bottom out), it will take less than 20 years to make this nation debt-free. Possibly as few as 15. Try the math.

2. Space elevator. Let's do it. We can get rid of waste (just shoot/drop it into the sun), set up nuclear reactors less likely to overheat, solar arrays, and build real space developments such as large spacecraft for exploration, freighters and robotic mining craft that can plomb the unlimited resources of moons or asteroid belts. Best way to save the environment and gain resources and manufacturing. Sure, it's a few years off, but we the sooner we start, ...

3. Nuclear reactors. Diversify Albertan economy while the world wants to give us money. They say that oil could be such scarcer in 65 years. That's very close. Alberta is going to need a fallback economy for lean times in any event - how about technology manufacture and nuclear power.

4. Teach way more history, literature and theoretical science in school. I'm tired of our crappy culture with PhD's who can't spell or speak English. I oughta know. How about extending school until the age of 20, speeding it up, dropping the excessive math and sciences (which they can take in university if they are interested - I'm not saying get rid of it, just trim it back - these courses eat up 1/2 of our school time, and meanwhile our children don' know world geography or history, can't quote an author who lived before 1980, and think everyone who lived before 1980 was evil and stupid. This kind of ignorance is unacceptable. Strong language skills are at the heart of culture, intelligence and sophistication), and tacking on an automatic degree in arts. It's a necessity these days anyways, and public school delivers a pathetic amount of actual academic training and knowledge. Maybe let them make it a science degree if that's their preference.

5. How about 2 years of mandatory employment after that point, 20-22, so that no youngsters slip through the cracks and we trim down on our greedy government union employees by replacing them with these kids. Give the kids a wage, assure them 40,000 in cold hard cash when they are done, and everyone has comparable and respectable administrative experience, a degree, some maturity and no excuses. Let's get rid of some debt in this country.

6. Let kids out of this plan at 18 if they want to do trade work. Fund a significant portion of it. Germany's not so dumb.

7. Like the ancient Greeks, let's promote the arts and give significant awards for artistic works of high and skilled quality, not political merit if possible. These measures by Parmenides resulted in Greece's Golden age and the great artists, such as Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles.

8. Children will require more of a Renaissance-type education if they want they skill to accomplish #7. This requires doing away with Postmodernism, that intellectual dead-end which is consuming all of our university resources in the humanities. I'll justify that statement in another piece. Let's go back to the classics so people can learn where they come from, who they are, and they meaning of eloquence and insight. Political correctness stands directly opposed to these things.

9. More to come.

The True Origins and Meaning of the Left

The left is 100% about those without power in the West who wish to acquire it through rhetoric - and in their way stands Christianity, among other things. This line gets very complex, but in short is mostly about certain white people who do not like other white people, and who appropriate the causes of minorities to challenge reigning authorities in the west who oppose them. Ultimately, the "left" is anti-religious/athiest (because it wishes control over people), but focuses on Christianity not only out of convenience, but first because you need to take down the big fish before you can worry about the rest, who will presumably follow suit anyhow. No other religions in the West have anywhere near the power that Christianity does, and so they may be held aloft as causes until the time comes to take care of them too.

Where it gets creepy is when you notice that this has been going on for much longer than the life of Christianity - most noticeably, back to the Sophists - and consists of challenging not only Christianity but authority itself in the forms of reason, merit and wealth. Communism is much older than Marx, and is really just an expression of tyranny and political lust. Political bullies have always been with us, and in their way stands independence, wealth, and intelligence. Every anti-utopian work ever written is about these people. Utopianists are those who offer an unreal portrait of political perfection in order to justify their own supremacy, and are, I have learned, inherently liars. Control freaks = liars = tyrants, and their philosophy has always been the same - there is no such thing as truth, freedom is a product of control (instead of faith in human nature, or God's plan, for example), and people are inherently untrustworthy and must be controlled through strict laws - from the brutal legalists of ancient China to postmodernists, from sophists to communists, from Draco to Nationalist Socialism - all the same spirit, with varying expressions by context.

It really seems to be those who are envious of others' abilities and status, who wish to rob them of it. Tyrants imagine that the best way to control people is rob them of their identity and IQ - which sort of implies that they are jealous of these things - by erasing history, dumbing people down and convincing them that there is no such thing as free will. People are programmed and do not make choices, they argue, therefore you must program them to be obedient to laws. You should see the movie Rollerball (1975). It is not a coincidence that Christianity argues that God wants us to have free will, and that God helps those who help themselves. And I'm not even Christian! As the ancient Greeks observed, politics is a projection of personality and personality problems. The political is personal, in other words, not the other way around.

Eugenics

In response to The Eugenics Temptation, By Michael Gerson, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/equality_over_perfection.html , who argues both sides of abortions to prevent disabilities.

By the sounds of it, eugenics is already a fait accompli thanks to abortions. How long can a population keep destroying 90% of down syndrome foetuses, unless it is so deeply ingrained in our DNa that we can never really get rid of it at all? We have much to learn about genetics. Abortion is the West's answer to infanticide, but both accomplish the same thing - getting rid of unwanted children, or genes. Given that animals have a tendency to disown runts and eat their young, this may well simply be a modern subconscious expression of a natural drive.

Of course those who are disabled are grateful to have lived - but what of all of the foetuses and antifanticides that have already been executed? You can't defend the existence of disabilities, if they, as the article suggests, are going to increasingly put disabled people on the margins of society, simply because there are living people with disabilities. People have already establishd their right to abort unwanted foetuses, which means that eugenics is already occurring in mass numbers.

I think one day we'll realize that both right and left by their actions already condone social engineering, either through abortion or education. And those who have not been born will not miss their lives. Is there an egalitarian duty to perpetuate disabilities? Why so, if we can abort children because we do not even have the economic means to support them? Of course, where the slippery slope ends is a big question.

Global Cooling

Maybe one day warming will cause as many deaths as cooling - the last ice age killed off 70 genera, 7 families and one entire order of life (15,000-8000 BC. Shortly after which, civilization exploded. I guess the only humans left were smart ones). Apart from that, temperature goes up and down all the time on earth. Extinctions are not so bad - they have been happening all the time since the dawn of time. Life will just make new life forms to replace them. It's all part of evolution. Not even really that sad when you think that all of the life forms we try to protect today will be gone in a few million years anyway.

Introduction

I am a law student who does not belief that the law saves people.

I believe that people must be taught to be dependent on their own jugdement, for better of for worse. The alternative, speaking in grand philosophical terms, is deference to social consensus, which has a tendency to steer us away from our original thoughts. These are our most precious resource, and unknown to students of linguistics, owe their origins to something quite separate than Language.

I am not religious, in any conventional sense. But I understand that people are as perfect as they ought to be with their flaws as much as without, and those who seek to purify the human race are only people with a cruel subconscious tendency to suppress natural human emotions and conduct. They do not like what they see inside themselves, and then project it onto the world where they want to remedy all People of the flaws they feel inside themselves.

I distinguish between "genuine", "naive", and "affected" liberals. Genuine liberals do not like violence and oppression and are moved by plight, constantly seeking to improve our humanitarian instincts. Naive Liberals do not realize their vanity controls their behaviour, and are at the whim of social consensus and media pressure. Affected liberals argue for the integrity of a system through criticizing others, while they themselves, for some fateful and unknown reason, feel at liberty to distort truth and "smear" opponents, using rhetorical bullying tactics that are designed to manipulate the mob from the suckers at the bottom to the academics at the top. It is no coincidence, I have discovered, that people who argue against reason are in a violent spiritual war to destroy the integrity of sanity in society - so that they might be forever "safe" in the hands of their own flawless control. Perfectionists, academics, journalists and activists - many have a chip on their shoulder that they project onto the world, informing others of their inferiority, the meanwhile unaware that their critical voice is actually the one that they hear in their head, and which constantly bullies them and makes them feel as though they are "bad".

Humanity needs to feel as though it is good, without being perfect - this is the goal of psychotherapy. Affected Liberalism seeks to make humanity feel as though it is never good enough through identifying our shortcomings as social beings, or inventing them, somehow making all people feel responsible for the past or present, which is well out of our control.

In order for people to have control, they must identify their own feelings of happiness, and the "badness" they feel inside themselves. This is something that affected Liberalism can never admit - that its adherents could be bad-natured in some way. This leads to repression and projection and an endless search for the origins of the feelings of badness which propel the liberal imagination. The search outside themselves for what they do not have the strength to identify in themselves. "Badness" is a social construct, they say - and deftly dismiss any need to investige the shadow within themselves, which is where we find the truth of who we really are, among our deepest fears. Undoubtedly fear of abandonment is a strong motivation to create overbearing social cohesion. Emotional isolation and moral relativism are identical.

If I could choose a mission, it would be to point out the irrationality of affected Liberal discourse, so that one day people might develop the skill to perceive where our "extra" emotional input comes from, and drives us towards bias to which even we are blind. If we teach ourselves to pay attention to our feelings, we will discover that we can figure our their meaning - and it means that people are capable of behaving as though they are obeying laws without needing to be forced. This is the ideal state for humans, and the sacrifice of security is offset by the wisdom necessary to perceive unhealthy feelings before they develop into a "folie de deux", as the psychotherapists say, or into Fashion Victimization, in my lingo, which substitutes peer pressure for independent thought through abusing people's self-esteem until they are trained to do it themselves, and create an Empire of Insecurity. This exlpains the viciousness of the Affected Liberal mentality.