Saturday, November 30, 2019
Thursday, October 17, 2019
How I am voting this election
Cathy, Terry - not the issue.
I voted for Cathy several elections running, I believe her service to be excellent and effective. I know Terry and find him an agreeable person. So my decision is absent consideration for either of these two individuals, both are competent. Nor am I a rampant partisan, all things being equal I'll vote conservative due to a long family history with the party, however, for example, I was excited about John Turner, Paul Martin's leadership of the Liberal Party and found much of what Jean Chretien did agreeable. I am voting Conservative again and I am asking you to.
The most critical argument in my case for the Conservative Party is, above all, government procurement processes must be honest, transparent and adhere to the highest ethical principles. The judicial system must be independent. No matter the short term cost, people or entities that seek through graft, violence or political influence to corrupt government procurement or process anywhere must be brought to heel AND under no circumstance can government be in league with or seen to be in league with corrupt operators. It is my belief the present Liberal government has been attached to corrupt parties and as such, they have lost my confidence.
I was excited about the Liberal commitment to infrastructure spending, I have nothing of significance to point to in the way of smart infrastructure now. What has replaced smart infrastructure is too much and bad spending. There has been a rapid increase in "bad debt", no increase in accountability and the election has exposed a readiness to deploy the pork barrel.
One can argue as to the validity of many of the assertions of the climate activists. If one assumes, then, that fossil fuel use must be curtailed Carbon Tax fails. Carbon Tax is just stupid policy - period. One hundred years of price sensitivity analysis tells the truth, absent product fungibility the demand for fuel is inelastic - Carbon Tax punishes marginal actors in society, beats up commodity producers like farmers AND does nothing.
The Supreme Court of Canada gave direction on death with dignity (DWD) legislation, it was clear we have the constitutional right to direct the end of our lives as we see fit. By failing to allow for prior directives and by placing the decision to execute in the hands of medical professionals rather than in the hands of affected individuals, and failing to offer judicial process to oversee the wishes of individuals; the government has created a dangerous situation.
Finally, the Liberals chose to raise the issue of gun control again - gun control has been a long-standing cultural differentiation tool the Liberals use to define us (Canada) as being different from them (US). They have incited an inaccurate perception of gun ownership and placed fear where none need exist. They once frittered away $2 billion on gun control and now they promise to waste more. It always has been and is again a complete red herring.
If you want greater sensitivity to western needs and concerns, greater fiscal responsibility and a rational approach to resourced development then vote conservative. This seat is more important than it ever has been before. The way the numbers are shaping up, we could end up with a NDP, LIBERAL, GREEN co-operative entity of some sort, I'll let that prospect affect you as it might, we have seen it at work in BC and needlessly, resource development has all but come to a halt.
I voted for Cathy several elections running, I believe her service to be excellent and effective. I know Terry and find him an agreeable person. So my decision is absent consideration for either of these two individuals, both are competent. Nor am I a rampant partisan, all things being equal I'll vote conservative due to a long family history with the party, however, for example, I was excited about John Turner, Paul Martin's leadership of the Liberal Party and found much of what Jean Chretien did agreeable. I am voting Conservative again and I am asking you to.
The most critical argument in my case for the Conservative Party is, above all, government procurement processes must be honest, transparent and adhere to the highest ethical principles. The judicial system must be independent. No matter the short term cost, people or entities that seek through graft, violence or political influence to corrupt government procurement or process anywhere must be brought to heel AND under no circumstance can government be in league with or seen to be in league with corrupt operators. It is my belief the present Liberal government has been attached to corrupt parties and as such, they have lost my confidence.
I was excited about the Liberal commitment to infrastructure spending, I have nothing of significance to point to in the way of smart infrastructure now. What has replaced smart infrastructure is too much and bad spending. There has been a rapid increase in "bad debt", no increase in accountability and the election has exposed a readiness to deploy the pork barrel.
One can argue as to the validity of many of the assertions of the climate activists. If one assumes, then, that fossil fuel use must be curtailed Carbon Tax fails. Carbon Tax is just stupid policy - period. One hundred years of price sensitivity analysis tells the truth, absent product fungibility the demand for fuel is inelastic - Carbon Tax punishes marginal actors in society, beats up commodity producers like farmers AND does nothing.
The Supreme Court of Canada gave direction on death with dignity (DWD) legislation, it was clear we have the constitutional right to direct the end of our lives as we see fit. By failing to allow for prior directives and by placing the decision to execute in the hands of medical professionals rather than in the hands of affected individuals, and failing to offer judicial process to oversee the wishes of individuals; the government has created a dangerous situation.
Finally, the Liberals chose to raise the issue of gun control again - gun control has been a long-standing cultural differentiation tool the Liberals use to define us (Canada) as being different from them (US). They have incited an inaccurate perception of gun ownership and placed fear where none need exist. They once frittered away $2 billion on gun control and now they promise to waste more. It always has been and is again a complete red herring.
If you want greater sensitivity to western needs and concerns, greater fiscal responsibility and a rational approach to resourced development then vote conservative. This seat is more important than it ever has been before. The way the numbers are shaping up, we could end up with a NDP, LIBERAL, GREEN co-operative entity of some sort, I'll let that prospect affect you as it might, we have seen it at work in BC and needlessly, resource development has all but come to a halt.
Friday, June 21, 2019
Small - Ship - Big experience
The backdrop for this business, the west coast of the Americas; in summer the pristine wilderness of British Columbia, in spring and fall the Gallipolis Islands, and in “winter” the west coast of South America.
The ship, a 150’ Cat, big power & fast - 40 knots or better and seaworthy; over the course of a week, this ship provides the ability to hit every premium wilderness destination on the British Columbia Coast. The staterooms offering no perceivable difference from accommodation at the finest hotel, save a superior and ever-changing view. Guest numbers of less than twenty, staffing numbers of twenty. On board a 15 seat helicopter, a two-person submarine, seaworthy small craft for excursions, hot tubs, health centre, premium galley and group sensitive dining facilities.
The people - the captain, marine biologist, activity director, premium culinary staff, health director, guides, pilots … the goal, the most personable, the most accomplished.
This offering is designed from the ground up to be exceptional; an absolutely premium experience in the right place at the right time.
Capital Requirements: $40 Million
Preliminary numbers work, the only requirement for success, of course, is guests, while this market is hard to assess, one assumes this offering to be desirable and very popular.
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Morality – A tricky business
The
contemplation of morality for me starts by considering the presence or absence
of harm that may accrue to me or others by a given action I may take. The complication comes when one is required to
contemplate the degree and nature of harm an action may have relative the
degree of necessity for a given action. The goal of administering morality in
this fashion is to permit me to live my life in a relationship of beneficence
with humanity or in benign coexistence and to avoid inflicting harm or pain on others. Please note the absence of
outside reference for direction in relation to morality, this process at once
drives good and right social discourse and liberates.
Morality is
a means by which to ensure that members of a society can interface harmoniously,
it is a set of rules we voluntarily adhere to. While morality and law often
find themselves in league with each other they are separate and apart – or they
should be. Our legal system has emerged
from a long-standing Judeo-Christian moral complex and then to a lesser degree
perhaps Cannon Law. As this moral
complex has greatly influenced the development of our legal system, the legal
system has come into conflict with secular imperatives; the primary secular
imperative is the FREE and autonomous individual – in Canada this finds expression
in law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the right to life, liberty and
security of person. The correct application
of this law is to permit free people to do as they please absent harm to others
– this is an interpretation that is absent moral consideration in Section 7’s
application save the presence or absence of harm.
A moral-complex that harms is in conflict with the purpose of having morality. By way
of example, there is a clear direction in the Bible to stone homosexuals to
death, in modern society regardless of your view toward homosexuality, the
prospect of stoning someone to death is preposterous. One offers this example as it is extreme and
clear. One can see the harm this example illustrates and in the same way, as an
8000-year-old moral-complex comes up against an increasingly informed society,
one sees adherence to old moral imperatives doing harm. Worse, however, we see harm accruing to people
in direct contradiction of generally accepted morays, sexual abuse by people in a position of authority for example, or matters of consent as it relates to one’s
inherent right to the domain over one’s own mind and body.
The
morality I suggest - based on the contemplation of the presence or absence of
harm - is also supported by honour and integrity. That is to say, we are allowed
to define our association with others as we please – so long as our association
is based on consent – honour provides the imperative to adhere to our agreed
association and integrity ensures we develop the agreement in good faith. This
approach to moral concern permits another’s truth to be as valid as your own
and when there is a conflict between one or more individuals’ or groups’ approach to life,
they can live in benign coexistence, with harm being the only justification for
state intervention.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Peace Initiative.
There needs to be a concerted effort made to communicate the values of liberal democracy, secular democracy and free market-based democracy. Efforts in this regard have been wanting for decades and we're paying a dear price for our negligence. We need to take the initiative to propagandize our very positive worldview and social values. Nowhere, is this effort more important than in the Middle East, where extremism has ravished so many innocent people's lives.
So how then, might we go about the task of improving communications in a manner that is sensitive to religious and cultural concerns, yet promotes our worldview and national values. It is possible, I believe, with a concerted effort over the course of perhaps 20 or 30 years to greatly harmonized the worldview and or narrative across all cultures and jurisdictions of concern. The means by which to do this is to establish a partnership with like-minded nations and begin the concerted effort. In a similar manner that we finance NATO, we could finance this concern. In fact, it could be an extension of NATO, save that it might be viewed in a different light than if it were an actual independent entity.
There could be a joint venture created between the major public broadcasters, the BBC, the ABC, CBC, the public broadcasting Corporation in the US etc. All these entities would be brought together and their considerable in-house talent brought to bear on communicating the values of secularism, free-market liberal democracy and to promote peace.
Contemplate if you will, some trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan, the other military spending and other resources to go to military concern. What I'm suggesting in terms of dollars and cents might be a 40 billion dollar effort. A 40 billion dollar effort with opportunity for cost recovery if we manage the structure of the communication entity properly. This is a pittance when one considers what is at stake. Look into the eyes of your grandchildren and know that our mismanagement will leave them with pain, perhaps death, we may see violence on our own streets unless we attend to the growing challenge of global discord.
OTHER THINKING ON THE SUBJECT
A surging China, a somewhat strident Russia and discord in the Middle East, in combination with other disquieting events in the world, drives the impetus for us to communicate our point of view.
No one begrudges China its success, in fact, one takes a good deal of satisfaction in seeing China's adoption of market modalities grow their economy and their well-being at such a rapid rate. One marvels at China's ingenuity, its infrastructure programs, it's new and progressive stance on the world stage; the new Silk Road for example and so many other initiatives. They have, however, indicated by their actions from time to time, that they are wanting to do more than merely assert their own interests, they seem at times to be challenging the Westphalian imperatives. We need to talk to them, not just their leadership, but to their people too. We need to talk to Russia and Valimere Putin so as to build a good relationship with them, a working relationship. We need to talk to the Middle East in a concerted and effective way.
If we fail to get our message across with words, with music and what other peaceful tools we have at our disposal; then we'll be forced back into the situation we're trying to get away from now, more violence in the Middle East possible confrontation with China and possible confrontation with Russia.
None of these entities want confrontation, we are without the desire for confrontation. When the world order is unstable, as it is now, confrontation tends to come by surprise over what may be a trivial event and escalate very rapidly, as was the case in WW1. Confrontation happens like this when people forget to keep a wary eye on the horizon. The West needs to keep its head up and at present, it seems the West is sleepwalking. It is time to be proactive and actively invest in peace.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)