The Canadian Landowner Alliance advocates for provincial legislation that recognizes property rights, and, that the Federal Government of Canada enshrines property rights in the Charter of Rights and freedoms.
Obamatakes a page out of the Dalton McGuinty handbook: How to systematically destroy your jurisdiction's potential for prosperity. Unfortunately, President Obama has a much larger sandbox.
Thank goodness our global competitors (and primary debt-holders) will be similarly constrained: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/china-on-course-to-exceed-2015-shale-gas-target-with-fuling-find.html
I've got this theory about the rise to power of absolute turds such as Turdo, McGuinty, Obama, and Turdo la Doo. It only happens when you have stupid, chicken-shit, selfish voters.
I think what we're seeing in Canada, the US and Britain is the long-term accumulative result of the fatal casualties of these countries in two world wars. I think the combined casualty figures of so many brave, resourceful and concerned young men who never had a chance to raise good sons and daughters had a telling (negative) effect on future generations. In other words, a critical mass was lost, and once it was lost, the "other kind" were in a position of dominance as far as genetic traits were concerned. With each successive generation the per capita frequency of smart, self-reliant, and brave young men and women steadily declines.
I believe your argument has merit Jamie. Perhaps Pierre Burton has explored this in "Marching as to War" (not to be confused with his epic "Cats I have known and loved"). On one hand, many Canadian families today share genetics, household rules, identical influences from community, etc. and yet have wildly divergent philosophies with respect to politics, "environmental protection", individual initiative, role of government, fiscal management, sense of entitlement, and so on. On the other hand, it's obvious how those "go-getters" could have served as a powerful force in a home, a classroom or workplace, had their lives not been extinguished on beachheads, bombing sorties and battlefields.
What about Darwinism? War has been a constant for millennia in human evolution. Why would modern wars represent a regression of general intelligence, survival instinct and productivity while historically, war has been considered as a contributing factor to human development toward greater intelligence, resourcefulness, etc.
"while historically, war has been considered as a contributing factor to human development "
I think what Jamie has pointed out says that this 'consideration' can't be applied universally every time. There are lots of cases in history (the Iroquois - Huron war for example) where the elimination of a sufficient number of Huron warriors contributed to the eventual demise of the tribe within a century. Making the same point is the fact that the Iroquois tribes sustained great losses in the fur trade conflicts but augmented their losses (and retained their clout) by adopting warriors from other tribes.
C'mon Simon. Perhaps "historically" everyone was embroiled in a war - young, old, strong, weak, etc. The devastating effects of war were applied as equally as that of disease or hunger. In these "modern" wars, our armed forces and society screened (selected) for optimum age, physical endurance, eyesight acuity, adventurism, patriotism, honour, etc. and sent "our best" off to death in a foreign land. Not exactly an amaurotic Darwinistic selective pressure that has the effect of "strengthening the herd".
Thank goodness our global competitors (and primary debt-holders) will be similarly constrained: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/china-on-course-to-exceed-2015-shale-gas-target-with-fuling-find.html
ReplyDeleteI've got this theory about the rise to power of absolute turds such as Turdo, McGuinty, Obama, and Turdo la Doo. It only happens when you have stupid, chicken-shit, selfish voters.
ReplyDeleteI think what we're seeing in Canada, the US and Britain is the long-term accumulative result of the fatal casualties of these countries in two world wars. I think the combined casualty figures of so many brave, resourceful and concerned young men who never had a chance to raise good sons and daughters had a telling (negative) effect on future generations. In other words, a critical mass was lost, and once it was lost, the "other kind" were in a position of dominance as far as genetic traits were concerned. With each successive generation the per capita frequency of smart, self-reliant, and brave young men and women steadily declines.
I believe your argument has merit Jamie. Perhaps Pierre Burton has explored this in "Marching as to War" (not to be confused with his epic "Cats I have known and loved"). On one hand, many Canadian families today share genetics, household rules, identical influences from community, etc. and yet have wildly divergent philosophies with respect to politics, "environmental protection", individual initiative, role of government, fiscal management, sense of entitlement, and so on. On the other hand, it's obvious how those "go-getters" could have served as a powerful force in a home, a classroom or workplace, had their lives not been extinguished on beachheads, bombing sorties and battlefields.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Darwinism? War has been a constant for millennia in human evolution. Why would modern wars represent a regression of general intelligence, survival instinct and productivity while historically, war has been considered as a contributing factor to human development toward greater intelligence, resourcefulness, etc.
Delete"while historically, war has been considered as a contributing factor to human development "
DeleteI think what Jamie has pointed out says that this 'consideration' can't be applied universally every time. There are lots of cases in history (the Iroquois - Huron war for example) where the elimination of a sufficient number of Huron warriors contributed to the eventual demise of the tribe within a century. Making the same point is the fact that the Iroquois tribes sustained great losses in the fur trade conflicts but augmented their losses (and retained their clout) by adopting warriors from other tribes.
C'mon Simon. Perhaps "historically" everyone was embroiled in a war - young, old, strong, weak, etc. The devastating effects of war were applied as equally as that of disease or hunger. In these "modern" wars, our armed forces and society screened (selected) for optimum age, physical endurance, eyesight acuity, adventurism, patriotism, honour, etc. and sent "our best" off to death in a foreign land. Not exactly an amaurotic Darwinistic selective pressure that has the effect of "strengthening the herd".
DeleteHope some "selective pressure" starts takin' out the lefty voters real soon.
ReplyDeleteI think there's 4 guys on horses circling around.
Delete