This particular phrase has been used so many times by those eager to pass blame and to cover the truth. In this instance, it is none other than our close friends, the Russians. About Syria. SYRIA. SYRIA!!!!! But let's take a fair look at this. To be "fair", there hasn't been a lot of on hand documentation. I'll let that sink in. Now you ask...Why? Why hasn't there been? This says it nicely, "Also confounding coverage is that some of the footage coming out of Houla is so gruesome as to be – as one British broadcaster called it – “unbroadcastable.”". Go figure Russia. Without creating a gruesome picture of what is happpening, (see CNN), I am sure we can all safely say that there has been death. A lot of it. Gruesome, inhumane slaughter of women, children, everyone. Their behaviour smacks of another article I read that dealt with content suitable for Mila in Resident Evil and her weapon of choice. But Russia can't see it. No, they won't see it. Aren't they human? Yes, but they're allies. What about the other powers in the UN? "The evidence is not murky, and there is a clear footprint of the government in this massacre," German Ambassador Peter Wettig said. This brings up a point worth considerincomes to my point. History. History will remember these events. But how? It has been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I postulate that history is in the penmanship of the allied. Russian children will grow up to believe that the "West" is a bunch of exxagerating morons while children in the west will grow up to belive that Russia is made up of indecisive, weak willed "panzies". Who is correct? Obviously neither. This sad, disgusting and tragic event will only serve to widen the gap and loosen the already stranded ties between our 2 worlds. The saddest part about Syria is that no matter what happens there to her people, she will only act the part of a pawn. What will be done for the people? Maybe the Canadian's will drop food. If only they had all their body parts by the time that comes. Deathtolls since March 2011 have neared 11,000 according to some estimates. But they are a sovereign state. At least until they hit 20,000. Then it becomes an outrage. But what could they do? The US hit Iraq with everything they had and then some because of a dictator who pissed the wrong guy one too many times. And then Afghanistan. Because of terrorists. But Syria? No no no no. They have rights as a country. And their government has denied while the people flee from the ARMY!!! Maybe it's a numbers thing... How many people died in Afghanistan? It is estimated more people have died in Syria since March 2011 then the civilians who died in " War in Afghanistan". And by who? A sovereign legitimate government of course. But they deny it. And because of some sick PC crap that has been pushed on us by the "caring lefties", we accept it. They have rights too, you know? We can't assume they're lying. We can't assume they're telling the truth either.
There is something to be said for socialists denying they want entitlements, just rights and what is "fair."
There is a constant supply of rhetoric pointing to China's "success" as a modern communist state. It is this supply that I must attack. A major point these "people" use is usually China's impressive economic growth. While by the books, they are growing at an accelerated rate economically, they have yet to show any trickled down effects. This would include the standard of living that the majority of Chinese enjoy. A simple look at a regular census would show you that while their country is "growing" and advancing", the average income of a Chinese family is less than 10% of what an average American family's income is. Why and how the hell could those two facts correlate?
Quite simply put; wealth redistribution. Thanks to very stringent rules on media in China, there is very little mention of the constant thievery of farm land, personal property and intellectual rights by the state. The stealing of land was for a while limited to the rural countryside, but as more and more citizens move to urban centers, more and more appropriation is occurring. Why? Mostly because there are strict guidelines concerning what each household is "allowed" and extreme penalties are imposed upon infractures. ("Google" one child policy fines and consequences, for example). As well, there is always the possibility that the state needs space to build another statue...
Intellectual property is constantly ignored, and why shouldn't it be? It is all used for the "good" of the state! (A side point would be to discuss whether what is good for the state is also good for the individual...a free market advocate may have some strong opinions about that...) Without those rights being respected, there are a couple consequences. Incentives lack. With rights to this kind of property being abolished, what incentives are there to endeavor for new ones? That would be where propaganda kicks in. IT IS GOOD FOR THE STATE...IT IS GOOD FOR YOU! This propaganda in the Chinese culture is "listened to" (beaten into) by a huge majority and as such, limits the amount of people who would like to turn a profit. Thus, the only incentive to "create" is for the state. And propaganda will work good for that...until envy comes about. It is always an affliction of socialist states. And in this case, the envy has an international target, namely, America. Hence, the comparison between their average household incomes earlier. This envy, unfortunately for the Chinese Communist Party, is stronger than the propaganda they use. This drives to the heart of socialism...statues. They will constantly be built, parades will be thrown and military gestures will be shown, just to "try" harder and make people listen. Socialists will always try harder, that's all you really need to do anyways. Just do it "right" this time.
With as high regulation as China has, incentives of individuals can not be meant and therefore contentment and prosperity is a long way off. (An article I pointed to in an earlier post talked about the self regulation of a market system, and it ties nicely into this bit.)
An interesting point about China's "growth" is when they build a huge subdivision of nothing but skyscraping condos...but the state builds them. There are no people living there. Then, they consider it as economic growth. Really? No
Freedom always wins however. As more and more people are drawn into this economic growth "bubble", more and more of them will realize that they are not enjoying more freedoms with their country's growth or better standards of living. China has for a long time done a good job at censoring it's public and not allowing them a great deal of information that would throw a bad light on China's own brand of communism, but that is slowly changing. People are breaking out of the chains, learning more and seeing more; via the internet or elsewhere. "The Great Firewall Of China" has been built but will and has shown the first signs of falling. Giants like Google are even fighting the wall. After they are past the "wall" they have nothing but d envy to greet them as they see others who are not "growing as quickly" them but yet have much higher standards of living.
This of course will encourage the state to crack down more on dissent and "illegal" activities. But what will that do? Encourage people to listen? I think not. With low standards of living, growing envy and now robust government interference and crackdowns, the population will slowly draw away from this communism and embrace not "Western ideals", but what we like to call "freedom". Watch the news...dissent will grow, peaceful protests and demonstrations will turn bloody and then the combination of economic slavery and military oppression will break the people. Then, we will see the greatest turn around in human history.
In summary, China's growth is very much on paper. They as a country are growing, but the people are not. They are becoming more and more estranged from their government and as such will start to envy more and more freedoms that others enjoy. The propaganda will lose it's effect as the state's balance sheets improve. You can not remove human incentivising
Literally a billion people will "see a light", may be not "the" light, but definitely not the gloom they live with right now. If this sounds familiar, it is. It has happened before in a socialist state. The only difference now is that with a global economy that has skilled accountants like we have now, a country can "look" prosperous.
At least for the time being.
...Governmental economic planning vs. unregulated markets. It's all in the perspective.
"Instead of allowing a default, Democrats and Republicans needed to develop a credible long-range plan to rein in the nation's budget deficit, Mr Bernanke added." That came out of a particularly enlightening article about how the world most certainly will end if the debt ceiling is reached. After all, parents increase allowances every time their children spend it. You wouldn't want them to miss out on movie nights, would you? (Or medicare and other welfare institutions...because they are very helpful you know and help all the people they are supposed to.) But only if they would just agree. All you have to do is get the people who just love spending to slow down A LOT. Not slow down a little bit, but get as close to STOPPING as possible. (See national 'balance sheet'). Yes, that will happen in the next two months. No worries, Bernanke. The Fed wants it done, it will be done.
There is a simple, elegant truth that lefties (and government workers) do just not want to face. "And the really surprising news is that when tax hikes are targeted at the rich, it is the middle class worker who ends up paying" (My favorite sentence.) It is amazing how peeling back the onion just a ltt
In the chaotic world of health care, I have come across a story that not only shocked me, but terrified me to my very core. Plus, it is a story of a friend no less. (The local news is always more hard hitting.) The story goes as follows:
One day while cutting a log, he hurt his arm. (Such a simple story.) It sounded with a horrible ripping sound and he as well as his children knew immediately that something was terribly wrong. When he finally had it checked out, it was found that his muscle had been ripped from his socket (torn away!) and displaced down his arm. (Don't worry if it makes you squeamish, it had the same effect on me...) Anyways, he went to the hospital to get it checked out. At first glance they said there was nothing they could do. (???) So he got a second opinion...and a third...which both times he was told that surgery was the best and real only option to improve and maintain his quality of life. So obviously then, when he goes back to the hospital, does more tests, and puts this forth, he would be told to have the surgery, correct? Not even close.
Not only was he not given a chance to decide (Canadian Conservatism gone bad) he was adamantly TOLD "No", much like a child is denied chocolate before bed. Their reasoning centered on that he was too old (age. 44), he smoked (unfortunate lung cancer patients) and that he had arthritis (my poor grandmother...). Under this guise, he was was denied healthcare and was actually told that he still had a good muscle (only one was torn) and to just use that. The next time you get a flat tire and take your car into a shop, remember this story and when they tell you that they will not fix the tire and that you still have one good one, do NOT get upset. YOU ARE CANADIAN. (An added point: not only did you go into the shop for the repair, you had prepaid them on the basis that at some point you would need service.)
We have been so worried about the government interfering too much into our lives by way of taxation and too precise law making. How could we be so blind? We should be more worried about the government actually telling us what we are "allowed" to have for healthcare. Or if we are even "allowed" to improve our way of life or not.
The healthcare system in Canada has come under much fire in the past. Unfortunately, this anecdote does not help the situation. It does actually shed quite a bit of light on the current problems regarding our wonderful healthcare system.
If one were to follow the train of thought proposed by our lefty wing "nuts", you would have to believe that all doctors have entered the healthcare system because they are "good people" who just want to help. "Humanitarians" even. Umm, what happened? It appears that the opportunity to improve someone's quality of life was skipped out on. Why? Likely because there was no incentives to do anything about it aside from the "right thing" (something we on the right realize is far overstated).The doctors will not make any money doing more work on any one patient then they would if they did nothing or just more of the same. Just another proof that the government does not understand market principles. Privately speaking, there would a strong incentive to work on the arm, a monetary one. Yes the greedy capitalist speaks out, but truthfully though. Thus another explanation for the so called "brain drain" of doctors to the US is explained. Getting paid more wasn't the only catalyst. It was the incentives that existed to do more than treat colds and common infections and maybe the odd broken wrist.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Socialist Government of Canada has shown that our healthcare system has the ability to control our citizen's lives down to the choices involved with camping incidents. If you were one of the unlearned folks who believed we are in a civilized era of prosperity and advancement, don't fool yourself. A broken arm can cost you your life, Canadian.
An interesting trend I have noticed is actually not a new trend at all. Possibly it was hidden by my unwillingness to accept the sheer stubbornness and stupidity of those clinging to methods that just don't work.
"You're a socialist." "Am not." "Am too." "Am Not!" Etc, etc, etc. This conversation happens every so often when an individual who prefers government to make their lives better rather then have themselves make their lives better argues that Capitalism is the "ultimate evil." The selfish bastard on the other end than calls him a socialist. Why? The defender is hurt. Why? (See wikipedia entry: "Stalin.")
The definition of socialism includes having government control all means of production. Well that certainly doesn't exist. But wait, maybe that's the problem. I'm not a propagandist.
The problem is with the definition. Or rather, defining it at all. A definition, aka excuse, only allows for "leftists" to propose ideals that allow for the distribution of wealth among the masses, increased government intervention in the daily lives of it's citizens, and ballooning welfare states because they are not socialist. There is still private enterprise. Flaws, anyone?
A perfect example is of a well educated young man, likely hailing from a well known and established institution is stuck on "definitions". School wins. Logic fails. Deductive reasoning actually. There is none anymore.
Laissez-faire economics. The libertarian party. Daddy Smith. These ideas, parties and people all believe that the market is of the organic type. Can not be controlled by a well to do wealthy "activist". But being organic in nature, it changes. And sometimes those changes can not be measured by a definition, but rather must be analyzed and reviewed by no one. No one? What?!?!?!? That's right. No analysis is actually needed. Being that it relies entirely on people pursuing their own self interests, you can bet your top dollar that it will be fought for valiantly. Even by all the charitable and altruistic people that "just want to help." Those are the ones who we actually might have to be careful of. Charity isn't free after all. Ask the tax man. Deductive reasoning would help you understand that each person pursuing what they want will only allow for others to do the same. Shipbuilders normally don't harvest corn.
But definition has hurt us. Our society. The former Soviet Union showed us a definition and we have been blind since.
|
