Pondering the kindness of Putin

I noticed in my news-feed today that 3 more astronauts have returned to Earth this morning aboard the trusty ol' Soyuz. As pleased as I am with the safe return of these heroes and the ongoing long-term radiation experiments of the NASA twins, something more pressing struck me about the missions today...

Putin says you may proceed with your genetic space experiment, comrades.

Since the end of the Space Shuttle program around 2010 (something that I, as well as many others including the venerable Dr. Armstrong, strongly opposed) The USA has been completely dependent upon their former-rival-turned-partner Russia for manned launch capability. At the time, although this measure was adopted with seeming ease, there was yet some hawkish concern about depending on another nation for anything this important. Indeed, although at the time I thought Mitt was mad, Russia has turned out to be a far greater 'threat' to America than any other single nation. This was not at all the tone of relations between the two SuperPowers when we scuttled the shuttle. The devolution of relations has been severe and steady for several years now. First over the encroachment of NATO into The Ukraine and now over the sovereignty and terrorist issues in Syria. While I have always been a little soft on the hatred of Russia and hard on the USA, I think this is fitting as all to often the victors skew the narrative against the vanquished - and also the highest of figures should be held to the highest of account. I only make this digression to help show that I am not strictly sympathetic to the Russian side of things here. I very much appreciate and admire the gift of liberty that America has given to the world; yet I remain unconvinced that it is a valuable market commodity, as such.

Trust the Russians, you say ?

Our perception of Russia is always as the aggressor, an instigator of malcontent. Has our partnership over the ISS bourne this out ? It is an interesting thing to consider. It seems almost obvious to me that if the shoe was on the other foot; if Russia had dropped it's manned launch capability in 2010, there would be no Russians presently on-board the ISS. The fact that Roscosmos has not halted the transportation of Americans (and also other EU members) to the ISS, speaks very clearly to me about who the aggressors are in our current global environ. 

Should we truly imagine that the hard-lined Putin is graciously extending these services for the betterment of mankind ? If this is the case, then he is a more compassionate and considerate leader than what has been produced by the plurality of our institutions. I believe that the war-minded Republican houses would quickly leave Russians 'pissing in the solar winds', if they had their way. Obama, wanting to give the democrats a veneer of muscle, would likewise have quickly given space co-operation the axe in my opinion. This would have made him 'look tough' on Russia while still avoiding open armed conflict. 

Such a nobel fellow :P

I do not wish herein to portray Russia as some great bastion of moral supremacy on the matter. I believe that the Russian government would, by right and inclination, also enact these prohibitions. The difference is, in my opinion, that Russians fear direct American reprisal where America would not. 

I believe that any move by Russia to now prohibit the transit of astronauts would be viewed as an act of territorial aggression against the US, vis; purposfully obstructing the USA from transit to and from it's rightful territorial assets., etc. 

Notionally, I believe this is viewed in law similarly to a naval blockade. Let us say that there was a small island within Russian coastal waters. Then, let us say that the USA has been transiting passengers to-and-from the island using a declared neutral drop-point on another small island in international waters. So the USA brings people to the international island, then they board a Russian ship for passage to the island located within Russian territory. Declining to take people to the ISS would be viewed the same as refusing to transport vital passengers to the inter-Russian island in our example. 

This is a good visual for Putin trying to stop American space access, like, imagine that's
just a stick with a light that he has there...

In the water, the USA would have the option, of course, of sending their own boat through the international sphere, into Russian waters and to the island. We might infer here that Russia would view the transit as an incursion against the territorial sovereignty of their waters - and rightly so. In space that option (send their own unit) is not presently available, and so the potential damage to the colony in space could be that much more severe. 

Several issues come to mind in both examples; first-off, how did an American settlement end-up in such an obviously Russian-controlled sphere - why assume these risks and liabilities to begin with? Likewise, why put your space-transit abilities in the hands of another -often antagonistic- nation ?Supremacy of force and a desire to disseminate it can be the only reasonable assumption. Obviously the USA would be unwise to claim a dependent island in such waters - equally unwise to put ones faith in a potential enemy for something so important as space transit. It must have been assumed, basically, at the time the shuttle program was dissolving; if Russia says they won't take our guys they better be ready to face the full force of American Fury. A proposition which Putin has obviously not been eager to fulfill. 

Distasteful and perhaps harsh, but still a nasty tinge of truth as well...

No, I do not think kindness is a main proponent of Putin's platform in general, nor related to space-faring accommodation. I am pretty-well convinced that these space-transits are occurring only thanks to a gun at the head of Russia. With all the other tensions already encircling these two giants of war - would Putin honestly even consider to spark the conflict with something as trivial as the non-space based space station transits where so little is to be gained from such termination (except ones own possible destruction) ? Is publicly making a joke of the US space program worth a million Russian lives ? I think not. What I find most troubling is that America seems too keen these days to get that gun up to as many heads as it wants, thinks or cares to. 

When a country so important that has stood for so much good in the world at times, is degraded to holding the world ransom over any issue it needs resolved ... it becomes an example of the tyranny it once struggled to shrug off. One must at times wonder how long the tree of liberty can stand without being watered. 

I honestly hope that the tensions in Crimea, the wider Ukraine, Georgia, Syria and elsewhere can be resolved without any further escalation of armed conflict. Either way, I expect the shared-space program will endure until the bitter end - being viewed as absolutely inconsequential in every regard except seat-ticket sales revenue. If Russia was to take a stand on this issue, they would be attacked almost instantly. The entire Russian problem, to me, seems to center around their taking complete advantage of every moral cavity we have recently vacated... and for so little gain to ourselves, at that. 

Those who would give up liberty for security lose both, also I just invented electricity.
How can you argue with any of that ?

Either we owe Putin our sincere thanks for sustaining the space program through this phase, or we owe the deepest of apologies for turning an organization and it's instruments of peace, into a hostage situation. Either way, I fear we are quickly losing moral high-ground in the etherial relams. As above, so below ?

So we're thinking of expanding NATO to your door, but also like, can we ask you to
keep sending our guys to space, pretty pleeeease ?? :>

The Right Stigma

I wanted to post this before the laws change too much here. If they constitute some sort of violation in the future I do apologize, but also hope that such an event itself will help to herein justify my assumptions and peaceful protests against said mechanisms of time and "justice".

There are several issues which are happening in such fine orchestration and with such diabolical intent that one who is aware and read-enough to observe the trajectory can not help but be guffawed.

THE ENEMY WITHOUT

We are presently witnessing a level of hostility on the world stage not seen in about a hundred years. Perhaps it is, and has ever been, the role of the earlier-generational components of centuries that they are to be whistfully thrown upon the altar of war and death for the later blessings of peace and progress. It is striking that we have already been at war for a decade. Open, large scale war. So one could observe; the early 2000's was a component of the (American) Middle-East Wars, early 1900's: WWI and II. And 1812 was, well, the war of 1812 period. In each instance the nature and substance of 'the nation' was threatened from 'abroad' or a 'foreign interest'.

What strikes me as extraordinarily juvenile of mind about all this is that who really cares about a foreign interest? What does that even mean (besides some sort of xeno-phobic kinship violation)? For the common citizen of any such culture; fair work, fair wage, fair legal systems and enough satisfactory personal time is all that can really be desired. These can vary by geography and religious preference somewhat, but in the main; the simple desire of a peaceful home, a happy spouse and a seeming purpose are quite sufficient. Indeed the entire pretext of the struggle of man so far is a desire to work up to these achievements. The closest thing we can recall of an idealized 'golden-aged people' are the 1% of ancient greece, rome and egypt who were free to fetter their time away in debate, good company and good wine. The simple desire for freedom and peace is so palpable that it is only when such is threatened by the aggression and violence of another that any violence seems justified whatsoever.

So who are these enemies from without ? Here in the west that ticket has largely been filled by the faceless rage of islam. but what is the source of this hatred ? Is fighting fire with fire the best way to stop your kitchen from burning down ? Is it that they perhaps believe our God is evil ? That seems to be the premise that is vended. But Islam has the same God of Abraham that any Jew or Christian does. Basically all faiths recognize the prophets of each other faith... So then it is fanatics ?  So now the percentage of people who are out to get us drops dramatically and we see what many understand; Islamic adherents are no more dangerous than Christian or Jewish practitioners... yet each group also posesses fanatics. Interestingly enough the fanatics of all sides seem to be at their worst when they are all trying to tempt God to reveal his plans and helpers... but I digress.

From their side; the problem is also OUR fanatics then. Most people HERE also desire simple peace and life and liberty and to serve their community and their God, but some among us manage to wrangle millions in preference to the causes of violent overthrow, armmament, attack and prejudice. This is a strange contemplation; to us they are the enemy but to them we are.... largely for the same reasons. Bill Maher may have said it best in WHEN YOU RIDE ALONE; they hate us because we don't know why they hate us. The fact that we have continually exploited their resources and people as we do our own has never seemed to factor into the equation. Here it is "ok" (even i must concede) because it is our peopole and our laws made by our ministers, but when we foist these views on people of other regions it is a tenuous argument for our moral superiority; especially in North America where we all so stridently argued for direct self-representation due to geological, religious or other preferences we deemed fit under the laws of all people.

In the USA the constitution is a document written in the hopes of an awakening for all mankind. We often forget that the revolutionary spirit in france that produced napoleon also produced washington. It represents the first time that men not specifically born to the task held political sway... it was a noble experiment, but perhaps only possible because of several strong personalities being born into a time that was ready to support and encourage them. Maybe America was a great idea for the founders, but not so much their decendants... The civil liberties won after confrontation with a great 'foreign' power are being discarded in the face of protecting us all from another one... when considered in this light the enemy without is largely baseless and senseless... but that does not mean there are not enemies, only that they are among us.


THE ENEMY WITHIN

On september 10th 2001 if you had tried to put forward an piece of nazi-fied rubbish called the PATRIOT ACT (especially considering the then-fresh revelation of a missing $3Trillion in ALREADY-EXISTING operations) you may have been impeached from office for gross incompetence and a sheer misunderstanding of what your job was. As they say, the next day everything changed.

After years of policy deepening and widening the trough of immigrants from ever newer and more exotic locations around the globe; we were told they, those people HERE were the 'foreign threat' now. While they shared our geography, they were hostile aliens. Traditions of community and kin, of being a part of the nation they are in - were all completely undone. Our own shores were not safe. A sort of soft invasion was already well underway. The only way to protect from an inborn foreign threat like this was to do away with some civil liberties. None of the ones that are essential for the avoidance of a complete police state, but just enough to establish the principals of the erosion of rights, the creation of an inter-agency force and the accumulation of more powers of foreign lands not a party to any such agreements or legal processes.

Osama bin Laden or Obama sin Laden.
The only difference is B/S

Because of all this unpleasantness, the strain of perpetual war and the tangling of the legal system in the additional task of undoing and repair itself more constantly than usual - the people lose their essentials. The right to fair wage is gone, we must make cuts to fund the war. The right to peace is gone, the gov't has flooded the streets here and abroad with potential violence and conflict through efforts that have very little benefit for the majority of citizens. It is almost like they are using us as open collateral at this point. While the role and sincere efforts of government go into producing the best standards of living for their citizens, there is another type in open operation now that works to dismantle the things people like at home to destroy other things abroad. It's a total moral outrage, but it goes on. The legal system that should provide oversight is so completely overwhelmed by these counter-productive efforts, that again; the people lose their rights to natural justice. While scores of highly paid people work themselves and others tirelessly to alter the definitions of such terms, the jobs, money and lives are all spent in such pursuits rather than the provision of good and simple living conductive to a good society. When a man is happy, at peace and in his home, the bawdyhouse owner is the one left to bemoan his fate. In my town the proprietors of good times as such are beginning to seek office. WE begin to look to them for wisdom and guidance (or tolerate them enough that they think we might) because they are without scruples in business and we need that to get anything done now.

Without opportunity, representation, fair wages and sensible rules a people are likely to become restless. IF you had revealed in July 2001 that the gov't had been waterboarding and giving tanks directly to police people would have lost it, the fact that we accept all this in law today is a great testiment to the persistence success of these people. Now that the citizens are restless they police and military are trained on THEM. If anyone had said in November 2001 that terror laws would be used against natural born citizens of the nation there would have been no support for the measures whatsoever. Everyone that warned of a slippery slope in these matters has resoundingly been proven right on all counts. While our corporate tyrant kings enjoy every pleasure, todays Nobel laureates live in chains...

WE are our own worst enemies through our simple lack of observation. People are so glued to their phones and their 'security' in the world (in all it's forms) that the actually world where people live and work and build kin and truly love one another as so cliche as to almost be as reminisced as that golden age of white marble towers and fine long-robes. At least they let us keep the wine so far.

The Selenean Summit

A short video showing the way to and sights around "the selenean summit". Also some possibilities for the peaks of the region. 

location (approx) LAT 5.4125 , LON 201.3665

height (approx) 10,500 m +

Vision for Canada; Equal Animals

Show Stephen Harper that, as with everything Canadians want, we "do have the money.".

At the Olympic Games in Sochi, 2014 top medal winners all received $20,000.00. At the paraolympic games they did not. When someone finally got an answer out of the gov't here about it (reluctantly I'm sure, though it is nice to see they will speak at all) all they got was "not enough money". This from the country with the most oustanding finance minister in history gone from his post a few handfuls of hours.

As with everytihng Canadians want, we do indeed 'have the money', we are the richest nation in the history of humans on this Earth, the problem isn't whether or not we have the money, rather the problem is how we're spending it and our priorities under this government.

I strongly urge someone to open a Kickstarter account and raise up the money to see these athletes triumphs recognized as vigorously as the achievements of all Canadians. Otherwise I would say this is a flaming and open violation of our para-team's rights not to be discriminated against... is that the Canada we represent now ? Us, the citizens ?

My Evening in Fullerton, CA

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

My Dislike of The War On Drugs 
and perpetual violent and/or punitive conflicts in general

Many people have come to realise that the war on terror cannot end. In fact the way it is coming to be structured and foisted upon the masses of the western world it is NOTHING more than a war on dissent. As we watch the list of 'terror' be expanded to include the exercise of civil rights, inalienable rights, - freedom of the press, etc etc. It is not far off (and this is Canada) where we could have mandatory minimum sentences based on secret trials for political dissent of almost any kind under this guise of 'protection'.

'Merica 

While many have come to realise that this war is perpetual (so long as we permit and laud these twisted pieces of legislation and the people who put them forward)  most people believe that this is the first experience we've had with the threat of a perpetual war, but such is not the case. The War on Terror was brought to you by the same warmongering, we''re-gonna-save-the-world-from-stuff-we-make-up,neo-nazi pricks that gave us the war on drugs. Anyone who think that smoking a joint is comparable in any way to a physical attack against another person or their property is a seriously deluded sack of meat and misfiring sparkles. 

terror tactics and sept 11.... aint that somethin'

As with dissent, people love this stuff. They like the feeling. They like to speak their minds, have opinions and yes, sometimes they even like to disagree just to be disagreeable. Its called being a person. I think drugs are just like opinions in many respects, only they are voiced on the inside. The person is saying "I like this feeling, wooooo". They are not saying "I like damaging my life and family", "I like breaking the law because i'm a bad person wishing to offend the state", "I wish to harm myself" or anything that should be of any general concern. That being said, the abuse of *any* substance is not a healthful choice. If someone is taking 20 hits per day of cheeseburger then the financial, time and physical/emotional demands and physiological reaction is going to be damaging to themselves and those around them. Now obviously peoples appetite for cheeseburgers is rarely as intense as it might be for opium or crack, but the point remains we're talking about selfwards behaviour here. When New York tried to ban large soda, people lost their minds but many people suffer horrendously and cost thousands of dollars to medicate for diabetes, obesity, related depression and disability. But a cheeseburger doesn't biochemically make you euphoric, or at least it shouldn't. Only things that alter our feelings and make us feel all tingly and good like that are illegal.

WARNING, ILLEGAL

And here we are some 4 decades into the war on drugs; how's it going ? Does society think that if these laws didn't exist that we'd all just sit at home getting high out of our minds for 40 years ?! Many people have many reasons for complete aversion to drugs. Some people are allergic, some simply do not enjoy the feeling (some do), have had bad experiences growing up, etc ... those people are induced by personal trauma NOT to take drugs and they likely never would. That being said there are also a ton of people on the other end. I'm not just talking about "drugs" here, but you show me someone with none of these traumas that has never had a beer or hit a joint at the cottage with their weird uncle and I'll show you someone totally out of touch with a normal, fun and safe human experience. 

I'm sure its nothing personal against most of the planet

Moreover, most people I know who are over 40 and 50 HAVE tried drugs in youth and are in no way criminal people who would have been helped by prosecution. They have also given up pretty much all drugs on their own BECAUSE of the criminal associations...and they're getting older, you know. They still drink beer, they are still after that feeling they enjoy on their PRIVATE time INSIDE their PRIVATE persons, but they have much to risk over a criminal conviction. As for the youth of today, I see no striking downward trend in either their consumption of alcohol or mary-jane for all the billions that have been and continue to be wasted on a 'no drug culture'.

let the good times roll, gramma !

Now, the new beast is opioids and harder more chem based drugs. This situation was ENTIRELY caused by shitty (sorry, this makes me so mad) legislation and I have PERSONALLY seen several people affected by this. The drugs were totally legal, people are getting them at the store, these drugs seem safer and also therefore more socially acceptable. You can't say to people 'hey that's heroin, you filthy junkie' after you're the guy giving it to them as a remedy.They aren't people who would be charged but their lives are equally ruined and they just get sucked into a different part of 'the system' is all. Someone still makes bank off their misery on the back end. These super addictive drugs flooded the market in the 2000s. Now in 2013 we're starting to dump tons of effort, reform,DRUGS (see NaloXone) and money into reversing this damage, but we're doing it through increased spending on the *war* on drugs. So now the drugs are not available legally so people are turning to illicit sources or synthetic chem soups that dont EVEN get them super-high anymore .... because they still like that feeling. A feeling many would not have known without the extreme doping in the first place.

Personally, I have smoked a little grass in my life, but I've never been very interested in anything hard-chemical. Even in really hard times I have refused behaviour or mood (feeling) altering drugs that were not completely natural or that could not legally be cultivated on a farm here in Ontario. I do not think my treatment choices were less effective or more costly in any way. Eating right, studying a little herbology and intentionally shifting more enjoyable activities into my life was not a 'rogue' treatment option. I consulted with the proper people, studied diligently (myself and the situation and potential remedies and risks) and was able to conquer incidents of situational depression the old fashioned way - by taking care of me and working to improve my outlook and life.

mexican poverty reduction plan, seems legit

Sure, some people aren't as savvy as me, or as motivated away from "hard" drugs naturally, but this is my whole point - some people REALLY REALLY LIKE getting high. They wont stop (if ever) until they are completely ready on their own and "coddling" them is definitely the way to go. Persecuting them helps no one. They do not recover from addiction in jail - drugs are plentiful in most prisons (google it - here again its actually likely a good thing because violence would explode without smokes and drugs in therem count on it). There's always someone who wants it and someone who wants the money. So drugs (exactly like drinking) will NEVER go away until people simply have better options and better, stronger feelings about other things - like work, family life, personal pursuits. In todays economy this is not the case. Half of people live paycheque to paycheque and the rest can do whatever they want because they can afford a good lawyer anyway. 




I would now like to tackle a few common drugs seperately and point out the problems with out efforts;


Lets start at the bottom:

Tobacco; you don't really get high off tobacco, addicted to some things in it perhaps but this is a completely legal product (to buy), a major source of government revenue (as smokers decrease the price goes up in almost exact proportion - without smokers MASSIVE revenues will be lost and people LOVE to smoke. Without the nicotine they may smoke less, but people LOVE it and cultures have smoked for hundreds if not thousands of years. The real problem is that it IS legal - it DOESN'T EVEN GET YOU HIGH.  Its FULL of inserted toxins and waste products, its a total scam. I am COMPLETELY aware of all this, but still, I just look and feel so much cooler with a cigarette. Those scary pictures on the pack are certainly distasteful (thanks gov't) but one can purchase fancy smoke tins... and eventually we all end up falling apart. I'm not sure I want to live to 120 anyway.... not if I can't see or hear and everyone else I ever knew is already dead and nothing in the world makes sense to me anyway. :/

Tak'tan-ka, you hitting this ?

Alcohol: one of the most lethal of drugs. Makes you feel good and makes you act like an idiot if too much is consumed. Completely legal, HUGE business, terrible additives and health effects.... again, been going on for hundreds of years... Even though it is HIGHLY illegal and dangerous to operate a car on alcohol manufacturers are not required to install alcohol detecting tech at the plant.... massive revenues are generated from fines, impound fees.... a persons job and home are all at risk if they have more than two beers with dinner now. Alcohol was strictly prohibited in the early 20th century which only lead to complete underground crime and the empowering of crime bosses and people with interests often outside the public good. All tax revenue was lost and eventually the whole system was viewed as a failure and repealed for the BENEFIT of the public good. Since then 99% of bootlegging has stopped, revenues have gone up, sure - sometimes shit still happens, but our whole society was taking a kick in the head during prohibition. We're not Muslim afterall. Our God is displeased with drunkenness but still loved Noah enough to save the race through him so its not completely outlawed. Still it should be respected for what it is by those who indulge. If a sentient living being is not respectful and aware of their body, or any substances they ingest, there will be problems I assure you. 

Weed: Trudeau Jr smokes it, I cannot believe Trudeau Sr. never tasted the stickey-ickey. Clinton got a taste. George Bush Jr. got high with harold and kumar in guantanimo.... ray charles, every celebrity you've ever seen, john lennon, probably half the people in your house right now have, do or would smoke some weed with Willie Nelson or Sara Silverman or someone they admire that tokes. Electric lettuce has been around for ages, I would go so far as to say that George Washington probably smoked on the regular, and in his day it was no biggie. If he caught wind of the policies and people involved with the "war on drugs" well, there woudn't be as half as many as there was a while ago (1812 song) :P. ((yes I know he wasn't at 1812))

ya, puff puff pass, gramma !

Coke: Used to be in the cola, now is highly illegal because the health effects were demonstrated to be immediately harmful to life and a severe impediment to nominal functionality.so good tho that cokeless coke is one of the largest brands on earth STILL. Some years later this former additive **somehow** started shipping itself into the USA completely circumventing the law, law agencies, borders.... tons and tons of this stuff has hit in the USA and there can be no explination except for the support of corporate/police/military or other high ranking agencies or individuals. It is promoted in movies as being deadly cool (no down side till you're too old and junked out to care really) and crack may have been formulated by covert gov't agencies to decimate certain black populations if you believe some of the literature. Either way, now that Rob Ford happened there's little grounds to say that the drug itself is the problem. He has done a fine job in the functions of mayorality. Personally, dude may have issues, but that's his own mess to sort out. As long as he's showing up to work and doing a good job. The total and massive loss of revenues to shady operators is a huge concern to me, the people piling up in prison is a shame and the continued availability of a product that is TREMENDOUSLY difficult to cultivate domestically is hard to explain if one looks at all the data points. Personally I dont have a problem with Coke. Its natural, seems to make people feel pretty good... but I dont like that people do not understand it so they can get horribly addicted. I dont like that someone who gets thusly TERRIBLY addicted is labelled a criminal instead of someone with a severe medical condition that needs and wants help to get away from the ideologies and people who have made this a part of their lives. I think social circle is very important to coke, as it is to all these drugs, but with coke it seems to get really out of hand and debautcherous. I've never even heard of someone sucking dick for a joint.... but coke....

Rob Ford Biggums. A "progressive" conservative

Opioids: Heroin (as with anything you're injecting) is pretty gross to me. I was high on morphene one time for a week after surgery, once I got out of there I was glad I never saw it again. Its like being in a dream where everything is awesome and your beard grows twice as fast :P. The problem is that ope is a legitimate pain killer. Still, the dangers were well known and the problem in Canada was completely caused by the introduction of OXYs. Big pharma made them, they pushed them HARD on the public - anything from hypertension to headaches, the doctors must have been raking it in there for a while!! But the downward effects became TOO apparent. Crime and severe addiction sky-rocketed. People who would never do "drugs" were turning into junkies after car accidents, etc... once the data was examined OXY was PINPOINTED as the cause. A new type was developed, methodone clinics sprouted up like bad grass EVERYWHERE and here we are. Inherently the drug is STILL not the problem I would say. If any drug was the problem I would say its this one (aside from the crazy stuff, meth, pcp, X, etc etc etc) though. I have always abhorred chemical drugs yet I remember when E started showing up around schools. Everyone but me was high on it at parties it seemed, but today, I cannot think of ONE person who still has any interest. Once you get past 25 I think the allure dies off quite naturally for most. For those who cannot let the party go, there are obviously other issues. Criminalization and punitive measures for the weakness of a persons spirit which causes no intentional or actual harm to others by means of force is a tyranny. Obviously because they feel good drugs can be a powerful influence, but so can a big dick, we dont make them illegal. These issues strike at our very nature and the discussion should really be re-evaluated in this modern age where we can all have a say in the forum. I don't just mean online i mean locally.

I wonder why oxys flooded the market back here .... no I don't.

So what is my position on all this ? Legalise. The government sells cars and makes roads for us to use them on. They also sell booze. They kill TONS of people this way if we follow their drug argument through. Of course they're not, its just us nasty old humans doing stupid stuff. Even with the hundreds of pieces of traffic legislation now in existence and the historically HARSH prohibition on alcohol in vehicles, cars do and will continue to kill. Still, the benefits are many, the tax money is good and the people seem to want them for lack of a better or more informed alternative. Legalise and medicalize them all. Honestly I dont see how a 7 year old can walk into a Macs and buy 8 packs of RedBull and OD on the street, but I cannot buy a beer past 3am :/ Even when I was done working midnights in a position of responsibility. The old saying is that those who give up liberty for security deserve and receive neither one. I propose that those who prohibit feelings and criminalise indulgent victimless behaviour will neither stop the feelings or the behaviour, if anything they will only increase both AND human suffering. Maybe that's the point because its happening and these people really aren't stupid, say whatever else you will. There sure is a lot of money tied up in this first perpetual ideological war the Bush's gave us... they always were good at that sort of thing. However, econnomies now that do not embrace legalization and taxation schemes demean their weakest citizenry, support the financing of illegal organizations through giving crime a monopoly on billions in capital and also step on many truly protective and civilly beneficial laws of everyone to get at a purported few that are "dangerous drug-crazed maniacs". By making this whole scene highly illegal and promoting ignorance about the truth of the topics, governments only drive the whole element further and further underground and make it more "cool" and also risky.

like, seriously. W.T.F have you guys been doing ?

I mean, you know the sorts of places that have bar fights every night and are full of drugs and idiots... the ones that play that music. Mother Teresa said it best. Anti-war rallies attract war, if you have a peace rally, invite me.

mother teresa would prolly visit but not smoke

Some Thoughts on Modern Democratic Reform in Canada

does this seem adequate to the task
of deciding the fate of a nation,
all of its policy and finances for 4 years ?
compare this with, say, your cell phone contract.

At one point I was much more active in politics but I still keep an interest and actively read on the topic. Global, national and local issues are staple reading for me through the week. Lately I've been noticing a tremendous amount of scandal. I mean, we all know that most politicians have historically fleeced their constituents for many years. In between we sometimes luck out and a good person will get in and put things in motion that provide ongoing benefits for dozens of years (the establishment of labour laws, civil rights, etc), but on the whole most of them seem to make shady deals that benefit a very few and themselves personally – even if it is after their time in office has expired. Obviously their policy decisions are influenced by this and I would argue that if people were more aware about the way these things happen it would happen less often. When evaluating two candidates for ministry of agriculture would you want a Monsanto shill with obvious conflicts of interest or would you want someone who had at least used a shovel once for something other than taking a picture with it. 

just a small sampling of the sort of conflicts of interest that very often arise in the present system. until recently, with the advent of the internet, this was a big dirty secret in washington. How long can it last now that people are becoming aware, how long will they tolerate such intentional and blatent abuses of the public trust?

While it is obviously futile to make any attempt at changing human nature, something still really bothers me about the 'representative' systems we have today. In Canada, when an election is called, the vast majority of people are already locked into a regular vote. This is usually a result of a persons views and that of their family. Personal finances seem to play a role as well. This is just to say that, my inference is, about 50% or more of the people who vote are going to vote the same as always. In the USA they have a two party system (something George Washington wanted no part of, we may recall), here in Canada we have a multi-party system. What I do not understand at all is why this exists at all. More to the point, once we have elected one of these parties to rule; they set about making pretty arbitrary appointments of their ministers to positions for which they may be largely or entirely unqualified for.

basically stick the face of the party leader on the guy in the middle there and this is how your government will looks when you're voting for it.

I would like to see us in Canada experiment with a one party system. This is no way would limit peoples ability to express their unique political climb, let me explain.

I think that an election ballot should take a few minutes. I believe that party affiliation is an archaic and outmoded method of fraternization. We should be voting on a selection of ministers. Their party affiliation is likely quite evident already regardless. Some people would straight up bitch that they dont want an election to be 'work' for them. I feel quite strongly however that a system that puts more owness on the voter would be a welcome change. In some countries now it is illegal not to register and vote. Here we have the option. I'm not sure the benefits of allowing the population to disregard their civil duty to cast a ballot once ever 4 years or so....

Anyway, so this is how what I'm proposing would work; when an election was called MP's would register to run in their local ridings, but also they would elect a cabinet position that they are interested in, say health. So when a citizen goes to vote they would have to select a candidate for their region as a standard MP, but there would also be lists of people who wanted to portfolios like health, education, etc. The biggest change you would see is that peoples ideas about issues would really get some traction. If there was an election and you had to choose a minister of health it would be very telling; do the regular voting people want a corporate shill doctor ? Do they want someone interested in natural remedy? Is there a problem in healthcare that any one person is actually more qualified to handle than the other. If line-ups are the problem someone with a business management background might be best. If the main issues center around moral dilemmas perhaps someone with a background in philosophy is more appropriate. Yes, this means that people would have to be more familiar with the candidates, but the way it is now you vote for a face and a colour and some broad platform that may or may not come to pass regardless. You know nothing about the ministers, their qualifications (if any), ideas (if any)... and you select no one other than the PM who is simply the leader of the 'party'. While party politics have been a staple of western democracies for hundreds of years as we see with the removal of the 200 year old fillibuster rule – parties themselves can be dangerous to the competent management of a nation. Especially in such polarized political times. The general populace coming to have a greater role in and appreciation of their own governance and affairs cannot be a bad thing ... not for said citizens, at least.

does it help anyone when parties are engaged in riggerous in-fighting instead of really focusing on what is best for citizens with facts and clearly articulated plans ? 

Personally I guess I'm just tired of looking at Government and feeling like none of these fucking people have any clue or qualifications to do almost anything. Many MP's in the western world have traditionally been lawyers. In China they have embraced a more practical theory where most MP's are actually engineers, doctors, people who are relevant to the issues of their region and portfolio. Here we have a pile of new Cons that are former TV personalities acting now as senators, ministers of various sorts.... well what the hell does a TV announcer have to do with being minister of the environment ? There's really no question that if you put it up for a vote to Canadians “Peter Kent or David Susuki for minister of environment” or oceans or anything basically, Kent would never see the political light of day. Conservatives have recruited all these dirtbags just so they could swing votes for their party. Its like if Tom Cruise ran for Mayor of ... well anything. His policies may be non-existant even, but the star power would draw massive votes. This isn't saying that any of these people are bad, or that they have not worked in earnest on things that were important to them or within their capacity to understand. It's just saying that if voters were informed and had the ability to influence cabinet appointments at the ballot box we'd have a much stronger country and would be leading the world again. Canadians are top notch global citizens, but we're often too simple and nice about things that should be taken more seriously.

Peter Kent was a decent enough newsman, does that legitimately qualify him -in any way- to speak to and about environmental issues in the house ? Should his views and opinions on the environment be steering Canada ? No. Do you want someone in that position that is good at handling media and spin if you plan to do a bad job in that department ? Did he score up a bunch of senior citizen votes by being a popular talking head? Yes. Is this the way we should be doing things in the 21st C ?