Interesting stuff – 2017-02-20

Some interesting stuff I read…

How dare you tell me that my belief in the efficacy of holistic medicine is false? Don’t you know that we all make up our own truth? And now society is going to tell me I’m wrong and put my in prison?

So much for relativism…

I mentioned the dire circumstances that journalism finds itself in these days. This article expands on that and explores it in a little more detail.

In recent times, however, under the stress of new technologies, that model has been broken. The advertisers on which newspapers and other media outlets have historically relied have deserted them for eBay and Craigslist, Facebook and Google. At the same time, a multitude of online news sources have fractured audiences and clouded public understanding, notably through the proliferation of “fake news.” Legacy media companies are collapsing, while new digital competitors have yet to take up the slack. The danger this poses is not to the profits of their owners, or the salaries of their employees, but to the readers — nay, to democracy itself.

Is this a threat to democracy? I’d wager that’s an overstatement, but the rest of the read is interesting.

So much for electoral reform. And why not? The reasons are flimsy.

More and more often lately I find people chastising progressives because they just don’t know how to get along with anybody who does not think exactly like they do. Here’s another example.

In many respects, [Trump] is nothing like Stephen Harper. And yet our recent prime minister was also the object of similar animosity, which raises an interesting political question: what is it about progressives that makes them despise conservatives, whether gentlemanly, such as Harper, or demagogues, such as Trump?

Progressives do not view their conservative opponents as persons with different preferences. That is the attitude of commonsensical economists: some prefer vanilla, some prefer chocolate. For progressives, eventually, everyone will prefer chocolate and the vanilla lovers will disappear or be suppressed.

For progressives, people such as Harper and Trump are heretics, not politically misguided individuals who eventually will catch up. They are hateful and must be purged.

Conservatives have their own share of this problem, granted, but progressives have clearly cornered the market.

Have you ever heard of the expression, “a solution in search of a problem?” It would seem that describes certain strains of the environmental movement. The NDP want to solve the “air quality problem” in Red Deer, but…

There isn’t a problem.

And, by the way, whatever fine particulates there are in the atmosphere are largely produced by off-road vehicles, transportation in general, and home firewood burning, per Environment Canada.

Carbon plants would fall under “fuel for electricity and heating.” If that is seriously such a massive problem for our province then we should start telling people to stop using their fireplaces.

This lines up well with the book I’m working on right now; global spike in cohabitation is destabilizing children’s lives. And, by the way, the term “destabilizing” is actually quite generous when one examines the evidence of what actually happens to those kids.

The amount of evidence supporting this – and the superb quality of the evidence – is actually quite remarkable. Stay tuned for my book.

Do you oppose female genital cutting? You may just be preventing “evolution” from doing its thing.

How dare you!

The NDP declare that the carbon tax was not the massive economic shock that critics declared it would be. Two comments.

  1. If there’s no shock then what the heck is the point?!?! The entire purpose is to provide economic incentive to people to change their behavior. In short, they are admitting this policy is futile.
  2. The timing of such pronouncements is interesting. Most NDP announcements about the success of the program took place in January or very early February. Before people had a chance to see their heating bills in February. Propaganda, anybody?

Canadian’s views on immigration are fascinating. Not quite what the media normally conveys as “Canadian values.”

Over half of Canadians agree or strongly agree that immigrants should change their behaviour to be more Canadian, and that “too many” immigrants do not seem connected to Canadian society.

Because there’s the large “neither” category in the middle, only about 1/5 – 1/3 of Canadians disagree or strongly disagree. In other words, Canadians are about 2-3 times more likely to end up on the “agree” side of things than they are to end up on the “disagree” side of things.

More and more I hear people growing concerned that our inability to disagree with each other respectfully may be putting us on a path to literal civil war. Violence and all. This story suggests we may be closer than some imagined.

Notice, once again, the role of social media in this equation.

Speaking of violence, we may need to spend a bit of time defining the term. When I was young, violence necessarily involved some kind of physical contact; either directly (a punch) or indirectly (a stick or maybe a bullet in extreme circumstances).

Then the definition seems to have expanded. Now violence can by psychological. Even if I never physically touch anybody, but I yell at them, or cyberbully them, then I am being “violent.”

It would seem the definition has expanded even further. Now if I specifically go out of my way to suggest (respectfully, I might add) that a person NOT physically interfere with a woman’s body at all, such a view would be violent if the woman desired a certain form of physical interaction. In fact, I might not even say anything about the subject so my silence could be deemed “violence.” Either way, as long as a women’s body is NOT touched in a way she desires then that absence of physical interaction, and even my refusal to speak in support of her desire, would be “violence.”

Her claim is that if women don’t have sufficient access to abortions then that is “gender-based violence” against those women.

My, oh my; how far that word has drifted.

She didn’t comment on whether the act of abortion was in any way “violent” against the fetus.

By the way, this is the same Liberal MP who did such a fabulous job of the election reform subject before she was reassigned to the “status of women” file.

Fortunately, social media is remarkably effective in bringing unbelievers to Faith.

Yes, that is satire.

You might remember all the massive corporate outrage against the “bathroom bills” in North Carolina and elsewhere. Apparently when large corporations throw their weight around on these issues, governments listen.

Or not.

Texas is not promoting a similar bill. The same corporations are making the same threats. Again, it would seem, people just aren’t listening.