When in need.....read, rinse, repeat

I am not generally a sentimental person, nor do I get energized by song lyrics or poetry very often.  However certain lyrical pieces do change my habits slightly...

The following is from a local band here in Winnipeg:

Wake the Dead

This is our city of the dead
Another life holds it's weary head
We hope, we try, we live, survive
Counting days, trying to get by
Waiting for the calling
Anticipation in the air
We hope and dream of difference
City sleeping, unaware

Break the silence, WAKE THE DEAD
Running through these streets alone
I'll kick and scream, let's break the hold
'cause I swear, and this won't render useless
I promise you, we've come this far
And I'm not stopping, I'm not stopping now
I'm not hiding in shadows
Wake up, Send out this message, it's clear

You said, you said, you said
This time was gonna be different
WAKE UP THE DEAD

Coming alive, something stirs inside
This isn't over yet
Shake off the dirt
Swallow regret
Stop living under the weight
Living under the weight of regret
Your regrets
DON'T LOSE HOPE
Don't let it happen to you
Which side are you gonna choose?
'cause I believe, I believe it's in you...RISE!
We said, we said, we said
This time was gonna be different
WAKE UP THE DEAD

-Lyrics by Comeback Kid-

If only Government could clean my house

I was trying to stay awake and study for a class that I am taking (for some professional development).  It was getting late and my eyes were really heavy and I was ready to quit.  All of a sudden I could hear the late night news cast discuss some statistics regarding topics that Canadian felt were important important for the upcoming election.

There was quite a collection of topics that Canadians felt were important and many of the topics did not have gigantic "for" or "against" percentages.  The two topics that the news cast mentioned that Canadians were almost universal on was that the federal debt needs to be addressed and that government services to Canadians should not be reduced.

I fail to see how this is possible to address both without greatly increases taxes, or soaking one specific class of citizen.

I can understand why Canadians want government services; because they are taxed so heavily and they can't afford to run their own lives and they want some of that tax money back in the form of services.  The problem is an unending circle where we ask for services, the government taxes us to complete that service, and we ask for more services because we are taxed, so we get taxed.....I think you know where this is going....

It's time to really look at what the role of the federal government ought to be.  To quote Ron Paul: "If we think that the role of government is to police the world and take care of us from cradle to grave, you can't get rid of the income tax." 

As hard as it is, we need to reject the majority of federal government services, and then strenuously fight to have our hard earned income from being taken from us in the first place. 

When we run a nanny state, we expect services, but we also get a myriad of regulations and laws that are in place to help look after us and keep us safe (nutritional labelling, seat belt laws etc).  Many of these regulations cost money to police and they only protect a small percentage of the population.  Perhaps, rather than making a law, people should look after their own self interests.   

I always found it strange that I work for 2 weeks, get my cheque, and the federal government allows me to keep a percentage of it while they take what they initially feel is justified.  Sure I can get a portion back at tax time, but it feels strange that they essentially own my wage.               

Voting with a Bullet

There has been debate for years in both Canada and the U.S. over the right for citizens to bear arms.  Rest assured, the debate won't go away any time soon.  And while most people pee themselves over the thought of people having the right to own weapons without registration with the government, I thought I would offer my two cents and hope to spread some common sense on the subject, coming from a regular common man.

I have a few issues with our gun registry, some are very practical others more fanciful but all important in my opinion.  

First, it is another government program/intrusion into our lives which has cost a lot of money.  I believe the figure I heard was approximately $5 billion to get the registry going, which tax payers had to pay for out of pocket.

Second, we need to look at the sources of what crime was committed.  In some cases a crime committed for reasons of jealousy, revenge, murder/suicide etc will probably occur whether the gun is registered or not.  People will do evil, heinous things with any weapon they can get there hand on and there isn't much we can do about it.  Gun registry won't deter criminals who shoot out of rage.

Third, the gun registry targets law-abiding citizens more than criminals.  I personally know of one citizen who had some pretty interesting, old, collectible type guns that he had to get rid of once the registry was put in place.  I can't remember the exact reason but I believe it had something to do with the size of the firearm (it was tiny, you could conceal it inside a boot.).  That is just plain wrong. 

Fourth, just as in drug criminalization, when you criminalize something, you create more crimes and criminals.  I have seen multiple bus advertisements telling citizens to get illegal guns off the street.  Most criminals, who plan to do something illegal such as murder, assault, B&E etc will most likely procure a gun illegally.  If they are willing to do illegal acts, chances are they are willing to purchase an illegal weapon, registry or not...
I understand the need and the desire to make citizens safe, but just as in drug criminalization, a gun registry won't reduce crime long term. 

My last reasons are more fantasy than anything but the reality was very real for our ancestors and for other people on this planet right now.  The fact of the matter is, we do not know suffering like others do and for all it's faults, the government does not typically threaten our very existence.  But some governments do, even as we speak, and citizens should have the right to protect their life. 

The U.S. protected the rights of the citizen to bear arms.  We need to remember that at the time, they had just finished fighting a long bloody struggle against a king who was content on reducing their liberty.  If it were not for guns, the Americans could not have won their independence.  This is very important!  The British moved against towns known to hold weapons, and tried to seize them.  Why?  Because the British knew that the Americans would have no way to fight back without those stores of weapons.

Just because we live in a time of personal safety from our government does not mean that at SOME time that can't change.  Just because we aren't fighting off foreign invasions right now doesn't mean that we won't ever have to.  I know, it sounds far fetched but if it ever happened, would we not benefit by having our citizens available to defend themselves?  Should they not have the right do defend their homes and possessions?

So many of our laws affect a huge percentage of the population when it is supposed to be designed to affect less than 1%.  Those are laws that are not worth the paper they are written on.

   

The debate....or lack thereof.

I was not at home on Tuesday so I had to tape the debate and plan to watch it in its' entirety later.  I watched the first bit, and the term gong show comes to mind.  That fellow on the far right is the leader of the Bloq Quebecois, a "federal" party that has only Quebec citizen interests in mind.  How he gets to land on the debate is anybody's guess considering he doesn't even have members running in other provinces.
2 parts stuck out the most; the insistence of all parties to spend our way to prosperity and tax others to fix social problems and the discussion of our place on the international stage.  Mr. Ignatieff, the Liberal leader seems to think we should be doing more internationally including holding a more important seat in the UN and offering more aid to 3rd world countries.  I could just picture myself up there on the stage answering his questions. 
Number 1, since when is the UN important to us?  They are not our sovereign leaders and they get us involved in conflicts that do not have any bearing on our national security.  At one point, Mr. Ignatieff even used the phrase "make the world safe for democracy".  That is scary people.  It's not our job to tell others how they should live and they will reject it, just like we would reject it here if some nation started telling us how to run our lives.  Sending our citizens to die in UN conflicts, to make the world safer for democracy is not the way to use our troops. 
Number 2, all he wanted to do was talk about how the Conservatives didn't do enough to get us out of a recession and he talked a few times about impressing the world by offering more foreign aid to African nations.  If we are suffering financially, how does forcefully stealing our money and giving it to another nation help us?  Also, foreign aid when completed between governments rarely works.  Charity must remain voluntary.  I do feel for people in 3rd world nations but it remains our right as citizens to help them individually, it is not a proper moral stance to take money from citizens by force and give to those you feel deserve it!  Our political situation in Canada will remain stagnant for years to come, I am very convinced of this.  

Lots of orange signs in my area....

I had the NDP candidate leave a message on my phone.....missed opportunity.  My wife said someone called her to talk politics, probably the liberals.  I had a call to ask if I would support the Conservative candidate and I said, "well, he's the lesser of the 3 evils."

They asked me if I felt PM Harper was on the right track.  I said "not really".  She then asked what do I want to see discussed?

I told her I want to see real discussion on cutting spending.  It's not good enough to just keep taxes where they are, we need to see a reduction in federal spending.  I said, I don't want a few minor changes, I want a real gutting of the federal government with slashes everywhere.  Then I said that the nanny state needs to be dealt with so that in time we can get away from government programs so that people will have the opportunity to take care of themselves.

She agreed with me, as I am sure she does with all the people she talks to.....

The only thing I forgot to mention that I would like to have mentioned in discussion is to bring our troops home from the middle east.  I can only imagine how much we spend there every year in a fight that has nothing to do with our security (and is probably reducing it in the long term).

The talk all around this election just cements my belief that it is more about promising the world to grab votes than it is about really turning the country around and giving people their economic freedom back.

On another note, there are a lot of NDP signs in my area (a lifetime NDP supporting area).  So I guess I get to have them speak for me in Parliment......oh goody.....

Promises, Promises....

We are in serious trouble.  I have seen the early promises that the Liberal party has dolled out for this coming election and it really scares me to see the role that they insist on taking in our lives.

I’ve read about a Liberal promise of $8 billion without raising the personal income tax.  This is part of a new initiative taken to help Canadian families.  The claim is that the $8 billion will not affect income tax levels.  So that leaves 3 choices (that I can see): print the money, run large deficits that others pay for later, or take $8 billion from other spending and transfer it over to this family plan.

I doubt they could be so stupid as to print the money and you would think they wouldn’t be so short sighted as to just run a huge deficit for future administrations to deal with so I’m going with the transfer in spending.

I have 3 issues with this proposed spending.  1) It does not address the deficit we have.  2) It implies that it is the Federal Governments job to look after us and 3) it’s an obvious promise of cash and spending directed towards the average Canadian as a way to buy election votes.

I see no actual principles in these measures; it looks like they will just do whatever it takes to get the vote.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s not the governments’ job to look after us with providing child care, or helping out someone going to university.  A fifty year old who has never had children has no need to have part of his income stolen through taxes and then given to a family he doesn’t know.  It’s immoral, forced charity.  I find these ideas very utopian sounding and full of socialist ideals; “The Government will take care of its’ children, everyone can have an equal share…”

What worries me more however is that there will be a number of people that will be swayed with this political game.  It sounds nice, it sounds like they really care for us but it simply isn’t their job and it can’t be done.  The federal government is incapable of spending us towards prosperity.  People need to start fighting for tax reduction and then look to take care of themselves without looking to government to plunder other sectors of the population for money.  It’s time people step up to the plate and take command of their own life.     

I have yet to hear from any candidate to really hit on the topic of cutting spending.  If we really want economic prosperity we need a federal government who will drastically reduce its’ size, reduce its spending and then reduce taxes.  This is the only true moral stance a federal government can take to help put people back on their own two feet.