KONY 2012

So there is a huge amount of hype surrounding Joseph Kony who has been the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army since 1986. Right away, I will say that I am not for any person killing, abducting, or murdering anyone else for any reason. While many of you know by now that the KONY 2012 video has gone viral and has made some big headlines all over North America—in fact, most of the world by now seeing the scope of facebook—what most are not aware of is the scope that Joseph Kony covers.

A bit of research on the elusive Kony will tell you that he took over as the head of a group known as the “Holy Spirit Movement” and proclaimed himself a prophet for his movement. Later on, that movement changed names to the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and began its slow rise to power. While he was rising to power during the 1990s the world watched hundreds of thousands of people die next door to him in Rwanda.

I mention Rwanda because that nation saw hundreds of thousands of people die due to a radical change in beliefs and at the time no one seemed to have the ability to change what happened there. Rwanda in 1994 saw the same things happen that Uganda has been experiencing for decades. And in many other countries in the world there are people suffering far worse than what we see in Uganda. For the most part it is documented and recorded somewhere in the hopes that one day someone will decide it's a relevant problem and do something about it.

My point is that we see all kinds of evil around us every day and do nothing about it. We tolerate and tolerate until it's right in our faces and hope that someone else will do something to stop this madness. Take your average worker in China; they make next to nothing in wages and live in rooms with upwards of 10 people sleeping, cooking, and getting ready for work, yet we are all right with that because prices are cheap at our local department store.

So what do we do? Should we stand by and do nothing as individuals or groups and hope that the world solves its own problems? I would not ever suggest such a thing. So let's take a look at Joseph Kony again and see what we can do about this problem. Let's keep in mind that at no point can you send an army into another country and take out the leader of a resistance movement for several reasons—one of which would be the infringement on that country’s sovereignty. Not to mention the obvious problems that arise when we imply that the Ugandan people are unable to manage their own problems and that only American troops can save the day.

But, let's walk down that road for a moment and cut off the snake’s head with an army or special forces, or whatever have you. We are proud that we helped to defend democracy and life itself. So what happens to all these men who followed Kony into battle? Are they to simply pick up a job at the local diner washing dishes and move on? If it didn't work for us after WWII, why would it work that way for Uganda? While I commend Jason Russell for making everyone aware of the problem of abductions and murder, I must ask him if he thought that taking out one person would solve the issue?

Joseph Kony is no different than any other dictator the civilized world has ever decided needed to be removed from power. He kills to maintain power, he uses the most ruthless methods to do so, and above all he is using the innocent as weapons to enslave so many more. He is in short an evil man who should be dealt with by the justice system. However, he is only one man and we should not limit our scope to one person ever when dealing with the deaths and mutilations of so many. What the focus should be is on the LRA and stopping them and organizations like them forever. We as the civilized should not be all right with so many evils in the world. We should not sit comfortably back in our chairs and watch it all unfold on the news. A greater awareness of these types of injustices is desperately needed if we are to move forward into the future as a people that call ourselves civilized.

So what's next?

Well, the crisis was averted and the US was saved from defaulting on its finances, so what does that mean? In short, it means the US can now borrow more money to fix its problems. A rather backward way of thinking about getting out of debt if you ask anyone in finance. The easy way of saying this is that the US will borrow up to 4 trillion more dollars to cut 2 trillion from its deficit and eventually bring its debts down to a manageable level. The issue here is the root of the problem was borrowing and in order to right themselves they have to dig a bigger hole. As you might imagine, this has banks wondering how the US will go about fixing the many problems it has and had before the great debate about defaulting.

I won't lie and say I was surprised by the fact that the US voted on a plan before the deadline came. What I will tell you is that, if anything, the events that took place show just how badly a country can dig itself in and just how bad the world economy is right now. If you look a little further back into the news you'll find several stories about US expenditures that would lead you to think that almost every American citizen is on a non-stop shopping spree with Daddy’s credit card. The housing crisis, for example, saw the entire economy brought to its knees—and I don't mean just the American economy, I mean the world economy, with its borrowing against borrowing and playing a sort of shell game moving money around. The ripple effect around the globe was banks closing and merging in order to survive and even some raising rates in the hopes it would blow over. Take Britain as an example; the people of Britain were told their tax money would be used to bail out major banks and to stabilize the country's economy. The problem was that the banks ended up giving themselves pay raises and not stabilizing the economy fast enough. If you’re going to line your pockets with other people’s money, make sure no one knows. Let's face it, what they did was legal embezzlement.

So why should we care? Well, our economy is a global economy; nations are tied to each other and rely on each other for trading to exist. The major issue with Canada's economy is that it relies so much on our American friends. While recent efforts have been successful at establishing free trade with Europe, we are still not in any better shape to stabilize our economy. The fact is that some of those countries are in worse, or just as bad, shape as the United States; places like Spain where over-spending habits led to a decrease in their credit rating and in turn, a spike in interest rate,s as well as decreases in investments. Another country is Greece who has been overspending for so long they will have to sell off property to stabilize themselves. While Canada has been safe so far, we are not out of the woods yet.

Take the average Canadian in the 1960s for a moment and look at their spending: chances are, they often saved and bought very little. Granted they had fewer needs, but the lesson they kept in mind was "I don't care about keeping up with the Joneses". Now today's average Canadian is completely different and loves to spend money and use credit like money and saddle themselves with debt to meet and exceed the Joneses. We have taken a lesson from some of these debt ridden countries that spend and spend with no thought to the fact that at some point you have to pay back credit. The only upside to the fact that the average Canadian is saddled with debt is the fact it has kept interest rates low, because let's face it, if your interest rate on your credit card went up you might not even be able to pay off the interest, let alone the principal. This effect has also allowed housing rates to stay low as well so people will buy more housing and help stabilize the housing market. The problem is buying a house and paying month-to-month means you still have a huge debt to pay off and thus paying it off faster is always a good idea. People often get into the habit of saying "what does it matter if I have a mortgage payment? It's better than paying rent." Very true, but it's still debt. If it didn't work for Greece, why would it work for you?

So what does the future hold for the US, Canada, and possibly the world in terms of money? Well, the best we can do is hope that spending is kept to a minimum and paying down debt is a priority for many. The United States may have averted a depression, but still may lose its credit rating anyway because they didn't cut enough out of their spending habits to make anyone want to invest in them. Also, it sent shock waves around the globe that the world will not tolerate and even the American people won't tolerate anymore. The fact is we are all tied to the economy in some way or another, from the highest of government officials down to the lowest of beggars on the streets, and we'll all need to change our ways to improve life from here on out and make it easier for future generations to build. We'll need to reinstate values of saving that Canada was once known for, and we'll need to make sure that our American friends understand that they too must change and trim down their spending. The best way to help right now is to lead by example, show everyone that while that brand new car might be nice and that new government building may be shiny, it will cost money over time, and it will be money we can never get back.

The World in a hand basket

 So it has been a long time since I had a chance to write about anything on here, it's been a busy time. So let's catch up a bit and go back to when we started to hear about Sudan. Before all the current stories you see there was a huge out cry in Sudan for voting to make a new country and split this country into two new nations. After the election everything there kinda went silent, a little odd if you ask me seeing that nothing has come of that situation in the news for some time. After that we moved to Egypt where in the news it was a  similar state of affairs as Sudan in the sense that a new government was going to happen; in this case without the voting process and without George Clooney to back it.

The Egyptian government in the end was over thrown and now is busy piecing in self back together when another country decides it's government has been in power for far too long, about 30 years too long. The country is Lybia, and the leader Muammar Gaddafi who at one point was a military member. So, there is an uprising which ends up being very very bloody. The difference between Egypt and Lybia however is the fact that Egypt had a more peaceful uprising, but also the leader of that country wasn't brought into power through war. What you might not know about Muammar Gaddafi is that he has been a colonel in his country's military and that he staged a Cout D'etat against that government. The Cout removed the at the time king of Libya and began a 42 year rule that saw people jailed or killed for things like speaking another language or speaking out against the government.
Now when NATO is trying to enforce a now fly zone and stop protestors from being jailed or killed the world is shocked that this man has not given up power. The issue here is that Gaddafi came into power through war and will, as we have seen, leave through war so it is unlikely that he will simply hand back a government he has had for 42 years. Really what needs to happen here is to have NGO's go in and help where they can.
Now I know what your saying " isn't NATO doing that already?" the fact is that NATO is setting up no fly zones but nothing has stopped goods and services from leaving that country. Stopping goods and services and setting up screening areas around the country may seem drastic; however not that long ago it came out that Gadaffi was responsible for the PAM AM 103 bombing that happened over Lockerbie, Scotland in December of 1988. So it might be in the best interest of all concerned that we start making sure he doesn't get a bomb out of the country to "send a message" to the world.

Not that Gadaffi is the only worry right now but we have all seen what happens when you don't watch closely to a potential problem that may be brewing. I am referring of course to the problem of the Japan power plant that has gone from clean power generation to radioactive leaky kettle. The problem here was started naturally with a Tsunami off the coast of Japan which was sparked by an Earthquake somewhere between 8.9 and 9.1 in magnitude that shifted Japan 2.4 meters closer to the United States. So where do you start with the problems, the government of Japan that has insisted everything is fine and that the huge explosions are pressure releases so one of 6 or so cores doesn't explode? The same government that said everything was being done to make sure the people in the area where being taken care of? or should you blame aid workers for a lack of response to a critical situation that has lead to radio active water being leaked into the ocean?
The truth is that it's a combination of slow response from the government as well as organization that have been the issue here. The fact is the company that runs and maintains this plant is where the blame should start, and the blame could be spread as far out as NGO's that have moved slower than they should have to take care of people. Yes it sounds like the blame game, and it is really is, however this one has a point; most of the time when we send in NGO's they take care of things the government can't because there isn't a policy for it yet or the government lacks resources to implement such plans to protect it's citizens, hence NGO's are useful. When it came to the potential melt down, NGO's weren't prepared because this scenario happens so few times that really only one agency is suppose to know what happens...the power company. Seems kinda silly when you think about it but actually it is only the power plant that has scenario after scenario for this type of emergency.
So now comes the home front question, "what about our power plants?" Excellent question! If you know of the Pickering Ontario or Chalk River nuclear plants then you may have also heard of the CANDU reactor which has a number of safety systems that the Japanese plant did not and does not have. In short, if either of these plants had a failure the reactor is designed to deplete and drop power levels down to around 7% of it's total output. How does that help if the reactor fails? well it means that if the reactor starts to fail the system will not explode to the point that it would do much more than take out the plant, and even then that would be absolute worst case scenario, it also means that the plant is not likely to leak radio active material into  an ocean or lake where nuclear plants are typically built. There is more technical breakdowns of this system, i am simplifying it a lot and any person who majors in this field may laugh a little at the explanation, however i am not an expert in the field so I can really only apply my laymens terms to such a detailed area.

So what does this all mean? is the whole 2012 scenario playing out? should we all build bunkers and run for our lives? First, the 2012 scenario is a whole other rant that at some point i'll get to but you should know that there isn't much to that myth. Also, if we all believe in doom and gloom to the point that we can't even see much more than the problems than most of us couldn't leave our beds in the morning. While there is a lot of things going on in the world we should also take what we see and learn from it. Humans are notorious for repeating history because we have boxed ourselves in and no longer, in a grand scale, posses the ability to critically think about the world around us. I am not saying this is true of everyone, or that we can't change that but i am saying we need to change it and now! If we are content to live in the box we have built for ourselves one day we will be jailed for speaking out against the things we see as wrong in the world. An entire nation stood up peacefully in Egypt and opened our eyes to all the wonder that could be, let's not waste that lesson and began a new day of discovery. Don't wait for someone else to tell you to ask, en quire, or change the way you think, do it now for yourself. If nothing else...try

Wiki-leaks and the avid conspiracy guy

So no doubt yo have heard tons about wiki-leaks and what the United States is calling one of the biggest security breaches in a very long time. I am certain that some of you have decided to even go to this website and look at the material posted and see just what the US thinks of Canadians and what they think of the rest of the world in general. This sort of website is an excellent resource for many, especially two kinds of people who can be very dangerous that i am certain many have over looked. The first is the avid conspiracy guy who takes great delight in saying the all government is bad and that they are some how evil. The fun part is actually asking one of these types what they suggest instead of government; usually it's a long winded explaination of a government body they created or something that would promote chaos like just having everybody run freely and choosing what they want to do. The other type of person who is dangerous with respect to wiki-leaks is the very person's many have been fighting to keep us all safe, terrorists. That's right conspiracy guy, you got what you wanted and showed that the US has dirty dark secrets like many other countries i am sure, but now you've done it at the cost of the security of the free world and made a huge target of one of the super powers in the world...good job you.

It's one thing to say you have secrets that a government keeps from the people, but it's quite a different thing to post those online. No wonder sweeden is looking for the public face of wiki-leaks, if he were to release documents about them i am sure many wouldn't invest in there banks any more. There is a few questions though that one shoudl mull over in this siutation, the first is do you really think no government has information they keep from the masses? Of course they keep things from you, did you ever hear the saying person is smart, people are stupid?

Another question to ask is, let's say the government told you everything and gave away all there secrets to everyone that lived in that country. If i wanted to destroy that country all i have to do is find me a tourist and tourture him or her till i got what i wanted. If i keep my secrets and make sure that only higher ups have it, then it's likely that may civilian population will be safe as they know nothing and can't be used as a weapon against my own people.

In short, is wiki-leaks something we should all invest in to see what the US has been keeping from us? no. Simply put, it's common sense that the government operates in secret and that they tell secrets only to those that need to know. If they told everyone everything, it's very possible that you could become a weapon against everyone you care about. It's nice to think that we are all open and honest, but when you think about it we all have a dark side and sometimes we don't even tell close friends what we are up to so why would we expect that someone you elected into power would do that for you?

Thanks for reading :)

No one will attack us, they love us!

 So at one point in the not so distant past the government of canada decided to buy several F-35 lightening II aircraft from lockheed-martin. The aircraft where designed so that canada could replace it's aging F-18 fleet that have lately been falling out of the sky.I remember thinking to myself thank you up there, thank you for remembering that canada needs a defence in the air and that relying on another country for our own defence is pretty much handing it over to them. Then i read the link below and saw that so many people have very little idea why these aircraft are so very important; most of them see the aircraft as a waste of money and can't understand why we need to spend now before the cost is too high.

I read a few comments on this cbc news site that read something to the tune of good for the liberal government for stopping the needless spending of money. While i am no politician, and my opinions are my own and reflect no organization, business or otherwise I would like to point something out...wasn't it most of us who joked about the sea king helicopter "seeking the ground" ? These are the same people that now look to canada's defence force and question buying of new equipment and can't understand that if we don't update our troops with new technology and better equipment in general we will be signing off on countless lives lost in wars. I can recall so many times when people have joked about how outdated our military is and how we have nothing really left to call a defence force, yet countless people will say we shouldn't spend the money on defending canada. I'll put this into easy to understand terms to avoid any confusion, not to say that readers of my blog are somehow unable to understand this concept, quite the opposite infact. I believe that using an analogy will help you as the reader educate quickly the multitude of people who don't understand. If i left my expensive car in downtown toronto, unlocked and unattended, how long do you think it would stay there untouched and unharmed? I am not saying that Toronto is a crime riddled city by any means, I merely use a large city as a reference to support my point. so by the same logic, would you leave Canada unlocked and unattended for any other country to come and take for a joy ride?

So many Canadians feel we have no enemies to worry about and the bottom line is while we are not a war like country by any stretch, simply by existing we have enemies by which to defend ourselves from. It's far to easy to sit back and say we have no enemies when we have sent troops over seas to countries in the midst of civil war and then say we have no enemies to worry about. Using the car as the example, to your knowledge if you were to leave your car somewhere unlocked, do you think the person taking it for a joy ride would be someone you know? The enemy we don't know about is the hardest one to fight against and the hardest to defend against as well, it's why everytime you leave the car you lock the doors.

If Canada continues to put it's military spending on the back burner, then at some point the country that didn't will come knock on our door and demand we work for them. Remember our national anthem states clearly "the true North strong and free" if we are not strong, we may not be free for much longer. This is not to say we should simply spend all of our money on military equpiment, but it does mean that we should take a serious look at our position on the world stage.

John Diefenbaker was running the country and ended the AVRO Arrow project because it would cost Canadians too much money he claimed. Years after we all look back and think about what he was thinking and why he ended a program that could have launched us to the forefront of technology and kept Canada safe for years to come. Now that Canada is in a reccesion and the government wants to spend the single most amount of money they have ever spent on the military we are all saying " this will cost too much". When John Diefenbaker said the same thing you all thought about how crazy that sounded, but when the same situation came up in the modern day everyone questioned it. The only difference between then and now is that more money is at stake, and much more advanced technology is being used to defend us all. 

In short, don't be so quick to say that we shouldn't spend the money on the military to get the needed upgrades to our defence force. After all, when we thought the AVRO Arrow was a bad idea and a certain someone said we should have AVRO begin making cookware for families...we could do that now, but when some country decides to come here I am certain the last thing they will want us to make after we have been conquered is cookware. 





http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/15/liberals-fighter-jets.html

Is it really that hard to flush?

So lately i have been worndering why it is so hard for people to flush...i mean flush anything. Every morning i get up, start my routine and head out to the shared bathroom and bam, there it is to greet me every morning; something that was leaft behind from a night of drinking or whatever have you. Honestly guys, we need to pull it together here for just a week, then fall off the wagon i guess, atleast i'd have something. I wake up every day to this stuff, urinals are becoming the worst thing ever because they need to be flushed and unless someone installed an automatic flush, it never happens.

Maybe that is the problem, some one somewhere decided that automatic was the way to improve my problem and keep a clean bathroom. That's exactly when it backfired i think cause now men everywhere from ever walk of life forget to flush. It's terrible at 5am to wake up to someone else's....you know.

Ladies, don't think your safe either. I have heard the horror stories from the other side and i think every woman has a story to tell about a bathroom that was less that desirable to do any business in. I think the worst stories i have heard are from workplaces where it seems ladies are just as guilty as the guys and forget to flush or dispose of items properly and so on.

So how can we fix this problem you ask? well the easy solution of making things automatic only solved half the problem.Sometimes we get lucky and the machine works great and the bathroom doesn't smell like some one passed away in there, other times i am certain someone has...or should have. The best solution is to train yourself, that's right train yourself. Monitor what you do in the bathroom for 30 days and you will eventually train yourself to do it automatically...irony there? maybe.

At any rate, please...please...PLEASE flush! 

facebook, is it evil or is that just you

So there are how many millions of people on facebook right? and how many millions of posts and pictures attached to each profile. So who would have thought facebook would have more power than a fully loaded rifle?

So facebook is a wonderful thing isn't it, you can share all your pictures with the world and share all sorts of ideas and plans and now even scores of various facebook games. It allows people from all walks of life to share ideas without really any real threat of being an outcast or shunned in any way really. It has the power to hold the thoughts and ideas of trips we've been on and to share our day with people we choose as our "friends". There are only a few downsides to this wonderful system, besides a terrible movie (seriously, a facebook movie? come on people why would i spend money on something i log into for free?)

It's been my experience that facebook, while a neat little application holds the power to destroy our lives (sounds epic, read on). I have heard many stories of couples on facebook who have had an account and spent lots of time together and enjoyed each others company enough to even use the M word (marriage). Only after a few months to find out a certain someone commented on a half dress woman or man and then bam, end of relationship. Seems crazy, but it happens more often than you think...for that matter more than it should ever. You see while facebook is wonderful and provides us with the ability to be social with long time friends of even just met you friends it also provides the world with a quick easy to read view of you and who you are and what you are about. The problem from a relationship point of view is that when you post something on your wall chances are (as men anyway, yes boys we take the first hit) someone has read it and judged you accordingly. Several examples are college babes, naughty kisses, and facebook date (the ladder is super hard to get rid of even if you never sign up to it); all these applications can be seen as a man being less than faithful. Now, ladies before you broad side me with the standard " if he cared about me he wouldn't need these apps anyway, just me" and the ever classic " if he likes to see naked women, he can see them now all he wants because i'm gone" remember, your problems with your guy looking at naked women are with all due respect a whole other rant (there will be one, i have time :)). All i am pointing out is that this happens and that it ruins relationships faster than if you found your man with a porn under his bed. In some cases, ladies pack up and leave before he is even home from work to say good bye.

As for the ladies side of it, most color there facebook page with cute girl stuff and some pretty neat stuff to (not saying you all only cover a facebook page with what i think is cute, that's just some that do that and i have noticed it is all i am driving at here). I have been to pages where some of the ladies have posted games like "attack" (awesome game like risk in many ways) and some things like national suit up day (fan favorite by the way). However, i have also seen the other side of it where there are have naked men and stuff about johnny dep (or the dude from twilight....uhhhhh).

In any event, my point is that both sides are just as guilty of the same problem. This didn't always happen so fast and without either side being given a chance to say anything before they are tared and feathered on the facebook streets (i picture some middle eastern town square here for this with a facebook logo somewhere). So let's back the train up a bit here and look at this, facebook was developed initially so that university students could send and receive information in groups faster and work on this info in groups faster than emailing each other. Great idea expect that now it does more than that and google ads are supreme on this site now along with a wealth of useless games. So here is the riddle of the century, we gave facebook our ideas, thoughts and pictures; we also gave facebook an identity by adding it to google and having everyone we know add us as friends. We also did we give this stupid website the power to decide who we date, who we love, who we hate, and who we wish would be run over by a small to mid sized bus?

A great man once said that man is only bound by chains he places on himself. If that is the case then it is we who are guilty of placing blame on others for things we have done ourselves. Who hasn't gone onto facebook and looked up a few pics of people just see them and said "wow, look at the guy/girl" We have all passed judgment on someone without even knowing the facts, all we have is just a picture and a comment that says "dude you must have been wasted". So now the best question, why can't we just delete the facebook account, the chain that makes and breaks us?

The answer will scare you a little, but the real reason we can't just walk away from facebook. It gives us comfort and lets us live a life or two that looks better than our own, it lets us live a life of judgment and it also comforts us and tells us we have one new message from someone, somewhere who may one day be that special one. It also replaces the need to have someone you can get comfort from...in short...facebook is evil, but the website itself isn't evil, it's us that gave our little bit of evil to facebook to post along with the comment " you can never leave, no matter what you do and I will control you and everything about you"