Shroud of Ignorance

In a lot of the discussions I've had about the validity of Religion the shroud of Turin is a popular piece of "evidence." It really doesn't matter what the scientist's actually said (CSICOP News: Shroud of Turin Exhibition Renews False Claims of Authenticity) because the belief isn't based on evidence. The problem is they try to justify their faith. Though this is a commendable idea, it is bootstrapping. Once you believe something everything else will seem to fit and you will automatically not register opposing evidence. They are effectively practicing
doublethink.

The main problem with all the religious types is that they believe in something and so try to find evidence to support the belief. It is because of this that they only understand the idea of disproving notions (such as god). Any reasonable person would say that's not the right direction, you must find evidence to prove something exists not vice-versa. By that logic you could say that you can't disprove the existence of Superman! In fact that is the easiest way to make the religious argument fall apart: turn the question about god into one about another fictional character like Superman or Santa.

Mandatory Voting

I had some reservations about this mainly because even those who exercise this right now don't do it well. Currently the right to vote is taken for granted and there are serious problems when a country's voting turn out is near 50%, but looking at who gets into office tells me those who practice voting now aren't very good at it. Just looking at the governments Ontario has reelected makes me want to go the other way and make it harder for people to vote. The very premise of voting is a say in the governance of the public money, unfortunately it doesn't have to be an intelligent say. Though this is not the current situation and so I must say mandatory voting is overall a good idea. There I said it. This site has a good article on it:
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Is It Time To Consider Mandatory Voting Laws? The main point that seals the deal is if you have mandatory taxation then mandatory voting is a good idea.

Some people have told me they believe if some people are forced to do it some of them will end looking into matters and making an informed choice (or at least more informed than a random check). The problem I have with this is the population mostly gets information about government from the network news. How many people have heard a bill being debated on any level? The other problem is that there are many issues and so you may be on side with one party for one item but against them for another and too uninformed to know there are more than two parties (this is obviously not the case for my regular readers). A good indication of this is Canada's federal election that saw people saying there top 2 priorities for the federal government isn't under the fed's power.

So how do we make it work. Well for starters we need a national holiday for voting day. Possibly it may also be a good idea for people to have a day off for the candidates debate and leaders debate (at different times on the same day). To ensure the right to apathy (which I think still needs to be allowed, but expressed) there should be a "None of the above" type box on the ballot with stipulations if this number is too high. Although it should be mandatory it believe the punishment shouldn't be too extreme, like a 0.025% increase in your tax rate with a minimum of $100 or so. This way the poor aren't penalized too badly compared to the rich.

But I don't think this will "fix" our Democracy. I think an even better solution is to have local polls for votes on bills. For instance although you can write to your MP or MPP he doesn't have to listen. But if during the time the bill is being debated his constituents send in their votes on the bill and if the number reaches, say the percentage of people that voted the person into office, he must be legally bound to vote that way. I think this will increase the awareness of the bill being passed and consequently the work government is doing. Also people can have a more direct say in specific matters that appeal to them. That will improve our democracy I think.

Oil: Proof of Principle that conservatism is flawed!

A few months ago I had a revelation that conservatives just want life to be like it was in the fifties (or on "Leave it to Beaver" with one of the main concerns that the price of gas should be low. The U.S. subsidies its gasoline prices and uses its reserves to keep prices low so people will vote Republican. But this is an inherently flawed view as with most beliefs in modern conservatism. There is no way for oil prices to remain low indefinitely. You cannot have a glass of water last forever when more people drink from it and take bigger gulps. Oil is a finite resource and so it will run out. China's economy is growing at about 9%/year! The Chinese are buying cars and other plastic items. With an economy growing soo quickly they will soon be the #1 market in the world and oil will be even scarcer. So what will happen? Prices will climb ever higher. As things are now companies want to extract oil out of almost anything regardless of what they destroy. For instance there are some oil deposits in Alaska that can't be tapped since there are endangered species that would be wiped out. Yet the Republicans are pushing to do it anyways. They are soo thirsty for oil they are willing to wipe specieses of the planet!

Conservative (in any country) have to start facing reality: natural resources are limited! Oil will run out. The only hopeful prospect is if the price continues a gradual climb so that North American Society can adjust. If the climb is too sudden there will be dire consequences and I fear what governments will do to satisfy their public's unreasonable demands.

What is worse is that in trying to get more oil and other "valuable" resources they destroy real valuable resources that are necessary for survival. The best example is the gold mining operations in the U.S. In order to get one wedding band's worth of gold 3 tons of soil must be removed and drenched with cyanide (yes cynide, one of the most toxic substances known). Some of the cynide leeches into the water tables and can pollute water systems that are as large as 3 texases. If our water becomes toxic no animal or plant will be able to live! On top of this it is the tax payer that pays for the environmental cleanup of the site once the minning or drilling is done which may cost more than the money made from the mine! But once the water table is contaminated, cleaning it is unrealistic. So your screwed.

Of course I didn't bother to mention all the adverse effects of actaully using the oil in the first place such as air polluation. I hope oil prices climb, conservatives need to start facing the music instead reading some old work of fiction.

For scientific info on the oil problem:
ASPO the Association for the Study of Peak Oil
To learn about the real price of gold (environmental damage, pollution etc):
Environmental Media Services
Gold nuggests are extinct, the gold mined isn't even visible with the naked eye!

-------------How to Post anonymously--------------------

First click on the comments link at the bottom of the post. Then, when you click on Post a comment you will be taken to a sign in page. Just below the "Sign In" Button the is a link "Or Post Anonymously". Click and post. I look forward to reading your posts.