Acting RICO for All

The term 'conspiracy theory' has more recently become the stone in the sling of social discourse for the political left. Facts and reason have been adopted by the political right, as the point of each arrow loaded in their bow of discourse. In previous years the social zeitgeist broadly held the mantra of, 'the facts don't care about your feelings' and yet in recent years it seems that society has adopted the ideal of, 'my feelings don't care about the facts'. Welcome to the most recent skirmish in the culture war. 

In an effort towards full disclosure, this author now informs the reader that he has a politically right-of-centre leaning preference towards the future histories of this world. Due to the current nomination hearing for a new judge being appointed to SCOTUS, coupled with the Hunter B laptop situation and the potential for WWIII, politics is currently front of mind for the many; including this author. 

To have a decent and meaningful discussion between people with opposing views, the first step is to have a similar understanding of the terms. So, here are some dictionary like terms from Google:

• Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
• Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
• Conspiracy Theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
• RICO Act - 1970: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

The definitions above were provided to show how, over time, terms can be morphed to fit a purpose. The reader is now being asked to consider the Hunter B laptop story, where the original story as presented was described as Russian propaganda; the then claimed propaganda theory has now been shown to be true thus making the Main Stream Media's (MSM) coordinated efforts harmful. The story referred to as the 'Covington Kids' as originally presented by the MSM turned out to be false, and it was only after the full video was made public did some News outlets issue corrections and other News outlets settled out of court for defamation of of character. The Kyle Rittenhouse story from 2020 was also both sensationalized and falsified by the MSM; the gun didn't cross a state line and Mr. Rittenhouse only shot white people. Should the RICO Act be applied to those who coordinated to provide false information in these situations? 

 

The MSM has historically been know as the arbitrator and disseminatore of facts; thus informing the public at large who is telling the truth in an adversarial situation such as political debate. In this the current year, there is a problem, that many members of or an entire News outlet takes a side and holds fast to a political position. This means that most people in the past thought News outlets mostly reported on things like the weather, murders, political scandals and occasionally there were celebrity highlights typically around the time of some award show. 

As over time the MSM News outlets moved away from facts and shifted toward feelings; it was somewhere along that timeline that the party-partisan race was on. Much like most human endeavors, once someone is given an inch, they will take a mile. We are currently within that mile taken if not beyond, and it is up to the reader to sort out their own opinion based on what they see around them.  

After how many years of living near someone who brings no food along and lies all of the time, do you stop inviting them to the summer BBQ party for the cul de sac you live in. Does anyone else recall when the word agenda meant 'a list of points to be discussed' over the current 'here is what we are going to do and not tell you about it, so said the CIA.'

Riddle me this, why are so many, so hawkish about seeking seeking war in Europe?

Freedom Mostly

 Toronto Ontario Canada. 

As of 12:01 AM Monday March 21st, most of the regulations imposed upon the people of Ontario by the Provinciale government will be lifted, and the city of Toronto is following suit. Effectively, all public areas will be accessible without a mask; this includes settings such as retail stores, bars, restaurants, gyms, community centres or museums. This means shopping at St. Lawrence market will once again be open for smiles.

Masks will continue to be mandatory in high-risk and congregate settings including on public transit, in long-term care and retirement homes, health-care settings and shelters. The public transit requirement is mostly understandable as more people will be going back to work and so more people will packed in together. The continuation for retirement homes and health-care also makes sense as these locations already contain people who are immune compromised. As for shelters, COVID-19 is the last thing I'm worried about catching.

Of course some has to think off the child. Toronto Children's Service will be working with Public Health and the Occupational Health and Safety. The care-givers will be required to mask-up when dealing with children and/or the children's family. 

The City of Toronto has also amended Bylaw 541-2020, the Mask Bylaw, so it expires some time soon. While I applaud this move by City Counsel, it is a move that should not have been needed to be taken. Almost every law or bylaw should be outfitted with a sunset clause; the purpose of this is to provide a persistent review. The reasons are: a) smaller simpler laws, b) a periodic review of the existing laws to ensure they remain current and c) a publicly available website showing which laws have been renewed and which laws are allowed to expire. 

For example: it is illegal to drag a dead horse along Yonge ST on a Sunday. So, if your horse dies near or on Yonge ST. dragging the carcasse between Monday and Saturday is perfectly legal. This law needs to be revisited and rewritten to include any and all animals. Below is a version of a law that I would like to see:

Dead Animals on Greater Toronto Area Fairways

 

To maintain a comfortable living and pleasurable public environment the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) citizens and visitors. 

1) Application:

(a) By order of THE CITY, no person of legal age shall willingly or knowingly drag by any means the carcasse of a dead animal upon any public path, sidewalk, road, street, avenue, byway, highway, or other fairway. 

(b)  Person(s) of legal age, shall be held in custody, the Police shall provide reasonable effort to ensure that the Person(s) of legal age shall be protected from the natural elements of nature. 

(c) Person(s) not of legal age, shall be held in custody until the parent(s) or guardian(s) are contacted and arrive to meet with police. Police shall provide reasonable effort to ensure that the 

Person(s) not of legal age shall be protected from the natural elements of nature. 

(d) The  parent(s) or guardian(s) of  the Person(s) not of legal age shall take upon themselves any judgement(s) or penalties applied by the courts. 

2) Enforcement:

(a) Any person(s) or their parent(s) or guardian(s) who assist in the removal of an animal 

carcasse under which they cross a public fairway shall be exempt from the enforcement or consequence under this order. 

 

(b) Any person(s) or their parent(s) or guardian(s) found to be guilty of this law may be subject up to thirty (30) days of incarceration and/or a fine of up to CAD 15,000.00. 

(c) Up to two thirds of monies collected will be provided to any agency or company who assists in the removal of the carcasse. 

 3) Expiry

(a) This order expires 365 days after the day of enactment or the proceeding Friday unless it is re-ratified within ten (10) business days before the expiry date. 

 

-- END --

Sources for this article:

City of Toronto Website, City of Tronto Press Release

The Rational Animal

Aristotle (384-322 BC) posited that the living world could categorized by considering the ability to act, and the ability understand. The lowest level of life is the flora; for the plants don't have any ability to act outside of expansion and even for some plants they require bees, birds or other animals to help out. The next category, in Aristotle's living hierarchy, are the animals and they were defined as mobile but driven into action by need; these needs include items such as hunger, fear and the need for fornication or reproduction. The pinnacle of the hierarchy, as laid out by Aristotle, is of course the animal that can reason and that animal is human beings. 

Of course, at the time of this writing Aristotle's ideas are pushing towards 2,400 years old and so it is understandable that his ideas might be a bit off by now seeing he had a limited view of the world as a whole; no Internet access for him and societies have evolved over time. There is a caviate that needs to be pointed to; that while societies change over time the, members of every society basically maintains a statistical proportion across main character traits. Typically there are more differences inside of a group then between groups when one looks groups in the aggregate of the population. 

It is at this point that a certain level of understanding has to be agreed upon if a meaningful conversation or dialog can happen; else the end result is that some sort of war is bound to happen. The term 'rational' typically means 'based on or in accordance with reason or logic.'

In the basics of the English language, words are categorized as: a) nouns - a person, place or thing, b) verbs - actions, state of being, or occurrence, c) adjectives - a word or phrase naming an attribute to a noun and, d) adverbs - a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb. 

Returning the term 'rational' and the typical meaning a couple of words need to be added. The new verbiage should read - 'based on or in accordance with the use of reason or logic.' This clarification provides a slight shift in the definition as it affirms that both reason and logic are now verbs. This clarification has been done on behalf of the reader and the author in order to avoid the use of the word 'reason' as a noun. As in - the reason I had a drink of water is because I was thirsty. 

It seems that in this the current year, the term reason has been adopted more as a noun rather the historically preferred verb or action. This shift in western world thinking can be put squarely at the feet of the Socialists, who can be found to be stressing their Marxist ideology. This begs the question - So what has changed? 

The saying 'the ends justifies the means' is for this author the very foundation of Marxist ideology. The assumed mantra of 'equality for all' is just a presentation over substance commercial. This false mantra has been proven repeatedly by those who often proclaim that, regardless of space and time, 'that wasn't real communism.' Has the reader noted that throughout history seemingly every communist leader dies with millions of dollars set aside? Karl Marx, at least had the testicular fortitude to practice what he preached and die in poverty.

Alternatively upon inspection of the other side of the social/economic/political spectrum those people can be summarized by the statement 'the means will lead to an end.' The people who fall within this group tend towards making incremental changes at a slow place, so as they approach their goal minor adjustments can be made. 

Consider the story of the 3 Little Pigs. The first pig declared he needed a house and built one out of straw, the second pig declared he needed a house and built one out of sticks which took a little longer and more work, and finally the third pig declared he needed a house and built one out of bricks and thus the labour and time was extended even beyond the efforts of pig number two. If the reader is willing to entertain the idea that the wolf, in the story, represents inflation it is easy to see that the third pig who was best prepared via patience and labour, had the highest sustainability rate. 

Returning to those people who place the 'ends' first and the 'means' second, one can see that they have a tendency to take a 'great leap forward' so the ideal end can come about. This can be seen in the zealot groups of today such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), seeking to ensure that black men are not shot, yet publicly BLM ignores the ongoing gun violence in cities such as Chicago or Portland; all the while BLM leaders are busy buying mansions across the land. 

Additionally, there are those people who advocate for the moves and means to halt and reverse climate change. Many of these people make their living on the daily actions they take. The Centennial Light bulb was lit in 1901 and has been burning almost non-stop ever since. The business that made that bulb is obviously self deprecating unless each bulb was sold for one thousand dollars each if not more. This begs the question; will the climate change advocates ever truly want a climate solution or will they prefer an ongoing and never ending job? This question must be applied to many other Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and even the Governments themselves; for if we the citizenry solved education, poverty, snow clearing and road maintenance, why would we need so many bureaucratic mouths at the trough?

Next on the list to be criticized is media. In way of introduction, a smart Canadian man named Marshall McLuhan once proclaimed 'the medium is the message'. As the word media is the plural for the word medium; McLuhan's point was to include not just means of communication but also how the communication is constrained by the choice of the communication platform. McLuhan made his proclamation in 1964. Since those historic words were printed McLuhan's book 'Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man' things have changed substantively in Western societies. 

The distribution of ideas and information has been boxed in an ever shrinking window. In years gone by, in both waning and waxing ways the dissemination of ideas has gone through many editorial processes. In previous years there has been a plethora of editorial oversight, be it via; historical filtering aka: popular opinion, academic filtering aka: smart people flagging dumb ideas and editorial filtering aka: please use proper spelling and grammar. The historical still holds its ground though things are getting a bit muddy right now as interested parties are trying to rewrite history to bolster their narrative. It is the opinion of this author that the academic editing has moved almost to a point beyond repair; specifically in the social sciences. The public Internet is rife with a lack of editorial consideration. In short, as a society, we have lowered the bar in regards to communications both personal and public. 

Would Aristotle maintain his claim that humans are still the rational-animal and act 'based on or in accordance with reason or logic' in this the current year? To answer this question the reader may consider taking a step back and contemplating how many things around them have been wrong over the last five years plus. The masks were not useful, then became required, though now they are pointless, the vaccines would stop the spread yet now it is known that that don't, kids must be vaccinated to save grandma yet she has already opted for assisted suicide because she couldn't see her grand children, oil rich countries have to import gas and oil because the Russians are being unreasonable thus driving up the price of gasoline at the pump which was already on the rise before any invasion took place. 

According to Aristotle the rational-animal was at the top of the life hierarchy because they could be proactive rather than just reactive. I suggest a reflection of Aristotle's contemplations to see if we find ourselves wanting on this front. 

“You were not made to live like brute beasts / but to pursue virtue and knowledge.” 
Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321)

One last question - Does the reader still believe that a democracy requires a well educated electorate?

Good night and good luck! – Mr. Murrow (1908-1965)

Tutto il Mondo e' un Paese

 The title of this article, in English means, 'The Whole World is a Country'. This was something my nonno, Italian grandfather, used to say and I was reminded recently by my father. I would like to ask my nonno what he thought this saying meant; that opportunity sadly passed a number of years ago. My nonno had lived a long life and it is my understanding that man's first powered flight occurred after his birth, and man landed on the moon quite some time before his death; he also survived both World Wars. My father  recently brought this saying to my attention. 

Some times interpreting a simple statement can be quite challenging when a homogeneous understanding is the goal. Perhaps in this case there is no right response and the understanding is to be left to each individual. This paper seeks to explore different interpretations of the saying to understand better what my nonno had in his mind. 

I) The Globalist View:

a) Politically 

Most countries exist in a hierarchical framework. Working from the bottom up, the lowest tier is the household. Then comes the local level such as education, some roads, and snow clearing. The state / provincial level sits on top of many local governments, much like the many households located in the local regions. Then there is the top tier or the federal level which works with the states / provinces and protects the boarders. So what does this have to do with the globe?

The United Nations (UN) has asserted itself as a global federal government and each country is a representative state / province. The UN was started in July of 1945, my father would have been three at that time and my nonno would have been around thirty-five or forty. I doubt this was my nonno's intent when he would say this saying as the political globalist view had not really come to realization or even to the level it has risen after his death. 

b) Socially

I'm doubtful that a global social perspective was front of mind for my nonno as during his life there was not the goal of global unification between cultures; the talking-point 'diversity is our strength' was not a thing back then and I still don't think it is, and have always been hesitant to think that it is. 

In history, cultures were defined by borders, and as both travel and communications improved, some borders softened as the ever larger borders hardened until principalities turned into kingdoms, viva la Savoy, and those kingdoms turned into representative democratic countries. 

These are quite modern perspectives of a world my nonno had not even seen at the current scale. 

II) The Nationalist View:

Benito Mussolini once said something to the effect of ; 'everything in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state.' With that in mind, one could consider that a person's perception is such that from their perspective their own country is the only thing they have to worry about and as such that is their whole world. 

This line of thinking is in my opinion a lot more plausible, over the globalist view, as this was the times that my nonno grew up in. While this is the perspective of a world my nonno grew up in, I don't feel it was where his heart was when he spoke. Limited choices only allows for limited responses by most; though this too doesn't sound like the nonno I remember. 

III) A Pause:

So now there are some obvious possible positions in this discorse; there is the globalist view, the nationalist view and the view I have missed out entirely. The next step for me is to ask my father what he thinks the saying says as he is much more familiar with the sentiment behind the utterance. I feel that there may be some sarcasm involved. 

... One day later...

IV) The Continuation:

I talked to my father and got a bit clarity. 'Town', is another translation for the Italian word 'paese'. Many will know this word as the root for the term 'paesano'. In the conversation with my father we explored the word and the concept behind it. Within Italy back in the days when my nonno lived there, a man from Veneto or Emilia-Romania would never call a man from Abruzzo 'paesano', meanwhile in Canada this sort of interaction has become common place where any Italian is 'of the same place of origin' as another Italian. I guess the further one is from home, through both time and space, one relaxes the geographic specificity and the criteria.  

I have for the last 15 years plus lived in downtown Toronto Ontario, Canada. I don't have a lot of friends, though I do have a quite the basket full of acquaintances. Most of these acquaintances are the people who work in the shops and restaurants around my home. Some of my neighbours are also in the acquaintance basket as the good and services vendors around me. The main anchor point for my village inside a city is St Lawrence Market. 

Upon hearing my fathers explanation of the Italian saying reminded me of Clemente, another Italian man I knew for he was my barbiere; that would be barber for you eaters of cake. Clemente also had a good Italian saying: 'Un amico a tuo lato vale più di mille lire'  or a friend at your side is worth more than 1,000 lire. For those who think this is an old saying because Italy has not the lire since the dawn of the EU, please slow down for the 1970s 1,000 lire was worth about 1 dollar Canadian. 

V) What did I Learn:

The days of Italo, that would be my nonno, and Clemente are drifting further towards the back pages of the history books. These two men had a view of a world that is in no way similar to the one I see, with one exception and that is the basic personalities of people.

There is a tribal nature to mankind and what has been the most significant shift is the size of the tribe coupled with the density of the tribe within a given geographic area. Ease of  travel has impacted the tribal density, all the while the public Internet has expanded the tribal size. This calculus leaves me little to no doubt, is the driving force behind many current social tensions. 

I now take my nonno's saying as words of wisdom, for the people will be lost if we entirely give up on the idea of being part of a town. Clemente, also gave me wisdom, for a man without actual friends is considered to be truly poor. Also, Facebook friends don't count if you have never shared a handshake or a hug.