Venandi

Can I assume from this that you actually approve of Democratic machinations south of the border and Liberal ones here? Being something of a political agnostic I tend to look at policy in terms of potential efficacy and compare its objectives to likely (and observed) unintended consequences. For me it's a simple matter of following good ideas in the absence of party affiliations... or at least it used to be. Even at a rudimentary level of consideration the liberal capacity to do the worst possible thing at the worst possible time is breathtaking to me. I've arrived at a point where doing the exact opposite of a Biden / JT plan suddenly becomes the first option to be tested against potential outcomes. Do liberal minded folks ever do a brief QA assessment of their thoughts or actions? Do they ever ask "what could possibly go wrong with my excellent plan? Much of what I read in the news makes little sense to me. I tend to divide crises (especially emergencies) into two categories because it helps decide on follow up action once the fire is out. They become "awe s--- emergencies" or "holy f--- emergencies based on the degree of severity. It helps prioritize immediate actions, concentrate on solutions in a changing environment, and avoid the pitfalls that attend "strength of an idea." When you take strength of an idea to the current hight's of absurdity it becomes a religion. Never before, in my entire life BTW, have I mumbled "holy f--- under my breath more times than in the last three and a half years. I'm now conjuring up a t-shirt design that says "vote em out and crush em" on the bottom rocker. Since it took a lot of hard work to get me there I'm starting to think that congratulations are in order.

Not for me though, I'll happily take the mosquitos that go with the rain. Thanks though, I'm glad to hear it's different now. About time I'd say...

Still a problem today and I suspect that CFRC postings are still seen as a mark time / punishmen event. I'll call you right back really means that they won't bother, as a result, some of the best candidates are lost to things like community colleges and policing. I reenrolled from the airline world as a skilled applicant during a pilot shortage, a former crew commander, ICP and pilot standards officer with 10K hours. It took a full year to get a punishment posting intended to serve as retribution for leaving in the first place. Poor performance then, multiply by 2 and add 10% for woke nonsense now... then stand in awe of the resulting effect and blame it on being non inclusive. As usual, my question is what did you think was going to happen?

I've wondered about this myself but admittedly, I have little in the way of supporting facts to defend an opinion on the subject. Given a finite amount of personnel resources though, would the private system detract from a public one already in shambles? Perhaps the best and brightest would migrate there to the detriment of the masses. In other words, if we only had 10 doctors and they were split evenly between the two sectors would those who couldn't afford private care suffer more than they are now? I don't know... In some locations mobile clinics and empowering pharmacists with increased authority to write prescriptions has worked pretty well (I think). I haven't looked into the idea of there being a true shortage of practitioners either. Do we really have less doctors per capita now than we did when the system worked or has it become bloated and fat; something akin to a corn fed Meat King chicken that collapses under its own weight? If it truly is a shortage, and if we were to start now (like today) the solution may be 5 years away assuming maximum effort, no attrition, and no more immigration/aging population creating increased demand; tough conditions to navigate I think. Attrition, operational tempo and recruiting in experienced based occupations requires close scrutiny and an eye on the horizon. Training times are long and costs high. As to the solution, assuming my province had a medical school, I would lean toward paid tuition (books and subsidized housing) in return for an obligatory period of service wherever needed (in the province). Something like pilot training in the RCAF except a whole lot cheeper. But beware, it needs a steady hand on the controls and good weather radar. The military has taken its eye off the attrition, tempo and recruiting equation to such an extent that attrition has made personnel deficits (the ability to out train them) and mentoring (at operational units) a huge problem. I think collapse is looming without immediate action, sort of like the chicken thing. IMO, it's now a "pull pole" lock and load moment not to be squandered.

Given recent events I think we're about to receive one of two lessons. It will either be a lesson in diplomacy and the pursuit of peace or manifest itself in the cost of complacency and tacit tolerance of terrorism that puts us on the wrong side of history. That cost will likely be measured in lives / opportunities lost, and simmering hostilities for the next 2 generations. Dress it up as you will but let's not pretend that the current situation is unforeseen or the result of some wildly unanticipated outcome. IMO, a shoulder shrug and "who'd a thunk" sentiment is about as useful as using nazi and genocide in the same sentence. In another thread I asked someone how they would negotiate with a murderous neighbour just released from jail for the attempted arson of their house and the poisoning of their dog. I got a Nazi response very similar to that quoted above. If you have something to de-nazi the whole thing I'd love to hear it. We collectively contributed to a UN NGO that supported a Hamas shopping list and then freed up a bunch of money for Iran to spend on discretionary items. A bit like defunding police, providing easy bail, tolerating hideous response times and raising felony (indictable) theft thresholds while expecting it to reduce crime. Maybe you're surprised by the turn of events or were expecting a different outcome, I wasn't. I'm remain disappointed but not surprised, and from what I've seen of the world, that Nazi response is typically the domain of those who can't make it through Christmas dinner with their own in-laws.

Nope, that's between you and them... I'm guessing y'all enjoy the banter so fire at will, it's of no interest to me. As to being off topic, some of the covid issues discussed here wouldn't be so contentious had people just minded their own business and left their neighbours in peace. There could easily be a 100 page thread on all aspects of that alone, the effects of it are broad spectrum with lasting consequences, some of which (like lipids vs the BBB) we don't even know about yet. I won't drag the thread further afield, I'll just leave you with a final thought: I'm suggesting that Covid was a big deal and that there's a lot of lessons here for the wise to reflect on. When I hear things like "the Governor has moved on" (I know you didn't say that BTW) or some condescending comment like "it's an old issue, get over son," I see that it usually comes from a contingent of people who were absolutely wrong about absolutely everything. Not only did they get everything wrong (that wasn't good enough for them) they had to hurt a bunch of people in the process and be mindlessly hateful whilst doing it. Insert snippy voice here "move along son." Well, not so damn fast partner... just who do you think you are? Look at the damage caused and then consider the effect of snippy, condescending comments or BS memes on those who refuse to entertain the prospect of covid madness version 2.0. It's not a statistically insignificant group and you may be in for a surprise by antagonizing them further. I was suggesting that doing so creates an easily anticipated backlash on election day, I was suggesting that the people who do that aren't going to like the result, and I was suggesting that all you had to do (not meaning you personally BTW) to avoid that was pretty much nothing. Clearly I can only speak for myself but the whole road rage thing doesn't work with me (or, dare I say, people like me). It actually works against the rager, they seem to confuse good nature with fearful compliance, those days are over, best just stay in your car now... I guess that was my point. Your meme was simply a target of opportunity, a vehicle to make that point, a chance to suggest that the authors of such memes may not like what's coming down the pipe and to suggest they only have themselves to blame for that. I'd also suggest they prepare to get crushed on election day and lose the support they previously enjoyed from moderate minded liberals. I see all of this as self inflicted and perfectly predictable. Were you really expecting a different result? As with the previous post, please note:

Fair enough, but ridicule the legitimate concerns of others with a weather eye on karma... and I'm speaking generally here, not accusing you of anything. In the fullness of time people who do that may see their own concerns trampled like old ladies under an RCMP horse. I'd suggest that the effect here is to push moderate people who populate the centre (dare I say like me) into an unapologetic hard right turn. A short sighted tactic born of overconfidence and complacency IMO that fails to anticipate future political shoe exchanges whilst ridiculing cobblers. I predict blisters on the horizon. Bill articulates the whole thing pretty well. If you look back at some of the comments here and listen closely to what he says, you'll see where the "vote em out and crush em" sentiment comes from. If you're one of those who thinks this is off topic then please beware of horses:

One of the reasons I joined the forum was to see if my concerns about our trajectory were valid. I hoped to discover that the polarizing idea behind "vote em out and crush em" was a misinterpretation of the prevailing sentiment I see in acquaintances.... in other words, a lack of situational awareness on my part. Please be assured that I appreciate the clarity you and a few others here have given me on the subject. It seems like the values I subscribe to are way too liberal for progressives. In any case, I now consider the experiment complete and instead of simply wondering whether the "crush em" sentiment was a real thing or not you've actually sold me on the idea of it.

And it's pretty clear to me that covid events serve as a harbinger of things yet to come. Real life experience is exactly why I'm worried. I sincerely hope nothing you come to experience under a pending conservative (or perhaps Republican) majority will give you cause to see those very words reflected back at you.

This is not about covid for me. The Emergencies act comes to mind immediately as being analogous, the idea that banks were empowered to freeze joint accounts should be a bridge to far for any sensible person, especially one who publicly declares their wish to be left alone.

That's exactly right... it will take absolutely nothing on your part to give me the appeasement I want. The only question I have is can you do nothing?

IMO, the only hope you have of being left alone is now contingent on caring.

Wait now, that's not what I want and I think you already know it. All I actually want is nothing. I want (those) folks to have the luxury of making their own threat assessment and the freedom to act accordingly. Then I want them to mind their own business and leave me alone. If you (and they) can commit to that then no apology is needed, or desired because it takes us back to a place I never expected Canadians to abandon in the first place. The distinction is hardly pointless.

My sentiment exactly, likely for different reasons but since they take us to "Show Me Town" it doesn't really matter. Personally, I think the "it is" vs "it isn't" debate is fruitless, it's where statistical debate goes to die and we won't know who's right until nothing happens or no one can breathe anymore. It just means one side or the other gets to say I told you so. My concern is the cost of going from 1.8% of global emissions to 1% (essentially a drop of 0.08%) when we already know that our land scrubs all of it. Last year the government committed to spending $200 billion in support of the climate action intended to get us 40% below 2005 levels in less than 6 years. OK, if people want it and they're willing to pay for it who am I to complain... especially when the 70% of Canadians who wanted a carbon tax in the first place are already complaining loud enough anyway. I don't believe for one second that Canadian voters in general (and liberal voters in particular) are willing to suck it up and actually pay for what they say they want The government doesn't even measure the percentage of emission mitigation as a result of carbon taxation, even so they still assure us that the tax will account for 30% of our commitment. Cool eh? Personally, I don't believe that but let's pretend I do. POOF... the other 70 percent comes from somewhere else and we don't even know where somewhere else is at the moment. So it seems to me that If the effects are intended to be linear then the math doesn't work and if we accept the idea that they are nonlinear then I recommend caution, stand clear of all windows between 2028 and 2030 lest you be sucked into the vortex. I think the cost will be way higher than people think, that's why I always ask what are you willing to give up? It seems like a reasonable question since that will represent 70% of the expected effort. Electric lawnmowers and magic light bulbs just won't get us there IMO. .

That's what I'm afraid of. The people who beat the mandate and passport drum want to forget the whole thing. And it seems to me that those who beat it the hardest and loudest are most motivated to forget their gleeful participation in band practice. I'd also note that few of the rabid "get you're butt vaxed" proponents (about 15%) actually followed their own advice and kept their vax status up to date. Instead of being horrified by their own actions and resolving to never let it happen again, their apathy is likely to sentence us to version 2.0 of covid madness the very next time they become frightened. Here's how I see the human nature factor in this. Few previous supporters of mandates and firings are still willing to do it as publicly and viciously as they had in the past. I think they're embarrassed... at least I hope they are. They damn well should be IMO. I wish I had kept a file of the hateful pro-vax rhetoric of the day, remember all of those "let em die," "no medical coverage for you," "good luck paying your mortgage," "intern them" and "should we even tolerate these people" sentiments? All have aged poorly and all are as indefensible now as they were back then... none of it is something I care to repeat, and none of it is something I'll willingly allow others to stuff down my throat again. BTW, those comments have become increasingly difficult to find online now... what's up that? So no... I won't be moving on until I'm sure that the motives of the people who demand I move on are less self serving than they appear now. It might be the simple soldier in me, but the more people defend that bad behaviour of the past, the more they tell me to move on, and the more they minimize the effect of their own participation in it, the more horrified and unwilling to "let it go" I'll likely become.

Yup, I sure hope we learn from that. After reading all the comments here and considering Canada’s covid response in general, I decided to go looking for something we actually got right. Something I could look at and say “yup, I get it, that made perfect sense… good job.” So regardless of my personal feelings about the vaccine itself, the national response in general, the hateful and divisive rhetoric, or the clubbing of individual rights like a baby seal on an ice flow, I did a little digging. It occurred to me that maybe our timely acquisition of the vaccine (in sufficient quantities) and acquiring the required number of ventilators (on short notice) would be the bright spot I was looking for. Nope… A few minutes worth of searching suggested that (altogether) we disposed of some 53 million vaccine doses at a total cost of $1.6 billion. That’s not the stuff we gave away either, apparently “disposed of" actually means disposed of. So... I got to wondering, If maintaining vaccine efficacy required inoculation at 9 month intervals, did the people who cheered when their neighbours got fired actually roll up their sleeves and do what they demanded their neighbours do? Well, apparently not, only 15% of Canadians stayed current and up to date. I suppose that opinions on “WHY” may vary but mine is that the rabid pro-vax community no longer believed their previous messaging. And since that messaging was so hateful (IMO), I would have expected a bit more effort on their part. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/just-15-of-canadians-got-updated-covid-vaccines-this-fall-new-figures-show-1.7064240 Then there's the ventilator thing. Yes this is from Rebel news but I don’t care about sources, I care if the information is true or not. Decide for yourself: https://www.rebelnews.com/hundreds_of_unused_ventilators_purchsed_by_feds_sold_for_scrap And with that my search for something “well done” came to a sad conclusion. It does take me back to my original (day one) premise though… do your own threat assessment, then do what’s right for you with my full blessing. After that, all you needed to do to get along with me was absolutely nothing… just extend that same courtesy to me. It amounted to minding your own business and leaving me alone, you couldn't even do that. It could easily have been the bright spot I was searching for… it wasn’t though. It was actually the worst part of all this

It would be a simple matter to test your theory on a smaller scale, we could do it right here at home. Don't just defund the police, disarm them completely, no gun, taser, baton or pepper spray. Instead of having a strong department with a variety of force escalation options available (let's call it muscle) to deter those elements of society aligned against us, we'll simply appeal to the good nature of criminals and ask them to stop murdering, raping and robbing. In an effort to mirror the existing threat and current funding issues faced by NATO forces, I recommend conducting our experiment in an urban area with an undermanned / underfunded police force... let's say Toronto. Any predictions before we get started?

Cool, we are in complete agreement here. LOL time to stop eh? Still, I sometimes wonder how much it will take.

Only if you were willing to get fired though. And yet we know it didn't stop transmission. It's an important issue with important lessons. The madness surrounding it was something I never expected to see in Canada and hope never to see again. I call it profoundly disappointing. Not me, I only want to be left alone. If the rights and freedoms that are ours by birth can be trampled upon simply because the majority are frightened, then (IMO anyway) they were never worthy of being defended in the first place. Which means were doomed to repeat this... and the catalyst for repeating it is fear.

It does call vaccine efficacy into question though, at least for me. I'm all for letting people decide for themselves though... and that's the only issue that matters to me. As I see it, we started with you won't get covid and you won't spread covid. Then, in the face of legitimate questions, asserted that getting vaxxed was a public duty. After that we said it won't kill you when you get it and fired a bunch of people (who no longer believed all the rhetoric) for not conforming. Now we're discussing mortality among the vaccinated as if it was always completely logical to assume there would be as much as there clearly is. I've had Covid twice with no ill effect but based on the (admittedly) anecdotal experience of previously healthy neighbours and acquaintances, I won't be rolling my sleeve up anytime soon. My take on this is get vaxxed as many times as you deem reasonable based on your own threat assessment and then extend that same curtesy to others (meaning me). My only issue here is with the people who refuse to do that. Extend that courtesy to me and suddenly you're right about it being moot. Easy eh?

Here's the question in need of an answer: Normally, I usually ask if you've ever driven the Salah al-din Road prior to discussing this issue. Here's why I do that: It's not that you have to drive from Rafah to the Israeli border in order to offer a thoughtful solution, it's just that I've never met anyone who hasn't done it propose anything more constructive than sarcasm and ridicule.

I wasn't going to enter this fray but fool that I am, I'll suggest that the first step toward peace always requires the belligerents to commit to a process, at least in principle anyway. It clearly applies here but it also applies to that fence dispute you 're having with the murderous neighbour next door who just got out of jail for trying to burn down your house and poison your dog. OK, I don't mean "you" in any of this BTW but you know crazy neighbours are a real thing so you get the point. In short, Israel lacks a partner in the peace process. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and that's reflected both in their actions and their motto of "from the river to the sea." Once you know what river and what sea, a quick glance at a map becomes instructive, it also serves as a declaration of intent unless you think they're just kidding, that's a whole new thread BTW. Hamas is a terrorist organization closely aligned with Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. It accounts for why other Muslim countries (especially Islamic States with monarchies) refuse to accept Palestinian refugees whilst applauding and encouraging other countries (like Canada) who do. As in the case of your neighbour, you can eliminate the crazy person (I'm talking incarceration here, nothing nefarious), or remove yourself from the equation entirely by moving away. If you see a third option please tell us because that's the missing link here. How do you propose to enter into a meaningful discussion with your neighbour's particular brand of violent craziness? Especially when you can't get through Christmas dinner with your own in-laws who vote conservative. If all ya got is let's talk about it then I wish you well but I'll bet your dog remains (and quite rightly I'd say) suspicious of the motives, doubtful of the outcome, and reluctant to eat pork chops in the back yard. You may have the option of moving to a new house but excavating and relocating an entire country is a bit more problematic. Until Hamas is removed from the equation there is no moving the process forward. If you're suggesting that they've had an epiphany of sorts I'd love to hear why that is. I think they've become more murderous rather than less and they're happy to throw their own people under the buss rather than change. The worst part of this is that they don't reflect the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian people, never have and IMO never will. They still utterly fail to recognize that they could have had peace anytime they wanted it.

I tend to agree - as an additional for instance, people go para sailing in the Maldives (on vacation) and return with a profound understanding of radical Islam. Then they reduce a sunshine soaked epiphany into asserting things like "my hairdresser is Muslim and she's nice". I'm not suggesting that she isn't either but Islam is a complete system IMO, so while it's a religion, it also includes its own laws, code of conduct and definition of morality. Functionally, it's fundamentally at odds with secular liberal democracy and I would offer US foreign policy as an example of systemic failure in recognizing the reality of that. That's not to say that Muslim immigration is bad or that its unworkable, only that demographic concentrations can come with predictable integration challenges which are largely ignored by those who scream racism at he mere mention of them. That's why liberal heads are exploding at the idea that the Muslim community doesn't support the mutilation of minor children who identify as "human puppies" or classroom pornography. For too long both groups have used each other in an unholy alliance born of political expediency and then discovered the difference in values are more ingrained than either cared to admit during the honeymoon.

Covered by decidedly liberal outlets as well. Anyway It's embedded in this article. and easily found online for those so inclined. As you likely know from experience, rules of engagement are typically presented in a "situational context" that expands and amplifies the written directions. Usually there are lots of questions about specific application in specific circumstances. I'm guessing there was a lot of discussion about the parameters here and I would have hated to be the OPs guy charged with leading a combined staff discussion on the topic and defending the content. First time I've ever said that BTW, I usually enjoy conjuring up scenarios for Op Evals and the like. On second thought, it might have been fun but the absurdity of the presentation would likely have gotten me fired.

Off topic I guess but contributory in terms of the mindset I find disturbing. This is one of several reports, many of the others are less kind: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/harm-reductions-latest-overreach I think you're onto something though, consulting a soccer team composed of ten year olds would likely serve us better than polling liberal voters in BC.