Internal vs External Thought Process - by Moses

A thought that you agree with is your thought on that matter, therefore an internal thought process. A thought that you disagree with is an external process, as this is counter productive to ones' semblance. A thought that you agree with is not absolute truth. Perceiving that ones' thought is absolute truth causes an act of turbulence, as this is a fundamental approach to thought. At some level, everyone experiences an external thought process. To implement the ideology of never having an external thought, would essentially be mandating schizophrenia. To sort out your thoughts is innate, your affinity to the Creator of the Universe. Memory loss will sometimes occur in context to this issue.
Ampage is a key component when analyzing this issue, as when a person feels 'hell bent' they act out and make demands that in some ways affects others to act out. This is a boundaries issue as relative to whatever that demand or trigger is...
When we delve into the ideology of fundamental thought process we should consider the difference between appeasement and compromise. For example; 'Blacks' weren't allowed to fly to South Africa before 1992. Today, Jews are not allowed to fly to Saudi Arabia. To appease this ideology is essentially the legalization of Concentration Camps in that Nation. Appeasement is defined in the dictionary as; To give in to a demand that goes against your basic principles. This causes higher incidences of suicide. Compromise as defined in the dictionary is a give and take process through collective bargaining (if you see something a certain way you give or you take).
To make it illegal to be somewhere, based on Race or Creed is (or rather was) Hitler's Theology written in the Fourth Reich.

No-Fault Insurance Re-Explored - by Moses

When Bob Rae introduced no-fault insurance to Ontario in 1989 it was deemed to be a logical way of discouraging civil suits resulting from auto accidents. The logic was that the civil courts were being clogged by minor suits from victims in auto accidents, and no-fault would lower accident rates as a result. It is now 2011 and we see that this is pure fallacy. Accident rates have remained exactly the same. We now see victims of minor auto accidents afraid to report the accident they were in, because they fear their insurance premiums will go up. As a result of no-fault insurance, when an auto accident takes place both parties generally find their insurance premiums go up, regardless of who was at fault. The victims' insurance company has to pay for the damages of their vehicle and this is leaving people paranoid of just being in their car, as there is practically zero accountability to the guilty party. Yes, the guilty party may lose points on their license (and a careless driving ticket), however, they are generally absolved of a civil suit from the victim.

Just to clarify, there are two distinctly different no-fault insurance systems;

1) In Saskatchewan they employ what is called a quantitative monetary threshold. This sets a specific dollar amount that must be spent on medical bills, before a tort is allowed. Therefore should a construction worker be out of work for three weeks as a result of whiplash from an auto accident and be out of pocket $6,000 in wages (as his Union only covers a portion of his lost wages), he can't file a tort in civil court because the amount is less than $8,200 (assuming this amount is the monetary threshold).

2) In Ontario we have what is called a qualitative verbal threshold, whereas an injury incurred as a victim of an auto accident must be severe enough to take a claim to civil court for damages (punitive in some cases, usually lost wages). This means that if a construction worker only receives minor whiplash as a victim of an auto accident, he can't make a claim for wage losses if it falls below this qualitative threshold.

In either case what we see is very little accountability to drivers causing accidents. They may lose points on their license, receive a ticket of careless driving, and receive a higher insurance premium as a result of their role in the auto accident. But how is no-fault insurance fair to the victim? He/She (the victim) can no longer feel safe knowing they are responsible drivers. All it takes is one idiot and their insurance premiums go through the roof. Before no-fault insurance the police report of an accident was done in far greater detail for insurance purposes, and they used to even track the hospital reports for the victims' benefit. In today's age it seems like a matter of convenience to simply put onus on the victim to make a case in civil court. It's kind of disheartening to know that the law really has no clout in many cases because of unfair thresholds. Considering that almost 40% of all Canadians live pay-cheque to pay-cheque this could be why there are so many timid drivers.