libertERAian

Stop the War Build-up

2011-10-22T08:15:00.013-04:00

This letter to the editor was published today in the Globe and Mail. It was edited so I am attaching the original text.

..............

The title proclaims “a victory for PM”, and the article
implies recent Libyan events provide credence for Canada’s current massive military build-up; the largest since WW2. In fact the existing hardware worked just fine for this mission. Indeed it seems easy to argue that no-one that is likely to attack us has the planes that the new F-35 are designed to fight, least of all 2 bit dictators.

While I too celebrate the death of this dictator, I question the base premise that we should be sending our military half way across the world to fight in other people’s wars. The U.S. is close to bankrupting themselves fiscally and morally with their constant wars, and Mr. Harper seems intent of doing that to us too.

It was the fiscal restraint of Mr. Chrétien that allowed us to weather the
last economic storm better than most. Mr. Harper has already squandered
that with 5 years of reckless spending increases. Worse he now seems
unopposed to taking us down the road of increasingly interventionist foreign
policy, with all the moral and security risks that implies. This is not
to be celebrated. The military should be for the defence of Canada only.

The US Debt Debate.

2011-07-30T07:30:00.004-04:00

My letter published today in the National Post:
Obama is partly responsible since he has done little to resolve the debt problem, and some of his program will make it worse. I am therefore unhappy about the title above the letter, so please don't take that as indicative of the content.

The nonsense posturing of conservative commentators about how the Republicans are saving the nation from Armageddon are near insane rhetoric. The Republicans are most of the reason the U.S. have such a huge debt. The Republicans are planning to increase spending significantly with this bill, but they claim their proposal is cuts. This is a lie, nothing less. What they are doing is making tiny reductions in the rate of increase, and with the large spending items all not included of course this is tinkering at most anyway. This leaves the deficit in the 40% range. That the anger of many people against bigger government in the public has been diverted into supporting the Republicans has ensured that until a new party is formed the situation will get worse.

Indeed the Republicans hijacking of the desire for change (lets call it the Tea Party since at one time this may have been a force for change) I fear will set the movement to reduce government back for years. The resulting transparent nonsense is already being noticed by the public and once again the concept linking the idea of small government to a large government seeking party is there and people will (correctly) reject that, but the public will not have the energy to start a new party so they will just flip between the two large government seeking parties and the problem will get worse.

I was up watching one of the 'Tea Party' branded members of the Republicans talking last night on national TV about the vote last night on the debt ceiling. He was talking about how the debt will be increased to $25 million by this plan, so he voted against it. He used the word millions several times so not a simple slip of the tongue. Of course the correct number is $25 *trillion*. By voting against it he was doing the correct thing and I would have liked to have been able to say here is someone making a principled stand, but there he was and he had no clue on the scale. Even worse he had no problem with the lack of cuts to spending in the bill and indeed mentioned support for the military and social spending that is so much of the problem. He seemed oblivious that just maybe there being no cuts had something to do with why the debt goes up. I note the CNN interviewer did not seem to notice the fundamental inconsistency either. A good interviewer would have roasted the Republican, instead the chance was lost on some partisan nonsense supporting the senate bill (the Democratic offering that is virtually identical). Sigh politics as normal.

Here is a link to the chart I reference in the letter.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150254838807036&set=a.115888632035.101862.706437035&type=1&theater

Trying to Separate Libertarian From Conservative

2011-04-14T08:04:00.004-04:00

Conservatives and Libertarians on many, if not most, things are at the opposite ends of the debate. There is a 4 day debate now in the letters to the editor section (National Post) on the picture that was above my letter (it was of a Conservative politician who some call libertarian, he is nothing like us). I attempt to clarify things in my letter, but with the appalling change to my wording near the end, I am made to support his candidacy !?@?#$>$, I think we are still at the stage where he who owns the printing press controls free speech.

Here is the letter as published today, as I wrote it and as it was published.

.................

I was also a bit surprised to see a Conservative above my oped. I suspect the confusion comes from us not interpreting property rights in the narrow fashion many people do. To Libertarians property rights apply to anything you own and these include intellectual property, physical property and your own body as well. This is a huge change from common law, as say anyone who tried to exercise free speech against say the king under English common law would have found.

More specifically it is fair to say there is something in common with the Land Owners in that they reject land stewardship that is unfortunately the way government increasingly views private property. This does not imply they are libertarian though if an individual within those organizations are among the people who reject the property rights of others. Examples specific to the farm community would be support for restrictive tariffs, quota systems and a monopoly on supply as ways to increase the costs to consumers for their personal benefit. Traditionally Conservative politicians have been among the worst for supporting these attacks on property rights. Perhaps that will change to the libertarian’s wider view of property rights with Mr. MacLaren, but that change needs to be there first before the label libertarian goes on.

Libertarian Party Oped.

2011-04-11T07:24:00.003-04:00

The article pretty much says has to start it all. It is a shame a typo got introduced and then highlighted by hey the basic message is there.

The Party of Peace.

2011-04-05T07:37:00.002-04:00

While the other parties are all talking about which wars to fight, I believe the more reasonable approach is to say no to any war you can say no to. The military should be for defence only, not for aggression against others.
My letter to the editor today in the National Post.

When is a Tax Reduction not a Tax Reduction

2011-03-31T20:00:00.003-04:00

The Conservatives are talking about all their tax reductions. Of course this is all bogus intended for people who do not follow what is happening. When you raise structural spending you have also raised taxes. It is just a matter of when.

My letter to the editor published today in the Era (Newmarket community paper)

Spend more For Less.

2011-02-01T07:34:00.002-05:00

The desire of the Conservatives to make us a less safe seems to know no bounds. Their supporters believe that spending money on fancy jets will make us more secure, but the evidence is increasingly that they are the wrong weapon if what they want to do is defend the country.
My letter as published today in the National Post.

A Bus Lane too Far.

2011-01-30T20:28:00.003-05:00

The local regional government is showering money on ill thought out mass transit. My letter to the editor today in the Era. Per usual some words are changed, not to change length either. "The" population became "our" population and similar use of wording I would never use.

They Just Don't Get It

2011-01-17T08:18:00.006-05:00

The Conservatives are looking for election gimicks, but this is sillier than normal. The press and many people are just lapping it up.

My letter as published this morning in the National Post.

How Cold is It?

2010-12-20T06:33:00.002-05:00

I don't have an on-line link to the cartoon so this is a bit out of context. Basically a Harper like figure was putting ice in his drink to combat global warming. My reply was published in the Era, with the only change being to introduce an error by converting degrees to C - which turned 54 F into 54 Celsius?!?

............................

Looking at your editorial cartoon I was thinking this is misleading. With the climate change conference in Cancun being held in the coldest temperatures recorded there in over 100 years the scene in the pool must be from historical stock cartoons not a contemporary observation. More likely they were sipping lattes to warm up. I guess as with the record cold in Copenhagen last conference the weather just has not read what the climate models are predicting and laws need to be passed to make them obey doom and gloom predictions, even if 54 degrees on a tropical beach seems gloomy enough to my way of thinking.

Harper as a Junkie?

2010-12-09T07:14:00.004-05:00

Stephen Harper has of course taken on a back up job as a piano man. His choice of songs is a bit puzzling. I sent this to the National Post in reply to his latest gig yesterday, no tongue in check no not me.

It was published this morning, including corrections as I had not noticed there was indeed a picture of him playing (with no article)

.....................

I was surprised to see no coverage today of Mr. Harper’s latest singing gig with “Jumping Jack Flash” as the grand finale at the Conservative Christmas Party. This song is of course well known as a tribute to the joys of heroin use by unrepentant junkie Keith Richards. Other songs included “Share the Land”, a collectivist anthem of social redistribution, and of course this gig is a follow-on to his earlier debut at the NCC where he sang the line “I get high with a little help from my friends”.

While Mr. Harper’s policies are clearly increasingly collectivist, so that seems consistent, the other choices do seem at odds with his importing of extreme policies from the U.S. war on drugs. Is there some major policy change in the works perhaps?

2010-12-06T09:13:00.003-05:00

So Wikileaks is down this morning, and conservatives across the world are calling for murder of the messenger. I took a tiny stand today to the National Post. The NP were strong defenders of press freedoms when the Liberals came calling on them, maybe they can pushed to help others too.

...................

I was extremely disappointed to see Tom Flanagan’s comments advocating Julian Assange “should be assassinated” relegated to only a short blurb, without editorial comment. Tom Flanagan is a driving force of the Conservative Party of Canada with senior access to their policy process. Such a person issuing the moral equivalent of a Fatwa on a reporter for leaking material needs to be held to the highest scrutiny. Other conservatives in the U.S. are also calling for his murder, and this will be seen as international support at an official level from Canada.

Regardless of how any organization feels about the legality of publishing leaked material clearly what Mr. Assange has done is no different morally than what the National Post and every major media organization in the world has done when they have published portions of the same material made available to them. Will you protest after they come for your writers who are doing the same as Wikileaks, or will you stand for freedom of the press now?

The Conservative Party of Canada, Leviathan on Steroids

2010-11-29T07:46:00.003-05:00

Leviathan is on the march, now sending in the storm troopers for the most minor of commercial issues and they will do any and all things they feel like doing.

The National Post very rightly takes exception to this, and I add a little more. The National Post will of course always endorse Conservative candidates and so has been fairly quiet on Fantino's election run, but hopefully I can prick that bubble.

Your editorial very properly outlines Bill C-36’s violation of basic rights, rights supposedly protected by the Charter. Mr. Fantino has also openly discussed his outright contempt for the Charter prior to his public silence on substantive issues during the current by-election.

Mr. Trudeau, author of the Charter, famously said “just watch me” in reply to how far he would go during a real crisis. Hopefully people will watch the Conservatives and will say “too far already” before Mr. Fantino, if elected today, tries to use that ‘iron fist’ he craves for items where a ‘velvet glove’ is appropriate.

Conservative as Free Traders?

2010-11-12T08:42:00.003-05:00

The Potash story continues. Given conservatives, more than most, are supposed to be historically minded it is amazing how short their memory is. I try to fix that a bit, but as it does not fit the spin I doubt it will be heard. This was published a couple of days later.

As submitted to the National Post this morning.
................

While I agree with much of what Mr. Watson writes I have to disagree with the closing premise that protectionism is not a “conservative” value.

1878 – Sir John A campaigns on his ‘National Policy’ of massively increased tariffs. This reverses the fairly free trade that had existed since 1854 and he wins.

1911 – Borden campaigns on a slogan “No Truck or Trade with the Yankees” and wins.

1930 – Bennett campaigns on even more increases of tariffs, and wins.

1985 - The McDonald royal commission (initiated by Trudeau) reports favourably on freer trade and convinces Mr. Mulroney. He changes his and the Conservative Party’s stance and campaigns on freer trade and next election he wins.

2010 - Mr. Harper goes back to the traditional conservative position of populist protectionism.

Unfortunately he too may win from this, while as Mr. Watson points out we lose.

2010-11-04T08:49:00.005-04:00

Yesterday the Harper Conservatives blocked the sale of Potash Corp, clearly the central state planners that the Conservatives are believe they know more than the shareholders what to do with their own property. The letter was published - mostly as is and including the typo. I was bemused at how another letter on the subject claims the Conservative Party has been infiltrated by libertarians - what a joke!! This letter is copied at the bottom too, don't read at breakfast or you may end up with Shreddies up your nostrils as one local did :)

My letter to the National Post on the issue:

The National Post very properly lambasts the Potash buyout rejection, but I’m not so sure why the multiple commenter’s seem to think this is out of character for the Conservatives. Earlier this week Taseko Resources was blocked from starting a multi-billion dollar mine in B.C. by the Conservatives. The environmental assessment for Taseko had already been approved provincially in much more detail and the over-ruling of the approval by the Conservatives was state central planning politicians at ‘work’.

The Conservative Party policy is consistently one of central state planning of the economy: so it seems the much discussed coalition is actually the Conservatives and NDP not the Liberals and the NDP.

Maxime Bernier - libertarian - hah!!

2010-10-14T07:44:00.003-04:00

A lot of people easily credit the word 'libertarian' to a lot of people that are not. It is not right wing, it is not people who vote for larger government. Maxime Bernier has 100% of the time voted for larger government, and so he is no libertarian.

Note in the speech referenced in the article he shows how confused he is about the libertarian idea, seeing it as a partisan Liberal vs Conservative issue. I see no evidence he would be any different than the self-described classical liberal Harper was - and we know what a disaster that has been to anyone who loves freedom.

My letter to the editor this morning to the National Post

................

Don Martin credits Maxime Bernier with a “libertarian mindset”. The problem with this is the reality of his voting record which is 100% supporting of the authoritarian legislation of Stephen Harper. Talk is cheap just as it was to Stephen Harper who called himself a classical liberal and said he would cut government; before having power. If Mr. Bernier ever votes like a libertarian then he can be credited as having a libertarian mindset, but not before.

Murder by a Government Employee is Still Murder.

2010-10-09T22:19:00.003-04:00

There has been a lot of traffic lately, especially from Conservatives, who seem to think that it is ok to execute prisoners of war. That any conduct is ok by a soldier, and that anyone trying to hold soldiers accountable to moral standards on the battlefield is not "supporting our troops".

The facts are Semrau made no attempt to provide first aid. Did not try to take vital signs. What he did was to murder a badly injured prisoner.

Unfortunately I do not have the original, computer crash, so here is the as published version.

This Can't Go On - Harper Conservatives Spend Spend Spend

2010-09-23T09:25:00.005-04:00

The Fraser Institute often does good work, but they seem obsessed with hiding the guilty from view when the guilty are Conservatives. This article does a good job of describing the very real problem of the spending obsession of the Harper Conservatives, and does note that, but spends far more time trying to shield the guilty from scrutiny.

.....................

Hi:

“This cannot go on” is an excellent piece and should shock anyone not aware of how out of control federal financing is getting into voting to stop it.

Claiming it was the Reform Party's “pressure” on a majority Liberal government that lead to the change from the path to ruin of the Mulroney Conservatives does seem farfetched. The Chretien Liberals were given a mandate by the voters specifically to fix the Conservatives mishandling of the federal finances. Give credit where it is due, to Mr. Chretien and the voters who said we are not going to take it anymore.

As for a former key Reform Party member who is now the Prime Minister; Mr. Harper should be condemned for what he has done to destroy the partial reforms.

2010-09-10T11:09:00.004-04:00

Why is it that others can learn from history, but our fearless leader cannot? Castro seems to have noticed what a failure socialism has been and has now publicly said so. It remains to be seen if he will follow that with actions but his admission I thought was powerful considering who he is. This letter of mine was published in the National Post this morning. A friend said it was read on the air by Jerry Agar on CFRB1010 too to his great surprise given he was reading it too so I guess he figured I have cornered the market on media? ; -)

Here is as written and as published (interesting I consider the published one actually stronger against Harper).

As submitted:

Side by side this morning I see the old socialist Castro finally admitting he was wrong now that he sees the results, and a younger Harper promoting yet another massive pork barrel project despite having seen the results of such socialist policies. Ya win some and ya lose some.

Jean Chrétien, who had earlier 'seen the light' and massively turned around public finances here that had been devastated by an open admirer of Castro, Trudeau and Mulroney who had continued Trudeau's trend, was unfortunately followed by Harper who has reversed us back to a course towards socialism.

Depending on how serious Cuba is about moving away from socialism perhaps someday Canadians will be flocking to Cuba for more than just the sun, that is unless they see the problems but do not reject the old ways as the current government here has.

More Pork

2010-04-03T08:42:00.002-04:00

When the Liberals did this they called it waste and 'pork'. Now the Conservatives do it I guess it is one more thing the Liberals are forcing them to do.
What crap - the Conservatives have to go.

It's the Spending Stupid!

2010-03-28T13:43:00.003-04:00

Local columnist and supporter of almost every spending plan, unless not spending enough, is now complaining about higher taxes? Gee I didn't realize she is Conservative :) Actually she is just consistent with the Conservatives, attacking taxes but increasing spending which as anyone who is caught in this detail called reality means it has to be paid for with - wait for it - higher Taxes!

A letter I sent to the Era Banner yesterday.

...............

For as long as I have been reading Debra Kelly's column she has supported the lavish spending plans of government, and often spoken harshly of every attempt to cut spending. Now the bill is due, and all of a sudden she complains about the bills being (only partly) paid in "No new taxes? Don't be stupid".. I'm wondering - how did she think that spending that increased by leaps and bounds each year was going to be paid for except by increasing taxes? Like the credit card bill that cannot be paid this month the problem is not the bill: it is the spending that came before. Given there will be 8 years of deficit the taxes have not even been increased enough. The people like Ms Kelly who supported the increased spending should be responsible and say yes please tax me more. I have long opposed the excessive spending, I can morally argue for lower taxes. The people who supported higher spending cannot morally do anything other than praise higher taxes otherwise they are cynically passing higher taxes on to generations not yet born to pay for their excess now.

2010-03-15T12:53:00.004-04:00

In response to the National Post Editorial. Sorry cannot find a link to it.
Note the print version has significantly altered what I said in the last sentence - big :(
...............

In the editorial "The Wildrose Effect" you credit the cuts in royalties in Alberta as "at least a beginning to lead the province in the right direction". In fact as the same article points out the problem is the province is spending more per capita than any other. The last budget shows spending still rising strongly, and as conservatives everywhere from Ottawa to Washington have proven conclusively when they cut taxes while raising spending you create deficits. In fact their actions are just a reaction and a denial of the real problem. Taking the easy but less responsible road of passing the bill on to the next generations. I trust Danielle with her libertarian ideas will do better and begin to fix the problem, spending, when she takes power as conservatives clearly do not understand there is a problem.

I don't know why I bother replying to such silliness but ....

2010-02-21T10:50:00.002-05:00

This in reply to a rather silly letter to the editor in the Era Banner.

Hi:

Your reader David Kempton presents his opinion that "Conservatively, that ratio is about 1,000 who believe climate change is mainly caused by human activity to every one who believes otherwise." I must assume opinion since there is no survey of scientists that puts it at anything approaching this ratio.

The most thorough study was by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. It's detailed survey of 489 key climate scientists working in the field found only 74% would agree with a similar statement. This is in close agreement with the numbers at the major climate change review group, the I.P.C.C., which lead that group to publish a 90% confidence level that the .74 degree increase in global temperature in the last 100 years was caused in part by people (i.e. 9:1)

Of course the real issue is not the small change that has happened but will this be the catastrophic danger, requiring major changes to society. In the same survey in answer to the question of does global warming represent a catastrophic risk only 41% agreed. Of course a good horror story is always going to get more press than boring old science, but it is important that science does get published on an even basis.

I also note Mr. Kempton seems worried that Dr. Bell is not a "climate scientist". I have to ask does this mean he is worried about David Suzuki getting so much press too? After all his major activity is as a reporter and his scientific training is all as a geneticist. As a final word to the media a final statistic from this survey. "Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as very reliable.

2010-02-09T08:39:00.002-05:00

The National Post has some writers taking a stronger line on Harper these days.
Predictably there is a flood of support in the letters to the editor with all the same old tired excuses about his relative lack of success. Here was my reply to a clear partisan this morning.
It was published this morning, in edited form.

Hi:

In his letter portraying Mr. Harper as a victim Mr. Klatt uses many excuses, including "If he was from Toronto or Montreal he would have had his majority long ago." Well Mr. Harper is from Toronto and personally as someone who went to the same school at about the same time Mr Harper did in Toronto (John G Althouse) I can state that any locality that may have been once shared would certainly not encourage me to vote for anyone so reckless of the economy as Mr. Harper has been.

Mr. Chrétien's "12 grim years" as described in the letter (it was 10) are credited by economists as the period when Canada did the best job of turning around the public finances of any G7 country. I can only shudder to think how bad the current recession would have been without the fiscal prudence of Mr. Chrétien to balance the two deficit binges of Mr. Mulroney and Mr Harper, both of whom set new record high deficits. While clearly the writer (in Calgary) values Mr. Harper's perceived locality over his grim record fortunately many voters do not.

Facebook is so Yesterday eh?

2010-01-26T09:43:00.002-05:00

The partisan Conservatives, and there are a disapointing number of those at the otherwise great paper the National Post, continue to be out in force attacking the messenger. Face it Mr. Harper, people do want their government to be held accountable and Facebook may be one of the ways to do that.

I sent this in reply to a rather silly note from Matt Gurney in today editorial page.

..........

Given their success on the weekend Matt Gurney once again randomly shoots at the messenger, which is the Facebook group he earlier dismissed as only a group "overrun by internet cretins". 20,000 people on facebook are initially irrelevant as Facebook will never translate to action; now that it's 218,000 and 20,000 took to the streets it was a low percentage turnout. Well I'd ask how often in Canada do 20,000 people spontaneously take to the street on a point of political order?
A more rational look would be to observe that even at the election polls only about half show up and government costs people tens of thousands times more each than the $1 he proposes as a test. Putting the same standard on Mr. Gurney I wonder if he was out in the 'real world' and talking to real people if he would use such terms and be so dismissive of his fellow citizens? I wonder when he last found the time to march down a street holding a sign.
Yes I'm a member of this group since early January and I do accuse him of more than just "cynicism". It's blind partisanship and I really think the space should be used for NEWS not partisanship.

Alberta Must Go Conservative ????

2010-01-09T09:12:00.002-05:00

Yet more conservatives are in denial, I had to say it to the National Post this morning.

............

The opinion piece "Alberta Must Go Conservative" implies a core value of conservatives is 'small government', and so Conservatives in Alberta are not conservative. Observation though shows conservatives have voted overwhelmingly for the bigger government in Alberta for decades, this did not start with Stelmach. Conservatives like Mr. Harper and Mr. Mulroney did the same on the national stage and internationally many, but not all, conservatives have been leading the charge to larger governments. It seems clear there is no conservative core value of small government even if some conservatives do hold that core value.

Historically the conservative movement was begun to support the existing governments in Europe in their fight against the liberal trends that was waging revolution against 'big governments' in the United States and then France. The liberal core value of "the government that governs least governs best" was abhorrent to the conservatives. In the middle of the previous century, when many liberals switched to became the champions of big government, conservatives changed their public position to talk about a return to small government. Their actions when in power show it was not a change to core value, it was a tactical move. Conservatives hold restraint of change as a core value, and in leading the charge to big government today they are simply returning to their traditional roots.

In this context, of returning to core values, a quote from 2003 and Mr. Harper is telling:

"The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values, so conservatives must do the same".

With this understanding, that small government is a nice to have as opposed to a core value, there is no need to assume some mass conspiracy duping of the conservative vote as the partisans claim. Indeed as a conservative core value is to resist change and as the existing structure is now massive government thier expansion of government can be seen as conservatives staying true to their core value of preserving existing institutions.

In Alberta the Conservatives are being challenged by a party lead by a libertarian, check her facebook page if in doubt what word she uses to describe herself politically. Libertarians hold only one core value and that is limiting the role government to a small set of specific tasks. That makes them a huge threat to conservatism as Mr. Harper noted in his speech at the Manning Forum last year. As there are many people who now think they are conservatives but who hold a core value of 'limited government' yes this is a huge threat to Conservative Parties. I wish her good luck, because it is only the libertarian idea that will bring change, conservatism has been tried and it failed.

Leaving Alberta Tories behind a smart move for MLAsRead

2010-01-05T07:31:00.003-05:00

As sent to the National Post this morning........

I'm a lover of small government and so was delighted to see on the front page the pro-big government juggernaut of the Alberta Conservatives taking a solid drubbing in the polls and 2 MLAs jumping ship. This is encouraging NEWS, but I urge Danielle Smith to be cautious. 2 days ago these same people were part of a government that for over a decade set records for excess in government. I suspect the recovery rates for Xauthoritarians is less than the single digit chances for other addicts so hopefully they will be limited to very junior roles till they have been thoroughly deprogrammed.

This is a brave and complicated experiment Alberta looks eager to try, to move to a Libertarian leaning government. Don't let impatience to gain power derail that noble goal.

Godly Work???

2009-12-21T08:32:00.002-05:00

I like many of the writers in the National Post, but increasingly their editorials are bizarrely out of touch. Increasingly they are blindly conservative, increasingly an us and them rag.

Comments sent today on thier stomach turning editorial endorsing god as having some monopoly with doing good work, as if she exists in the first place.

.................

Once again your lead editorial destroys the credibility built up by the fine work most everywhere else in your paper. While freedom of association is the basis of the editorial and I support that the implication that unless your divinely inspired you cannot help the less fortunate is noxious. Assuming religious institutions should be given protected status to discriminate as they want is dangerous; even worse than McDonalds too given the extreme basis of the major religions. Hey did they read themselves a little while ago when they said religions must be held in check on discrimination: wait I guess that was another religion so it's different? To pen an editorial looking like it's from an extremist monk in the 15th century is just wrong. This section of the paper went immediately to the litter box, no waiting for the old one to be soiled.

National Post endorses HRCs

2009-12-14T09:13:00.004-05:00

There is a lot more common ground between conservatives and socialists than they like to admit. The National Post editorial board tends to be conservative, and so often shots the feet off the more libertarian writers elsewhere and for that matter their own views and sides with the socialists. Today's editorial was a classic case, they totally reject the notion of private property and in doing so make the HRCs look good.

..............

I was truly appalled by the highly socialist tone of your editorial today "The latest 'human rights' embarrassment". You judge all individuals of a group (students) based on the potential actions of a few as if each is somehow responsible for the actions of the group. You then use this to defend authoritarian laws that remove the owners ability to use their private property. You defend removing a group's right to even live in a place just in case those people do things that are already illegal under other (valid) laws. You then evoke an image of "family character" of neighbourhoods: oh how sterile is your centrally planned and conservative world where the undesirables are forcibly restricted into ghettos.

Do you understand that by rejecting the owners fair use of thier private property 'just in case' your invalidating almost the entire moral basis for the fight against the Human Rights Commissions. By endorsing 'positive rights', where anything your neighbour wants of you can be seized by the state, your actually promoting HRCs like institutions. In rejecting the fair use of private property, sadly a common ground between socialism and conservatism, you have become the enemy you claim to oppose.

2009-12-07T09:07:00.002-05:00

This is a letter I sent in reply to a most authoritarian opinion piece written by David Suzuki on among other things "Climategate": where he says what we "must" do. I say we should stop this silly replacing science with insult, else we revert to a more primative way of looking at the world.

.........

In his opinion piece in the Era Banner David Suzuki starts by alluding to emails recently released at East Anglia. He dismisses this event with insult, and tellingly no discussion of content. People are just "wetting their pants". If this is an event of interest only to babies then why has the head of perhaps the key climate research centre in the world (Phil Jones) stepped down while the (apparently) fraudulent conduct of his organization is investigated by the relevant government authorities? Why has that organization already determined that their dataset must be completely redone? This will be a three year process since the researchers took the raw data and threw it in the garbage "to save space during a move".

To put the importance of this dataset (the basis of which was thrown in the garbage) in context the HADCRUT3 dataset is the core temperature data that the mid-term temperature studies (back to 1850) use to study climate change. It was this dataset one of his researchers (Michael Mann) used to create the famous hockey stick graph that Al Gore so famously used in "The Inconvenient Truth" and was used as the centre piece of the last IPCC policy report. Among the leaked emails was one advocating the use of similar "tricks" to make it appear as if there is warming (even when the data in that period did not support it) with newer work. They did keep the modified version of the dataset of course, but given the clear violation of scientific method exposed in the leaked emails any trust that the alterations between raw data and the final dataset were done based on science will have to be verified. Among the leaked documents was a sheet indicating the modifications that seem to have been used, 6 out of 7 increased the raw temperature data prior to publishing. Maybe this is required, I don't know, but I would want impartial and peer review accepting scientists to figure that out and not the school kids cooking the results that were exposed here.

This is not isolated, the leaked emails and documentation include incriminating activity written by 12 out of the 26 authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis. That document is being used as a basis by most global political leaders to decide how to spend trillions (not billions, trillions) of dollars this week. By dismissing this as just some wild conspiracy theory David Suzuki exposes his deep seated bias on the topic, a bias that has taken on quasi-religious fervour with so many people.

McGuinty's stunt with stunt driving declared Unconstitutional.

2009-11-25T15:47:00.003-05:00

I sent two 'letters' in to the Era Banner and the National Post on the very dangerous precedent the local Premier has set with multiple regulations that totally void any chance to defend yourself. On previous occassions the higher courts have allowed all excesses, but at least it is a stand. There Era Banner printed it, without changes!

To the National Post:

The stunt driving law was a political stunt designed to put police above the law. In a constitutional democracy, which we are supposed to be, the accused is assumed innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. Of course in traffic court in most jurisdictions your effectively assumed guilty till proven innocent, but at least you have some minimal chance to prove yourself innocent and to a trail before punishment. This is not the only regulation that has been made in Ontario by the McGuinty government that formally assumes guilt, but striking this one down is a courageous step towards responsible government and I commend Justice Peter West for holding the Ontario government responsible of the rule of law.

To the Era Banner:

I commend Justice Peter West who in Newmarket court held the Ontario government responsible to the rule of law by his ruling that the 'stunt racing' regulations are unconstitutional. Adding speeding as "stunt racing" was never even a law, it was a regulation passed without the discussion and voting at Queen's park a law would have required. In the honourable justice's finding, these regulations gave the 10,000+ people charged so far no chance to prove innocence. The police were made judge and jury and that precedent is far more dangerous to society than speeding. There are other, valid, laws that can be used to stop dangerous operation of a car and totalitarian regulations are not acceptable.

Danielle Smith's win - where will she go?

2009-10-20T11:28:00.005-04:00

Hi:

It may seem like I'm nit picking the words, but then if politicians were to stay with the words there would be far less problems. It was published - on the page opposite an editorial claiming that the rise of the libertarian idea was a victory for conservatism. You can lead a horse to water: but you cannot make them drink.

...............

I'm disappointed the National Post, with several libertarians on staff, got the well deserved congratulations to Danielle Smith so wrong in the analysis portion. A "combination of fiscal conservatism and libertarian social policies" is redundant and confusing. The libertarian idea is a fully integrated concept of limited government. The opening comment implying she is to the "right" of the current government is similarly confusing, there being no relationship between on the right and small governments. There are a lot of people in Alberta that are real upset at the results of conservative fiscal policies and that rejection is the basis of this new party. I really hope and believe that it is the libertarian idea she plans to move towards.

The libertarian idea requires rigid adherence to only providing government programs that benefit all people equally. This is very different than the practice of the "small c conservatism roots" which the editorial yearns nostalgically for. Fiscal conservatism is a system where smaller government is a nice to have concept with no firm rules to apply. A system that allows funding any program that seems like a good idea to get elected as has been the problem with the "small c" conservative governments of Alberta and now federally. It will take time, but hopefully she will not repeat the mistakes of previous governments that went the "small c" route, since once smaller government is only a nice to have you will always get bigger government.

George Jonas Leaves me Scratching my Head

2009-10-01T08:52:00.005-04:00

George Jonas made a brave attempt to define political terms yesterday. While he gets the base terms right, now the big sigh, he ends up confusing his own partisanship with the base philosophies correct definitions. This of course is constant in the press, so I put in my $0.02 to try to correct it. The result was edited to a fair degree, but I was surprised how much the post left in of my comments on Harper's position on the political spectrum.

Here is the original text as well as 'as published' this morning.

------------

I like what George Jonas sets out to do in "I'm a liberal. Ignatieff is not". He correctly points out Iggy is no liberal, but then sadly makes the baffling pronouncement that Harper is more liberal than Iggy. Given the term liberal was classically defined by "the government that governs least governs best" and Harper has done more to increase the role of the state than any prime minister in the last 40+ years this would have to imply Ignatieff is an extremist.

In fact Iggy is still a bit of an unknown in what his actions will be, but given he has shown some recent signs of respect for what Jean Chrétien did economically and has shown none of Harper's enthusiasm for social engineering (C-15 being the most recent) he is almost certainly more liberal than Harper.

Harper is a conservative and even more to the point he is also a statist. He has proven both in consistent actions over 4 years in power. I often read George and I know he is not a statist, so when he wrote he would vote for Harper he wrote that as a Conservative. No liberal would ever vote for Harper, he is not even the lesser of the evils to a liberal.

---------------

Reckless CONSERVATIVE Spending

2009-08-29T09:04:00.004-04:00

Hi:

Wednesday I sent in another comment about how the National Post seems afraid to use the word Conservative when attributing blame, and of course both Alberta and Harper versions of the Conservative Parties are due a lot of blame. The words were published today, even if attributed to someone else. I guess I started the problem with attribution as I forgot to put my name on the original submission : -(

As always it is the thought that count, and I am glad they are published. If we are to get ourselves out of this mess it has to start with reducing partisan double standards.

..................

Great article "Alberta needs to learn to say no to spending" - but as seems universal with articles in the National Post there is a huge gapping hole.

If this has been the NDP's or Liberal's or Green's excessive spending, their name would have been spread all over the article. In this case the reckless spenders are Conservatives, but the name does not appear even once. This is consistent with other articles on Conservative spending in the National Post, but not consistent with non-partisan reporting.

Failed Promises.

2009-08-04T10:01:00.004-04:00

It was encouraging to see Dan Kelly call it like it is, esp with so many supposedly independant think tanks (like the CTF) refering to the concept of smaller government as "deluional", but I had this hunch there was something missing when I read the article.

A little reflection showed there was, and of course it was the name of the parties of failed promises. Of course the federal Conservatives were elected on a promise of massive spending increases, but they keep talking about being fiscal conservatives so ....

As sent to the National Post.

.............

Dan Kelley's words in "Failed promises, unlearned lessons" rings so true.on the huge mistakes by two of the key governments in Canada. There is of course a glaring omission; a key common word is never used once. It's a brave move Mr. Kelly makes to state the truth when so many of the supposedly independent think tanks have become partisan for thier favoured political parties, and yes "Independent Voice" was a good descriptor below his name ... but still why does one word go unmentioned?

To have a chance to be published I'll not mention the word common to the offending parties "Conservative".... whoops.

Letter to Lunch Money (BNN)

2009-07-24T12:34:00.003-04:00

Sent in reply to the ongoing questioning based on the "National Security" nonsense being used to justify more government involvement in communications by RIM.

This was read on-air today: even the political part : -)

........

Why would anyone want government intervention into one of the areas of technology that was held back for so many years by counter-productive government mandates?

Leaving the Nortel/RIM politicking alone is one of the very few things the Harper Conservatives have done right in 4 years, let's not encourage them to 'help'.

Nortel Employee - 1980-1984

Another Free Market Organization Goes to the Dark Side

2009-07-22T15:36:00.005-04:00

This is a letter I sent to Kenin Guadet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Supposedly the Taxpayers federation is trying to help us fight waste in government, but the reality seems to be they are a front for hiding the waste of the Conservative Party.

As with the NCC earlier they have exposed themselves as just another Conservative Party Apoligist organization. The will ignore the number one problem we have in Canada today, and that is the Federal Conservative Party and Harper, simply for partisan support of the Conservative Party.

.....
Dear Mr. Guadet:

From your article this morning in the National Post it is clear that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is now a Conservative Party apologist, as opposed to free market support group helping to find waste and protecting taxpayers. Most appalling was the comment "Harper has a strong history as a fiscal conservative".

Before he was even elected as Prime Minister, running against Martin, he promised $92 billion in new spending to buy the election. This was double the promises of his competition, Martin who was a noted spender himself, and the promises were I am told a record as the highest ever election spending promises made in Canada. Since then he has has increased spending far beyond the capacity of the economy to pay for his waste, destroying the surplus built up by Jean Chrétien. We are headed to the largest deficit in Canadian history: strictly on waste. At every opportunity he has attacked the free market with his now trademark "unfettered capitalism" comments. He made the largest ever peacetime intervention in the economy with his bailout of the fat cats at the United Autoworkers pension fund. He is trashing the most effective tax in the country, the GST, for populist reasons.

Judged on his actions he has a zero record as a fiscal conservative. He is perhaps the worst fiscal manager this country has ever seen (and I lived through Trudeau and I am including him). Given his background at that other orgy of spending excess in Alberta (Alberta with the second worst program spending in the nation, despite low unemployment, last time I checked) I understand the term fiscal Conservative means something different than the lower case version, but the average person reading would think fiscal conservative means being careful with other people's money. Can you not see that your double standard with Harper will not change the fact that his policies have lead us back to the road of economic ruin? That by confusing people who do not have the time to investigate properly you may contribute to them not understand that he is the number one enemy of people who want accountable government in Canada. You are actively contributing to making the tax situation worse, and I can only assume this is for partisan political purposes.

No-one but a partisan Conservative would make such a mistake, to confuse his talk with the reality of his actions. The facts are just too clear. If you cannot see who the enemy is then how are you going to help fix the problem? Your letter has zero credibility due to this partisan nature, and it reflects very badly on your organization.

Letters to your MP - waste of time

2009-07-04T12:36:00.005-04:00

In the last 13 years here I have sent 3 letters to an MP. None has ever really been replied to.
The most recent was trying to see if the local (Conservative/Lois Brown) MP was in support of Harper's big government policies after they sent around a silly partisan booklet saying how pro freemarket they are:

Nothing back after 3 months, so I sent this reminder today. I expect no reply.

As an update. To her credit my MP (Lois Brown) called to discuss this, seems her admin chased her. She had no real replies other than to complain about how Jean Chretien's made his spending cuts. Admitting she had no proper answers she said she would contact me later to have a cup of coffee to disccus. That was a fair while ago now, I don't expect another call.

............

Hi:

Given there was no reply I can only take it that you agree with the big spending/anti-business policies of your leader Mr. Harper: or are afraid to speak out against it. To me the non-reply is the same in either case.

The Conservative Party has gotten even worse since I asked this question. Hard to imagine they could and of course you had to set an all time record for industry intervention to bail out fat cat union jobs at the car companies to do it and have now projected an all time record deficit as well (eclipsing the last Canadian deficit record, held by fellow Conservative Brian Mulroney).

I, as many people, do not like these highly socialist policies. Expect laughter if I hear any more from you or your party about how you are helping the economy. The excess is so bad in my mind, and the big government philosophy so unopposed in your party, that I can only assume it is your party's philosophy and so would never trust your party with managing the government even after the leadership change.

John
-----Original Message-----
Hi:

Thanks for the booklet bragging about tax savings - but it seems to have left a few of the most important things out.

Any economist knows you cannot really lower taxes without lowering spending, all you are doing is passing the taxes on to the next generation. The Federal Conservatives have been increasing spending at truly unfortunate rates since their original election, and now with this recession the level of spending is exploding. I suggest you review the history of more fiscally prudent governments, such as Jean Chrétien's, for a lesson on how to keep spending under control and act on it. Of course those Liberals were hardly careful with other people's money either, but at least they significantly slowed down the rate of increase and are not setting new spending records like the Harper Conservatives are.

You seem to have left out the tax increases, like the income trust taxation.
There was a specific promise by the Conservatives to not tax these, and taxing it is double taxation at it's worst. That promise was broken by the federal conservatives, but it is not forgotten. Perhaps this is in the fine print somewhere?

I'm also left with a really bad taste in my mouth by Prime Minister Harper's constant demonization of the "unfettered capitalist system" as the root problem of the current downturn. Clearly the overwhelming majority of the problem was government actions; regulations such as the CRA and the abnormally low interest rate policy after 9/11 in the U.S. along with others. That some greedy people made mistakes after being setup to fail by government does not make the system the problem and of course people like Madoff were under very heavy government regulation. That the regulators were laughably negligent in enforcing those regulations does not indicate they were unfettered. To call it "unfettered capitalism" - well this along with the high spending ways indicates to me that he is just one more socialist and I would have more more expected this from a Jack Layton than from someone who trained as an economist and worked at the NCC.

Ciao

2009-07-04T09:52:00.002-04:00

The National Post today has a downright dangerous editorial today advocating the worse sort of international bully tactics, implicitly endorsing mass murder. North Korea is a problem and a rogue nation lead by a mad mad; no doubt about that. It may eventually require external military intervention, but to advocate mass murder is wrong on so many levels. Even the most basic level, effectivty, fails the test. This is a country lead by a crazy person, threats make no difference to someone who considers himself immortal. I was serious in the implication that this would be a gift to the bad people too: as it was to Castro and so many others having an external enemy that can be painted as aggressive will bring out nationalistic tendencies and keep even the most ineffective dictator in power long after natural forces would have left them looking for a job.

I had to be sarcastic in my reply, if I was serious it would have been "assured destruction" on them ; -)

Hi:

I want to thank you for your advocacy for "assured destruction" by the U.S. of the workers paradise of North Korea in your editorial. Perhaps with such support we can convince those running dog Americans to adapt such a policy. By having the threat of mass murder by an immeasurably more powerful foe I can silence any fools who question "Juche" as morally too aggressive. I would regain the control that had been slipping.

As you may know it has been increasingly tough lately trying to maintain my god on earth status. With starvation common and my last friend (China) less supportive it was looking like a revolution here could dethrone me or my son with any mild push internally, or with a surgical military strike from the South. To expose the U.S. as simply wannabe mass murders who have learned nothing from the last century would be a great gift.

Again a heartfelt "Komapsumnida".

Kim Jong-il

2009-06-19T16:47:00.006-04:00

The Ontario Provincial Conservative Party are having a leadership contest - they need a leader as the last two people have been totally clueless and the one before while he talked of change did a lot less than he is given credit for. While in general I have no interest in any of the Conservative parties there is at least one interesting person in this race - predicably they are not getting much support: even from the people that know better.

This I sent to the National Post this morning. It was published, with some rather heavy handed editing.

It's a sad commentary on the state of the libertarian idea in Canada when the National Post won't back the better ideas (Hillier's) simply because they won't trust people to understand the same idea they already know is best. Dare I say almost sounds like implicit support of the "Nanny State", let's save the people from thier dumbness?
John Tory was wrong in proposing the expansion of the bad idea idea of funding segregated education. This was not a mistake in strategy or
communication: the people understood it was a bad idea. Voters very correctly did not vote for a bad idea despite their widespread distaste for McGuinty. The people did "get it": half of them are above average intelligence ya know!
That bad idea from a past election would not likely be confused with good ideas as Randy Hillier is proposing. With respect the HRC many people understand free speech and they would vote for it given the choice. Sadly the National Post is not alone on this confusion and we will likely get the choice only of dumb and dumberer as leaders once more from the 2 major parties next election . I consider McQuinty is the dumb part of that choice since it is dumberer for an opposition to offer no opposition and expect to be elected against an incumbent.

2009-06-07T11:55:00.002-04:00

Suzuki is at it again, repeating silly uninformed opinion as fact. This guy is dangerous and will kill more people than any climate change will in his lifetime. I was suprised to see this one actually printed, normally Suzuki is above suspicion.

......

David Suzuki once more repeats unsubstantiated opinions as if they are fact. The opinion is "Climate Change is the biggest global health threat we face".
In fact no-one is dying from climate change and even the publishers of the report say this is something that "may" happen. The next ice age may kill people but cooling is not a political focus since there is no fame and fortune to be had from protesting minor variations in climate as there has been with the global warming industry. There are real and massive health problems such as: AIDs, malaria, malnutrition, risk of pandemic and obesity. Each of these kills millions of people each and every year. That is well documented: fact. Worse there are many voters who believe these confusions about the impact of climate change and we are now diverting trillions of dollars into ill advised schemes that only serve to enrich those most powerful: while money is diverted from helping with the real problems that are killing millions of the poor.
He now talks of climate change as opposed to global warming. This is in line with the current science but I note he has not explained why the change in terminology. The new terminology required because the scientific measurements are that the earth has been cooling for almost a decade now: despite the steady increase in carbon dioxide emissions and in contrast to the predictions of every climate model based only on green house gases. This is the great truth people getting their fame and fortune from global warming scares are doing their best to avoid facing; that it is a political opinion not a scientific issue.

2009-05-27T08:31:00.003-04:00

With the announcement of new deficit record, set by who else the Conservatives I sent this to the National Post today. I cannot find an on-line link to the article, but the chart I've added in.

While I agree with the basis of Mr. Veldhuis' proposal for enforcing strong measures to eliminate deficit spending I really must correct some incorrect information.

He mentions "A Conservative government that came to power committed to limiting the growth of government spending ..." Who are they? The Federal Conservatives were elected on the basis of promising $92 billion (cf National Post's estimate at the time) in new spending. This was double the spending increases promised by the other parties. The Harper Conservatives planned to spend spend spend from day one. I understand the board of directors where Mr. Veldhuis works is almost exclusively partisan Conservatives and facts can be embarrassing to perceptions - but let's keep the facts straight.

In this spending orgy the Conservatives are clearly emulating thier roots in Alberta, where as the article points out the Conservative party has been increasing spending at double to rate of the other provinces. Given the recent attempts of Alberta to cozy up to OPEC I guess this can be now be seen for what it is: emulation of the other oil rich states like Venezuela and Iran that squander their huge tax revenue with populist spending orgies.

I really don't know where the 6.2% average increase in spending estimate comes from either, statistics Canada indicates a higher increase, but hey why quibble about a few billions in spending when we are talking about the Conservatives? Of course this new record deficit is beating the record set by a previous Conservative government, so for those who would portray exorbitant spending by Conservatives as something new; well that can only be seen as revisionism as the Canadian Conservative movement is by and large about big government both fiscally as well as it's ever increasing restrictions on personal freedoms.

Unfortunately there is also a flaw in the attempt to add constitutional limits to governments. In Canada we have a constitution that is not binding on government. Until we have a constitution that is ironclad and judges that will interpret it as written any attempt to limit government will only come at the ballot box and we know only too well how weak a control on government that is.

Sent to the National Post May 26th.

Given the recent Conservative advertisements questioning Mr. Ignatieff's loyalty I wonder if the Conservative Party is now disowning Sir John A McDonald? After all as someone born in Europe how could he possibly be worthy of the trust of the people?

2009-05-17T10:19:00.002-04:00

Once again the hollier than thou David Suzuki is putting his authoritarian junk science views out. I had to say something even if it has ~zero chance of being published in the Era Banner which is one of his pulpits.

Hi:

Not content that he and his peers in the pressure groups that have successfully forced governments into increasingly excessive regulation an increasingly autocratic David Suzuki is now saying people have no right to even complain. Let them ride bikes he decrees: while he of course makes a very lucrative living jet setting around the world. He and his friends creating 1,000 of tons of excess carbon emissions at conferences where the participant claim they are meeting to find way to reduce carbon emissions. He talks about totally dead rivers, when of the facts are the results are much less and there are easier ways around the problem than authoritarian regulations.

His critique of the consumer society is of course also just a thinly veiled opening to present his preference for the command driven economy: the one that of course was so devastating to the ecologies of the countries like Russia and China that practiced it. Of course it was about a year go when he adopted the American idea (cf James Hansen) of proposing jail for people who question his pressure group's views, so maybe it is best my name be withheld if this is published.

The Debate Continues

2009-05-01T08:04:00.007-04:00

Hi:

So the debate on that hidden word "Libertarian" continues; esp in the context of the almost mutually exclusive word "Conservative". Wait the debate is on libertarian vs Conservatives- the Libertarian parties have not yet been invited to the debate, sigh seems to be a continuation of a trend methinks. The Conservatives continue to control the agenda.

Terence Cocoran yeaterday wrote the latest installment, and it has created a lot of traffic and interesting comments. My in-box this morning overflows with more than just 'offers I'd rather not see'! Below are some of the replies in the National Post this morning.

Give me a choice would ya!

2009-04-28T16:22:00.003-04:00

So now the Liberals are sending me, at my expense, questionnaires on what I want. It wasn't bad enough the Conservatives send me these constantly, at my expense, with thier silly leading questions pretending to be asking me my opinion.

They gave me a list of new spending ideas; which one do I want? The last one was lower taxes, which of course in deficit situation is new spending too. It clearly has never even been considered by the Liberals that reducing spending is a priority for some people. Not even on their list; let alone a priority.

Sadly under Iggy it appears they will be no different than under Martin and Dion and the good work that Chrétien started (reducing the size of government, well ok letting it grow less fast than the others) is now a dead end with the Liberals. Of course Harper has been a socialist since day one on economic policy - and a failure in so many other areas if the Liberals would move even slightly to the fiscally prudent side they would sweep the nation: maybe even Alberta the way Harper has gone.

People are worried about wasting votes if you vote Libertarian; well clearly it is wasted elsewhere since there is no choice anymore. It's dumb and dumberer and no choice other than socialism. Vote Libertarian!!!

2009-04-19T10:52:00.003-04:00

So another nail in coffin is going in place April 22nd. This is earth day, and we are continuing to return the earth to the weeds and the bugs.

Following is my plantaive plead. It goes against editiorial policy of the Era Banner so don't expect it to be published and don't forget with your letters to the editor you can only complain about details: never quetion the overriding policy.

..........

In yet one more giant leap backwards on Earth Day most pesticides will be banned for most purposes by provincial law. The Era Banner is kind enough to suggest we can pull weeds one by one with our hands to work around this silliness and I guess implicitly we can run around the house stamping out ants and flees one by one. Perhaps two or three hours per day will allow us to stay at status quo.

Despite the clear scientific evidence there is no harm when they are used correctly the highly conservative and increasingly authoritarian "Green" movement continues to force thier technophobia on others through government regulations as the public when given a choice has by and large rejected these regressive ideas. Expect in a short time we will need permits to stamp on any pests. Instead of us swatting the bugs the police SWAT teams will be protecting those dear critters.

What a "Brave New World".

2009-04-17T09:32:00.002-04:00

The war in Afghanistan is a failure and it was doomed to be that since the day they lost sight of what they were trying to do (and that was before the first shot was fired). What should have been a commando raid or something surgical to get at a very bad person being protected by an equally bad government was warped into an attempt to nation build by outsiders in a group consensus mode, no chance. Despite that the war's supporters continue to support this morally bankrupt attempt to .. to .. well I'm not sure what the intent given the total confusion of the supporters to be honest but people are dying and I know it is not to "protect my freedom" like Mr. Harper claims. Matter of fact these days it seems Mr. Harper is the main attacker of my freedom.

Here was my reply to the non-reporting over the last two days of the new laws going in from the government we are supporting with Canadian blood and Canadian dollars. This is going against the editorial policy of the National Post so I very much doubt it will be published but I can always hope to be surprised.

................

I keep looking for some sign that our Prime Minister is worried enough about the recent legislation that, among other abhorrent things, essentially forces women to have sex with their husbands in Afghanistan to actually do something. I keep looking for something published in the National Post that indicates this is abhorrent to them. I don't see either. I just see stories reporting the facts in a detached sort of way. I do see the comments of people like President Obama who do seem to understand how serious this is. The most I see, in other media, is statements of Mr. Harper saying "We cannot state strongly enough our concern for the rights of women in Afghanistan." This seems true - he cannot - but I think he should.

I understand that both Mr. Harper and the National Post are strong supporters of this war and this is just one more indication of so many of what a total failure this war has been. A war started to catch a bad guy, and after many years the bad guy is still giving NATO the finger in safety and we are now supporting a government that is enforcing his policies.

What does it take to say too many people have died?

2009-04-09T10:05:00.005-04:00

Sent to the National Post today - April 9th.

Karen Selick had done a great outline of the libertarian idea two days ago, likely a follow-on to her presentation at the Manning Conference that had so upset the Authoritarians within the Conservative Party of Canada. Of course the authoritarians are solidly in control of that spend spend spend and throw the kids in jail for a single pot plant party. I guess given their heritage with the tax and spend Conservatives in Alberta, which of course is now reaping the penalty of thier huge spending with huge deficit even while the tax grab from the oil industry remains huge for them, this was inevitable. I wonder why so few people see this, that the Conservatives are the last choice for the libertarians. Now the authoritarians are posting their opinion as if it was fact, of course I could not resist that!

It was published, but in such a form I'm not sure I like my name being on it.

..................

As was predictable the authoritarians were out in force denouncing Karen Selick's presentation of the logic of the libertarian idea by stating thier opinion and resorting to the assumption of artificial constructs to denounce it as a heresy. If the replies are not simply opinion then on a logical basis please define "natural authority" and "incivility"? If indeed there are "common moral bonds" then there would be no need to enforce them on all individuals as they would be common. In the logical sense these terms cannot be usefully defined and so can only be seen as a proxy for personal opinion. If this was just opinion then I, as a Libertarian, say fine your entitled but I have to draw the line when opinion is to be applied to defining how the force that is government is to be used.

Harm to society is said to happen from certain personal choices; but just how can "society" be harmed when society is not a thing? In fact it is only individuals that can be harmed. One of the great powers of the libertarian idea is that it totally removes the mystical (opinion) requirements from the role of government and replaces it with only the logical role; the negative rights theory. Even the partial separation of church and state we enjoy in Canada and some other countries has of course served us as individuals very well and we by and large are rich and fairly free as a direct result. The next step is to remove the rest of personal opinion from the definition of the role of government.

Both writers seem to consider people inherently in need of redemption, but observation is that most people most of the time are fine individuals. If in doubt as to is this true then answer the question are you inherently evil and in need of constant restraint? See how elitist the notion of inherent evil is now; or are you really so much better than everyone else? Logically speaking the proper role of government should leave individuals alone most of the time. The only time restraint is needed is for as the bikers label them "the 1%" who do real harm to other individuals.

2009-04-09T10:03:00.000-04:00

Sent to the National Post Sept 9 2008, back when the current recession was news.

On the front page Jacqueline Thorpe proclaims "there are apparently no libertarians in the depths of a financial melt-down". Well other articles in the same issue prove that there are libertarians out there and they understand this was the inevitable outcome of markets that were not free. The global collectivist nature of these actions is going to ensure a situation where the next meltdown is even bigger. But back to the point it's true there are no libertarians "apparently" on page one anyway. Why? I suspect it's because there are so few Libertarians, i.e. libertarians who formally identify themselves as such in the political part of the world. Bob Dylan sang "we live in a political world", and for me anyway that song's refrain is a sad truth. Your not on page one till you are elected so libertarians; get political.

2009-04-09T09:59:00.002-04:00

Sent to the Era Banner Nov 15th - ya I'm behind posting :- o
This was a strange thread, some prudes wanted to ban breast feeding in pools "think of the children" - well ya mom was and did the right thing!!)
The letter was not published.

Hi:

I had to chuckle (ok I laughed out loud) at people who try to hide behind shrieks of "think of the children" as was expressed in the letter to the editor over a mom trying to care for her kid's nutritional needs. To think that breastfeeding near pool water is more dangerous than the same kids swimming in the same water with the contents from the other end of the child's digestive system: well let's call it unscientific. Others who in their letters equate topless swimming with nudity, well check the dictionary.

More to the larger issue: people need to learn to control their authoritarian tendencies. Just because they hold a differing opinion on something is no reason to interfere and call in security in bullet proof vests. This was not harming anyone and it is very frankly none of their business and we have enough issues with real crimes without inventing them. Despite years of progress unfortunately women are still held to a more restrictive standard than men and that lack of equality should not be tolerated in a supposedly free society. Even more people dealing with the public should not be enforcing those double standards.

2009-02-22T10:35:00.002-05:00

The local region is going to grab even more tax, to 'fix' the medical system. Locally things are based on the communistic ideal of a government monopoly, as is all Canada, and of course until that rotten foundation is fixed this is just more money down the drain. Thousands die as the result of this communist ideology, but from the looks of it they will die for years to come: in lines waiting for mother Canada to provide for them even as they die in the wait lines. The letters to the editor all stay within the box that only more money will save the system: arguing about which level of governent should pay. What sheep to be shorn.

This was sent to the Era banner.

I notice a lot of well deserved indignation about the increased taxation to shovel down what is best described as a bottomless money pit; which is what the heath care monopoly in Canada is. I must say I do not see why people limit the argument to only what level of government pays. The real problem is the money coming from all levels will be sucked into the pit regardless as long as there is no competition, no accountability. As long as people are forced to use a state enforced monopoly that is held immune from competition by force of law most will continue to suffer. More funding will have no effect other than to give us less money in our pockets.

I hear the howls from the unions already that there is no other way than an enforced monopoly, but the proof over the last few years is the increased funding has made no difference to the level of care. The wait lines have actually increased in most areas. I have been in the unfortunate situation of having to spend a lot of time in the new William Osler hospital over the last year, visiting a close relative. An unbelievably large building where no expense was spared, yet there are hardly any doctors and few nurses and much of the building is unused and the line in emergency is the same hours long as it was when it was in the much smaller facilities. People wait days to see a doctor even when already admitted, and the mistakes are obvious to even a casual observer. Would anyone willing pay for this, I suggest no. Is there any discussion about how to really fix it, no.

The American government is increasingly bent on fixing their health care system so shortly theirs will be wrecked even more than it already has been by the government's earlier help and will likely deteriorate to the level of ours. Shortly there will be no choice at all; so we are going to have to fix this at home. Nobody would wait in line for hours to buy food, why do we do it for health care? The communist system always results in line-ups; and make no mistake this is exactly what a monopoly in health care is.

2009-02-14T09:52:00.003-05:00

Lately there are an increasing number of deniers. No not global warming deniers nor deniers of other religions; deniers that Conservatives and for that matter conservatives tend to be supporters of bigger government.

For the supporters of the Conservatives in Alberta here is the reality. Spending in Alberta is 34% higher than Ontario, the tax grab is 42% higher. The facts are at:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/govt56a-eng.htm

The sad reality is that this big government mantra has been exported to the rest of the country with Harper and his tax and spend big government policies; cloaked in this so easy to see through lie that conservative = small government. From Bush to Harper to Harris conservatives talk about small government, but produce large governments. Same for the socialists of course; so vote libertarian if you get the chance. They are the only choice for small government.

2009-02-12T09:20:00.002-05:00

Pete Seeger was a contemptible person. Maybe as an old man now at 89 he is reformed a little but I doubt he is truly any more reformed than Putin is from his KGB days. Hiding behind a cloak of caring for the poor and the "working man" he was a card carrying communist who visited Russia; but somehow forgot to visit the Gulags even though his more thoughtful friends told him that was the reality of Russia under the communists. In later years when faced with this he tried that sorry excuse that Russia was not really communist, same for China and well you get the picture, and yes I guess I should have visited the Gulags.

He was part of a power click who attempted to turn popular music into a political tool, under a rigid central control of ideology. The smarter people rejected him and the rest is history, but the old fool lives on and was in the news this morning. My reply follows:

................

Pete Seeger seems content he has an apology from the San Diego school district, saying in reply "our right to freedom of expression has been vindicated". Hummm.....This is the same Pete Seeger who had to be physically restrained from destroying the sound equipment of Bob Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival as Seeger tried to deny Dylan his freedom of expression. An action for which he never apologized and instead he claims never happened the way other people saw it, only admitting in print to saying "Damn it, if I had an axe, I'd cut the cable right now."

Perhaps some day he will apologize for that action.

2009-02-12T08:49:00.002-05:00

The National Post has been a fine newspaper, but lately they seem to be degenerating into another yeah for our side type non-independant publication. They apply a double standard in applying a weaker set of criteria on the Conservative Party then they would on other parties doing the same thing. Even worse they manipulate terms to their advantage, like claiming conservative or worse Conservative = low spending: when the evidence tends to be the other way around. I notice the last few days they seem to have started using the term "fiscal conservatives" where they had been using conservative and that I would have no objection to even if I would prefer the word libertarian.

They also seem to be engaged in narrowly focused moral crusades, even saying to invoke the "not withstanding clause" and publishing some true nonsense that indiacte some of their writers have no idea of how a constitution works, or perhaps they jsut choose to ignore details when they have a moral cause. Sad really, they have been a great paper, but .....

Here are some of my replies. They attack the National Posts editorial policy in a couple of areas and none are published.

Feb 4, 2009

Ezra Levant is correct that conservatives should not be too unhappy with the federal budget: purely since it allows the Conservative Party to retain power. Power for "The Party" at any cost, to the taxpayer, is what conservatives clearly want and this vote buying long predates the recent budget. Despite all the protests that amount to Conservatives are the lesser evil; the Conservatives are clearly just one more socialist party. I consider socialism evil, and when facing the choice of the lesser of evils I personally chose to not vote for evil.

And what of those libertarians/classical liberals such as myself, who truly do favour small government? Some of whom (not I) had been deceived into the oft repeated deception that conservatives are somehow linked to small government and in some cases had voted for them based on that? Well to appropriate Bob Dylan a little "now is the time for your tears".

The Libertarian Party is the only choice for small government out there, and they only run in ~10% of the ridings. Vote for them if you can, they are the only game in town if you want to stop the growth of big government.

Feb 3, 2009

Numerous articles in the National Post lately have been attempted to explain away the Conservative Party's spending binge of the last 3 years; without the conservative movement itself sharing responsibility. Denial ranges from 'the devil made me do it' of saying they are forced to for pragmatic reasons of maintaining power to claiming the Conservative Party are somehow not "true conservatives". Tasha Kheiriddin writes one more of these today, but she does prove she understands where the conservative movement comes from. Understanding the basis of the conservative movement is the key to understanding why the conservative movement does share the blame.

Historically the Liberal philosophy advocated less government, in an attack on the entrenched monarchies which the conservatives were formed to defend. The "government that governs least governs best" was the basis of the Liberal movement. While the Liberal Parties of today are a shameful distance away from that noble goal at least Tasha gives some credit where credit is due; to the Liberal party for conquering the deficit and even paying some of the debt off.

In contrast to a philosophical basis like this Tasha points out the conservative will "look to the past for guidance", and that is exactly what they have done and are doing now. Being conservative and looking to the past of big spending governments over the last 100 years to promote their personal power and as their mode of governing. The conservative movement is conserving the big spending of the past, and the results are obvious where-ever they are in power. If The Harper conservatives were an exception this would be a tenuous argument, but look to Bush or Klein and most every other conservative and the pattern is undeniable.

Well should be undeniable; but this is politics and I know it will be denied.

Jan 24, 2009

I'm baffled why your paper would make the obviously untrue statement "the Conservatives economic mantra has been about their preference for less government and paying down the debt. The consistent fact of the economic policies of the various Conservative parties of Canada is massive spending. Economics 101 says massive spending does not pay down the debt. From Conservative Alberta, with the highest program spending per capita in a nation of high spending governments, to Ottawa where the Conservatives were elected based on outspending the other parties with promises of $92 billion in extra spending the Conservative Parties actions create bigger government.

The Alberta Conservatives had seemingly endless oil tax revenue that has masked their big government ways, but with $40 oil can they continue to hide from the reality they created any more than Chavez can? Federal Conservatives do not grab as much of this windfall and so have already destroyed the surplus built up by the Liberals, and they did that before the current economic problems. They are now pushing their big government agenda further into massive deficit territory, and yet you try to mask this. I say shame. Just because your editorial policy is to support a party does not mean you should not accurately report their actions.

You further say "Tuesdays' budget will have Conservative fingerprints all over it". These words ring true as their greasy fingers will be in everyone's pockets; taking the hard earned pay for whatever boondoggle will buy them personal political power.

Jan 15, 2009 - The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation

The title of the column is "Let The People Decide". As a libertarian reading an often libertarian leaning publication I say right on: we need this! Sadly the column is yet another instalment of a religious crusade to do the opposite. In this case voluntary relationships between adults as in a marriage are to be structured based solely on the dominate religion's ancient rules as decreed by politicians. It gets even worse than earlier instalments, when invoking the not withstanding clause was proposed, and the crusade now goes on to attack the very principle of people even having universal rights. Of course that idea is also a religious one.

While Canada has at best a weak Charter of Rights it does have one that can curb some of the worst excess of politicians using the government to force their opinions on other people. Governments are created to protect people from coercion, not to enforce opinions. The more a government ignores this the worse the people in those countries suffer from oppression. History is clear on that and you can look to the sad current events in the theocracies of the world if you think that truth has changed. The author does not understand the rule of law. That what those "unelected" judges are doing is protecting us from the worst excesses of government based on the written law. This is the purpose of a judge. They must rule logically according to the law not just the local mob's opinion of the day and in general they do exactly that in Canada.

I understand being restrained by laws is a problem for those who seek to force their opinions on others without the support of logical benefit to all, but I hope they just have to learn to live and let live which is what the charter is about. As Trudeau famously said "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and he had a great accomplishment in bringing in a Constitution. I suggest Ms Albrechtsen go into a room with a book by John Locke, or similar authors, who showed us the way out of rule by opinion and into the modern world.

Jan 9, 2009 - Ya - let's talk about Polygamy.

I'm extremely disappointed the National Post editorials are taking such an authoritarian view on polygamy: an item that clearly should be an adult's personal choice not society's. As with most moral crusades yesterday your editorial even grasped at the "think of the children" type argument. Using the particular real problems in this case to avoid addressing the weakness in the general argument against polygamy which is the fact that consenting adults can and have done this without harming anyone else throughout history.

There are already laws against forcing people to marry people against their wishes or having sex with underage children and so protection from harm is already in other laws. As the reports indicating harm to children seems to be happening in B.C. those laws should be enforced to stop those real harms. Conversely a law against polygamy can only be seen as a moral crusade to force an opinion, as opposed to a proper role of the force of government like protection from harm, on consenting adults.

The charter should protect us against those who would use the force of government to further their own opinions (as opposed to a logically provable good for all), and it is sad to see a great paper like the National Post proposing to resort to the same low level of the 'notwithstanding clause' that was used in another moral crusade that should never have seen the light of day in a free and open society.

Jan 7, 2009 - Sid Ryan's Protest

Poor hard done by Sid Ryan; writing in and complaining about the National Post taking the "cheap and easy way to try to shut down debate". This written by the same person who is in the midst of trying use far more blunt force to totally stop anyone from opposing his views or for that matter stopping people just trying to pursue a career based on their heritage?!? Several words in addition to bigot should be added to this man's description by anyone in favour of freedom or logic.

By mentioning only the "recent events", and avoiding the fact of the thousands rockets that have been indiscriminately launched against Israel's innocents and Hamas cowering behind the innocents in Gaza in the hospitals and schools contributing to the innocents death toll, he betrays how fully slanted his view is.

2008-11-30T12:42:00.000-05:00

I see Mayor Miller quoted (in the National Post) as saying "It makes no sense to use oil, scarce oil, for something then throw it away" in reference to his (implied) tax on plastic bags. Uh excuse me Mr. Mayor but the primary use of oil products is for one time use, as fuel. Alternatively he should notice there is a glut of oil so extreme OPEC is cutting production, why does he consider it scarce? If he is consistent then he should plan to stop using oil products in their one time use of fuelling city buses. It's much healthier to walk and the pollution of those famously high polluting diesel buses is a major health hazard where the force of law should be more appropriately applied to protect people. Of course this ban will be a prelude to banning plastic bottles, with likely the same illogic applied.

A little less tongue in cheek I suggest Mayor Miller be honest in his motivations. This about making his government's job easier by making everyone else's life a little harder. This is one more item of the Green agenda of social engineering: imbedding in law alarmist ideas that cannot survive the reasonableness test of will people support it willingly. If he is really so worried about losing the fuel energy in oil then plastic bags will burn well in an incinerator, the best way to reduce the pollution problems of garbage anyway.

"Think of the Children"

2008-11-15T22:06:00.001-05:00

There are some letters to the editor of the Era Banner on a local story, we seem to still be a nation of prudes and control freaks.
Here was my reply.

'''''''''''''''''

I had to chuckle (ok I laughed out loud) at people who try to hide behind shrieks of "think of the children" as was expressed in the letter to the editor over a mom trying to care for her kid's nutritional needs. To think that breastfeeding near pool water is more dangerous than the same kids swimming in the same water with the contents from the other end of the child's digestive system: well let's call it unscientific. Others who in their letters equate topless swimming with nudity, well check the dictionary.

More to the larger issue: people need to learn to control their authoritarian tendencies. Just because they hold a differing opinion on something is no reason to interfere and call in security in bullet proof vests. This was not harming anyone and it is very frankly none of their business and we have enough issues with real crimes without inventing them. Despite years of progress unfortunately women are still held to a more restrictive standard than men and that lack of equality should not be tolerated in a supposedly free society. Even more people dealing with the public should not be enforcing those double standards.

2008-09-08T20:11:00.004-04:00

The election is on; and life is hectic for yours truely who is busy supporting the Libertarian Party of Canada. I did find time to notice this in today's National Post and send them a quick letter.

While there are many election issues, like the run away spending of the Conservatives and the desire of the Liberals to one up them in spending with the Green Shift and the out of control HRCs and cops with itchy taser fingers a simple visual juxtaposition of news of both the fact and spin variety on your front page seemed to sum it up neatly for me. Side by side were the headlines "Harper invests in low-risk strategy" and CANADA: 97th Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan". Spin will largely be what wins and loses elections both here and the U.S., but please keep on publishing the very real risks of the real world side by side with that shadow reality that is politics through this election season.

Note the changes in text to the published version above, subtle but telling.

Contacting Your Local MP when Nobody Seems Home

2008-05-20T08:25:00.002-04:00

So I don't really expect much from my local member of parliament, but it would be nice to be at least formally ignored by Belinda when I am asking valid questions of her ; -)
Interesting was that when I sent my 'bitch' letter about no reply for years copying her boss, (Dion: well his assistant anyway), he phoned her office and told her to do something. Well her assistant has actually forwarded the emails to her now and a reply is promised. I'm now waiting at my computer 24 hours per day for the reply.
I was pleasantly surprised the Era banner decided to publish it May 18th, and even more surprised that my rather blatant sarcasm was not edited out. Ouch; well I did ask my letters not be edited.

Contempt for Humans

2008-04-15T07:47:00.001-04:00

So I read in the paper this morning Farley Mowat has added his support to the crazies at the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society; agreeing with comments by the head of the Sea Shepherd gang that "the slaughter of seal pups was a greater tragedy than the deaths of four sealers".

I am usually inclined to think the best of people, so in this case I will assume they are a couple of nut cases. If I thought they were sane I would have to think worse of them.

Freedom of Speech Yes - Period!

2008-03-01T10:22:00.004-05:00

Freedom of speech is one of the major triumphs of the modern world. It is what separates us from the savages who force what they want. This letter was simpy so wrong. My reply to the National Post:

Kamal Sethi comments in a most Authoritarian tone in the letters to the editor this morning:"Freedom of speech has it's limits. Period."

I comment, in my Libertarian tone:"Sigh": unfortunately the authoritarians have succeeded in making this partly true.

Salman Rushdie; someone who understands too well what that "Period" implies from others of like mind, was quoted in an eloquent tone:"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself."
A large period after Salman's quote is implied.

David Suzuki was not available for comment.

2008-02-08T08:53:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago I observed to a friend that the environmental movements was rapidly taking on all the aspects of a religion. More recently some other people have begun to observe the same thing and I have even seen the mass media picking up on this, Let's see:

They have a name for their God - James Lovelock's "Gaia" it seems. Yes many Environmentalists do not even know the name but the major players like Al Gore, the U.N. and Ted Turner most assuredly do.

When people question the premise this is no longer attributed to a scientific disagreement or simply being wrong like a scientist should on a scientific matter, it is attributed to capitalism or some such external 'bad' force that somehow corrupts people's morals.

Most religions of course move into political spheres as soon as they are powerful too. In Canada when Chrétien ignored Kyoto for years there was hardly a word said. Harper even though in real terms is doing more to bow to the demands than Chrétien is being crucified by the same people.

When a mathematician questions the math he is scolded for being "out of his field", yet the Canadian high priest David Suzuki has no credential in the field either (he is a geneticist and a journalist) but his supporters will go into a rage when the same observation is made on him.

Environmentalism also tends to have their worst fights with the competition in other religions, typically Christianity since that religion tends to predominate in the most economically successful countries and of course environmentalism is only strong in rich countries. It is not clear how well Elizabeth May's study for the clergy will survive this aspect.

At one point the Catholic church sold indulgences, which were basically a way to pay money to avoid some amount of purgatory, i.e. avoid paying for your sins the way the poor people would have to. This was of course a cynical move by the church to enrich themselves, and for the richer people to feel good even when they were 'sinning'. Environmentalism has "carbon credits" which amount to the same thing.

The high priest Al Gore has gone from a fairly poor person by the standards of power politics to being one of the richest since he owns a good chunk of the company exploiting "carbon credits". Al Gore is among the worse offenders for creating the greenhouse gases he claims to hate so much, but since he pays himself money for carbon credits somehow this does not matter. This is much like the leaders of traditional churches, who practice the opposite of what they preach and even worse since they wrap themselves in 'religion' they can get away from serious scrutiny on their actions.

David Suzuki is now saying the Conservatives should go to jail in Ottawa, interesting he makes no similar comment on the liberal parties... It is not eactly clear what all he said, but it appears that to simply not agree with his opinions is to become a crime. Can an Inquisition like the Catholic Church's starting in 1233 be far off now? Already in academia conformity is being enforced, next the general population.

At least one hotel has replaced Gideon's bible with Al Gore's book:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ

Religions all start from people's wish to understand the world around themselves, to make life a little better. Great and noble ideas. They all corrupt with time and turn into conservative organizations where support for their orthodoxy and their own personal profit becomes job one. In this respect I guess environmentalism has moved faster than most, in only 50 years they have done what took other religions centuries to do.

Roads, how slow is slow enough?

2008-01-27T09:44:00.000-05:00

So I sent an letterleft) into the Era Banner on the 24, I had been driving home and the highway had no salt; no maintenance. When I got back to town the roads were well maintained and I could drive double the speed in town I could on the 6 lane highway. I see in a reply to my letter something thinks 20 kms per hour is a reasonable speed in a highway. Well with no salt and bad visibility that was the going rate on the 404 that day, is it reasonable? I don't think so. The person replying seems to have missed that I was crediting responsible driving, clearly they miss the point.

Murders go Free

2008-01-19T08:19:00.000-05:00

It appears the crown will drop charges in the case against the Red Cross in their direct role in the death of at least 3,000, and counting, people here in Canada. As with Walkerton the government protects their own when government incompetence leads to death. If there was ever proof that government monopolies are the exact opposite of what they claim this is it. If this had been done by a company the people would have been held responsible for their murderously incompetent actions and that is why you rarely if ever hear of someone dying from the incompetence of a company when providing a service, but if your in the government monopoly you go free.
The worst danger to public health in Canada currently is in the health care monopoly and that remains popular with most people and who knows how many are dying early. Even those suffering under the systems excess have it so ingrained in them that it must be good that they cannot see the havoc it is causing even as it happens to them. Today I am contributing again to the CCF.

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=1

The Liberal War Machine?

2008-01-18T08:49:00.000-05:00

Mr. Dion either is totally ignorant of the world, or just made a huge mistake and should admit he didn't think when he spoke. He probably is not the warmonger he sounded like, but then me being a person who judges based on what people say and their actions I will wait for him to fix this. His handlers today are claiming he made a mistake, whoops well not a mistake he didn't say what all those reporters heard him say ... well at least reporters don't know how to listen to what they heard ..... well you get the idea and this is not 'fixing it'. There is more than enough belligerency in this world without Dion advocating starting another war. The National Post was kind enough to print my thoughts on the matter today, unedited other than to fix a typo and i thought their editorial on the same subject was bang on.

December 30th I had been pointing out how silly the Era Banner is in claiming buses cut down on pollution, of course this is not a popular notion (sometimes the truth hurts a perfectly good idea so many people hold so dear) so it went unpublished; as the concept alwasy has in the past too.

Here is the text of my email, sent under the title "The Car is on It's Way Out?":

You quote Mr. Keil as saying the "the car, as a form of conveyance, just isn't feasible anymore" and "the car is on it's way out".
Perhaps he has been standing too close to those bus diesel fumes? New cars are limited by regulation to extremely low levels of pollution but of course buses remain largely exempt from emissions regulation. While the typical car now emits less than 1% of the pollution it did in the 1960s the buses are still chronic heavy polluters; typically even when accounting for the (utopian) 40:1 passenger ratio. Maybe by doubling the cost and going to hybrid buses they will start to catch up to cars, but given a ticket now pays for only a third of the cost in York Region would it not be logical to have less buses not more? Other than some routes in peak times many buses running in Newmarket have a passenger load that is more suitable to a (low pollution) propane powered taxi than one of these environmentally unfriendly dinosaurs.

Buses are inefficient of people's time as well as of scarce resources, they typically don't go where you want them too and by their route nature they never can. The bygone days Mr. Keil longs for where people work next to where they live are gone. Despite the best efforts of government to stop the introduction of cars they lost that battle years ago, and people will stay with their cars since that is the logical way for most people most of the time to travel.

Letters to the Editor

2007-12-30T07:58:00.001-05:00

Well it's almost new year, so I am going to start posting my rants and comments to the editors of the local papers.
In keeping with the tradition I wanted to start I will post them as I wrote them and as published (when published, I don't own the press)

This is one I published in reply to a rather officious letter. My letter is heavily edited prior to publishing and while the attempt was mainly to shorten the rather long text it is made hard to follow by the editing, and likely my main point is lost. The main point is that it is the written text of the constitution that should be important; not legislators and judges current guesses on what would be written today. That seems to be lost in the published letter:
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/RP_Dec26_07.htm

This one was in reply to an article where people were filing a human rights tribunal challenge since the schools were no longer searching every kids lunch in Woodbridge. There is essentially no editing, rare for the Era Banner.
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/Allergies_dec13_2007.htm

This was in reply to the National Post's editorial which bought into the untruth that the Conservative Party was cutting taxes. In fact the Conservatives were simply reducing the rate of increase of taxation and since they are spending more than the Liberals ever did longer term taxes will have to increase.
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/NP_Oct31_2007.htm

This one was in reply to people be-moaning how few people were voting. In this election just barely half the people bothered to vote in Ontario. Rather than simply noting this was because they are not interested and moving onto better candidates or some-such the suggestion was that people should be forced to vote. An authoritarian over reaction!
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/EraB_Oct19th2007.htm

Health Care is a subject I have written in abot many times, this one got replied to twice by the insiders of the public health care monoploly that currently rations health care in Canada. It must have stuck a little close to home methinks?
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/NP_Sept7th2007.htm

This one is the one time I thought the National Post really let me down. They changed the content to be something I would ever say, and to make me support their editorial position when in fact I was attacking it, on this point anyway since in general I agree with most of thier editorial content.
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/NP_Aug10th,%202007.htm

When I moved to Newmarket the tax rates were half of the next town over, Aurora. In ten years they are now almost the same, and no Aurora's have not come down. Every year the town council publishs a letter saying that by enormous effort they have managed to keep down the tax increases to only double and sometimes triple inflation; right real heros. The worst of the lot, Tom Taylor, managed to get a ravine full of signs in his honour as well as a trail named after him even before he retired! He probably claimed they are all free, like his free city hall boondoggle.
http://www.adlib.ca/bp/EBJune13th2007.htm

2007-05-28T07:47:00.000-04:00

An excellant introduction to the Global Warming Debate.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=Global+Warming+swindle

'Free' health care, you get what you pay for

2007-05-13T21:14:00.000-04:00

People are getting serious here (in Newmarket no less) about fighting the increasingly dangerous health care monopoly which has been forced on everyone.

Given I am someone who has recently seen the government's ill advised incompetence shorten the lives of at least two people very close to me I will do what I can to support any attempt to stop preventing people from getting proper health care and step one has to be stopping the monopoly. Read here:

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=1

I had the good fortune to meet doctor Chaoulli prior to his winning his case (at least in court, the government has still not acted to fix the problem as far as I can tell) in Quebec and while I was encouraged I thought he had little chance. I was very happy to be wrong in that case. I urge you to support this cause, as access to a waiting list is not going to save your life when you get sick.
John

2007-04-25T08:08:00.000-04:00

Truth

There is an old truism, something to the effect that if life can be seen as a game then there are three kinds of players.

Those who think society can at best only break even; the socialists.
Those who think everyone can win; the capitalists.
Those who think you can quit the game and create a new one; the mystics.

I think the group linked next is from the third set of players, although it is interesting they have not been shut down and and more to the point they may actually have uncovered one of the silliest mistakes by a major government ever. I guess they would argue that the hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. who are paying income taxes just cause they think they have to are the ones making a silly mistake.

The Truth Attack.

Personally I don't think this is more than a curiosity, even if the U.S. government have been so stupid as to have not correctly used the power given them by the people they would fix it in a picosecond (for those not technical that is a very short period of time, eh Peter?).

The heavy Load

2007-03-18T11:18:00.000-04:00

While trying to find the source of a comment I had made earlier in the week I ran across a particularly distressing article.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060129-2.htm

The depressing part is not so much the observation and documentation that Stephen Harper 'sold out'. This is fact and of course the selling price is getting higher day by day as we build up to the next election. My issue is the use of this one situation to close off any suggestion of hope against the 'resistance is futile' camp is .. so .. well .. anti-productive. In this case to quote directly: "As I have written many times in QL, partisan politics is a waste of time for people who really want to reduce the size of the state."

Now this attitude of doom and gloom is hardly unique. Many libertarians in Ontario know a certain 'leader' who is a full time advocate of the doom, despair and misery and all is lost and every action is bound to fail school. Well take up knitting or something that is productive then. As the T-shirt says: "Lead follow or get out of the way". Of course change is possible and guess what it is happening all the time. It does take more effort to be creative than to repeat gloom and it takes creativity to be successful, but just watching it on TV or preaching to the converted is not going to change anything.

I truly believe if there was as much effort put into action as there is into moaning and complaining we would be much farther along the road to a freer society than we are now. Matter of fact the political road right now seems to be twisting back to the bad old days of force getting what it wants in public debate and inter-personal affairs. I blame that regression only partly on the people doing the intimidation. Those who stand by and let it happen are partly responsible too.

Hypocrisy among the authoritarians.

2007-03-03T11:20:00.000-05:00

The authoritarian prophets of the global warming Armageddon seem to be, typical, preaching you *must* done one thing: but doing another themselves.

Al Gore was caught using 20x the typical energy consumption of the typical household in the U.S. at his mansion.
The consumption is actually up significantly while he is making himself famous and rich making a film about how the government must use force to stop "over consumption". The title of the film is 'An Inconvenient Truth'. I'll do no plays on the movie title with this story: too obvious. He is somehow better then the common folk and needs that heated pool and gas lanterns in the yard, him being a prophet and all; but wait. It is ok for his massive contribution to green house gases. It's not really pollution since he is buying "carbon offsets". Ok guess again, cause he is buying them from himself through a company he is part owner of. Even worse this company he has invested in is based on making money out of people's fears about global warming, so he gains from the fear he creates. How Cynical: capital intended.

Wait here is more to the story, this house is only one of several he owns. May take months to total how bad he is 'abusing' the environment. As for 'the truth', turns out his initial comments that the house was all powered by 'green energy', also turn out not to be supported by the facts. I promised above no plays on his recent movie's title, real hard to resist that is.

While down picking up the Oscar's in Hollywood he was no doubt visiting friend, and fellow activist for green house gas reductions, Barbara Streisand's house. Looks like her house could be using even more energy than him. Well that is the way it is with prophets, one rule for them and one for the plebs.

Bab's beach house, note all those green air conditioners.

Canada has it's own version of the story last week with Dr. Suzuki being caught throwing out unneeded green house gases with his cross country bus tour for 50: with only 8 people in it. In typical Canadian fashion our story is only one tenth the magnitude story in the U.S.. Perhaps there is a connection with Bab's though, she is known to take her motor home downtown so she does not have to use public washrooms. Not just one of those gas guzzling SUVs she complains about, a full size motor home!

Time do fly

2007-03-02T19:22:00.000-05:00

Gee Nov 2005 I started this and not a word posted since, must be too busy eh?
Ok this weekend, more of the news you want to hear!

2005-11-15T11:33:00.000-05:00

First post: so the question has to be why would I want to spend even more time on a computer? Well I guess I got pissed off at other people owning the press, in this case the Era Banner (the local paper) who is kind enough to publish my letters but when they 'edit' they often change the form to something that would make a 7 year old rush back to school to learn grammar and they can introduce ideas I would not support by changes to the wording.