The War on Drugs goes on "Take 2"

My previous post referred to the passage of Bill C-15 in the House of Commons. Apparently Bill C-15 has been reintroduced as Bill S-10 in The Senate. Here is the backgrounder from the Dept. of Justice regarding Bill S-10. The purpose of this legislation is to curtail the production and trafficking of all "illegal" drugs and particularly if it involves "organized crime". Below, I will present some of the arguments for and against these Bills and the prohibitions against drugs.
First let me be clear, I don't give a rat's ass about drugs or drug use. As far as I'm concerned people have the right to do whatever they like with their own body as long as they harm no one else. I personally do not advocate, use, promote or even like the fact that people use drugs. I don't see drug or alcohol use as virtuous, noble, fun or desirable and I would just as soon not have anything to do with the issue.    Furthermore, if users become dependent on the use of drugs or alcohol - so what?  It is still not my issue, I expect users to be responsible in their use and not affect those individuals who wish not to be affected. I have no right to tell people how they must live and neither does the state. There is no crime if there is no victim. Of course crossing that fine line between drug/alcohol self-abuse and the rights of others is a very different story, but not for now.
So why do I bother writing about this? All of us who live in this country and pay taxes are involved, all of us who pay for the police, the prisons and jails, the legal system; we are all involved whether we like it or not. The policies and laws implemented by the state determine to a large degree the safety of our streets. Look at what drug laws have done in Mexico and the United States, we don't need to copy those mistakes.
My problem is that I'm not onside with the anti-prohibition people in Canada or the US (from the evidence I see). Their opposition to prohibitions seem to be more pragmatic than principled. In Canada the people against Bill C-15 and S-10 point to empirical evidence - the science, that suggests that more Draconian policies and laws makes criminals of many and misspends scarce resources. Obviously I can't disagree with that, I just don't think the science is the reason to reduce or eliminate the prohibitions. Having said that, we can be allied in moving the policies in the right direction, so here are two videos that present arguments care of an anti-prohibition group:


Part 2:
   

The War on Drugs goes on

I first wrote about the War on Drugs in March of 2009. My view is that Alcohol Prohibition created criminals of American citizens in the 1920's and 30's and today drug prohibitions are doing the same to both Canadians and Americans as well as citizens of other countries around the world. The illegal drug trade and the laws against it has created violence that endangers the lives of innocent citizens rather than protecting them.
Contrary to good evidence the Harper Conservatives have introduced and passed (195 to 54) Bill C-15 that provides for Mandatory Minimum sentencing for so-called drug crimes even though more policing has been shown to increase violence. The violence threatens to spread into Canada and has grown worse especially in the border area around the US and Mexico. Bill C-15 will impose a minimum 6 month sentence for possession of between 5 and 201 cannabis plants. Though C-15 has passed in the House it has yet to become law awaiting passage in the Senate and signing by the Governor General.
The anti-prohibition group called LEAP has organized some opposition to Bill C-15 with this petition and the following video:
  

To my American friends and relatives:

Happy Fourth!

Bigger government equals poor economic performance - The Rahn Curve

From The CATO Institute here is a video that correlates the size of government to economic performance. Canadians should be reminded that the size of government in the mid-1990's was over 50% and that the Chretien/Martin austerity cuts of the mid-late '90's brought that down to a smaller (but still unacceptable) 42-44% in recent years. Relatively speaking that has made Canada look like a model for economic achievement compared to other Western democracies during the Great Recession.
Dan Mitchell of CATO explains the Rahn Curve:

Ideology vs. Ideology - How I celebrate my freedom.

Happy Canada Day!
By now most people have heard about the new "conservative" SUN TV NEWS channel slated to begin broadcasting on cable in the new year. It is owned by Quebecor Media Inc. and it will broadcast from downtown Toronto under the leadership of Kory Teneycke once of the PMO in Ottawa. Media pundits have already dubbed it "Fox News North", and I'm certain Quebecor would be thrilled if it was as successful as its supposed American version. Of course the website of the new station says nothing about "conservative" just "straight talk opinion journalism at night". I guess thats code for conservative. I'm not even sure what conservative means, - would commentators advocate the status quo? Does that mean that other broadcasters are liberal, socialist or don't advocate the status quo? While I welcome the new station I have real doubts that it will be any different then the others.
If Sun News reflects conservative values, does that mean it supports Harper's gang in Ottawa? If that is true how would it give a new ideological spin to news that differs from CBC, CTV or Global? Does that mean Sun News would advocate fiscal conservatism? That would be good but in my view Harper's Conservatives are less fiscally conservative than Jean Chretien's Liberals. Or is it going to be socially conservative, is it going to rail on gay marriage, abortion, drugs and gambling? That will not get me to watch. So you can see my problem, their ideological spin would likely be pretty much the same as the ideological spin I get every day in the supposed neutral news broadcasts on the other networks.
There is a prevailing ideological bias in the Canadian media and it colours all the broadcasters almost all the time. A good way to describe the pervasive ideology is to contrast it to mine, not that mine is the "right" (no pun intended) ideology but it is the only one I've got and it is my blog so here goes. I'll write a topic or issue in no particular order, first give my view of the prevailing media propaganda, then follow that with my own propaganda or bias.

The G8/G20 talks in Muskoka and Toronto:
Media propaganda: Important to get the leaders together to solve the world's problems with concerted action and unity of purpose.
My bias: A huge waste of money, an anti-democratic exercise of "back room boys" playing at sorting out the world's problems. These pseudo-governmental bodies (Gx) have no mandate from individuals in the representative countries, and have the ultimate effect of wasting resources and reducing freedoms around the world.

The G20 Protest Mess in Toronto:
Actually I can't argue with the media bias here. Most of them saw it for what it was, and it wasn't pretty. The bottom line is that our police act like police everywhere and it is most certainly not to protect the rights of citizens. It seems that civil rights are most often jeopardized during stressful events, just when they need to be protected the most.

The Queen arrives in Canada:
Media propaganda:  Wonderful to have her back "home", isn't that a nice hat?
My bias: Ugh! A huge waste of money, talk about anti-democratic; it's 2010 and time to shed the concept of "royalty" except in its economic meaning. The lesson taught to our children is that a privileged birth entitles one to be treated with special rights. This is not the lesson that should be taught in a society based on liberty and individual rights, not a Canadian value.

The Afghan War:
Media propaganda: For Canada a NATO obligation, necessary to prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, plus an attempt to create a democratic situation in Afghanistan (so they can be just like us). Many in media would advocate staying beyond 2011 and "finishing" the job. 
My bias: I was not against the initial "Get Osama" reaction in 2001, but since then too many lives have been lost for too little gain. At least 150 Canadians have died "defending Afghanis" - a waste of lives and money. We have done nothing lasting in Afghanistan but piss-off the natives, prop-up a corrupt government and there is no way to fix the problem or any reason to, so we should leave NOW.

The World Economic Crisis:
Media propaganda: The world was on the edge of disaster in late 2008 and quick government action saved us. The stimulus money/bailouts saved us and the economy is recovering slowly but surely and the future in bright. Canada is in pretty good shape in all this mess because we have relatively low deficit/debt problems.
My bias: How could Canada be in "good shape" if all its "customers" (we are a trading nation) are in dire straits with huge deficits and bigger debts? Who are we going to sell to? Are they going to purchase on credit and how can we trust them to repay? Several European countries are on the verge of defaulting, their bonds are junk, they must cut their costs likely resulting in mass (government worker) layoffs and unemployment or at best reduced salaries for many. All this austerity will sharply reduce consumption/trade and a recessionary or deflationary situation is likely. The same is true in the States (our biggest customers), if individual States default (or need bailouts) their situation mirrors the European countries. The bottom line is that the medicine must be taken or federal banks will print money to "fix" the problem resulting in future inflation which is a silent stealth tax on us all.

Climate Change/Global Warming:
Media propaganda: An urgent global problem that must be addressed before it is too late with concerted world action effectively creating a new world psuedo-governing body that tracks and trades carbon production with the intent of saving the planet for the future.
My bias: The planet has been warming since the most recent ice age (10-12,000 years ago), and if we are in any way aggravating the rate of warming, we certainly cannot and should not fix the problem without huge costs in money and freedoms. Let the future deal with any problems that may arise if and when they arise.

An article I read by Mark Steyn in MACLEAN'S a couple of weeks ago prompted me to write this piece. Steyn's article (worth the read) talked about  Don Newman's (CBC) view of FOX NEWS, and how biased it was. Of course bias works two ways as I hope I've pointed out.
One other little note. You may know Penn Jillette, illusionist and libertarian host of one of my favourite TV shows: Penn & Teller's BULLSHIT (seen in Canada on TMN). Well, there is an article in a mid-June issue of Vanity Fair where Jillette is interviewed by an obviously biased reporter, it too is worth a look.
Enjoy your freedom, Happy Canada Day!

G20 Fallout - J.M.Keynes Lives

Want proof that the G20 meeting was money well wasted?
Harper got the G20 members to sign off on cutting their deficits 50% by 2013. So slow their rate of borrowing to half in three years. Neil Reynolds thinks they are operating under a delusion here.

Return of the Maunder Minimum?

Last January 11 I posted an article called "Can scientists be AGW Skeptics" where I showed a satellite photo of the UK covered in snow top to bottom. It was a very cold winter over there and in much of Europe.
This week Neil Reynolds writes an interesting little piece about the "little ice age" of the late 17th Century which held the British Isles and  a good chunk of the continent in its icy grip. This was a real event for which historical writings exist, along with historical corroborating weather data from the UK which tracks back 350 years.
The little ice age corresponded with a solar anomaly called the Maunder Minimum which was an extended period of low sunspot activity. Sunspots (cooler areas on the sun) vary in cycles of about 11 years (give or take) and our sun is currently at a low in sunspot activity. All this of course suggests to me that the sun varies in its energy output over time which should have profound effects on Earth's climate and maybe a more satisfactory theory explaining climate change. There is good evidence that the sun is a variable star and that its energy production seems to follow cycles both long and short. If that theory explains climate change (even partially), than it is unlikely to gain support from the scientists of the IPCC because there will be no funding for their terrestrial research into anthropogenic causes of climate change; so solar variability is ignored or played down. Who can blame them?
Reynolds' article suggests that Britain and Europe may experience another prolonged cold spell and of course the University of Reading physicist who makes this prediction says it has no relation to the ongoing global warming which is caused by humans. Of course it doesn't. Or maybe global warming is caused by one of the longish solar cycles, who knows?   
  

Running out of other people's money

Summer seems to make it difficult to get concerned about anything. All those important causes whether personal or work related will wait for September. That's always been my attitude anyway and it seems to be true of the stock market and everything else as well. The media often sets the tone for what should be at the top of our collective agendas. Right now the World Cup is the big story here, but close behind is the impending G8/G20 traffic disruptions and security costs in the Greater Toronto area. Close behind that is the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, but all of it does not seem that important because its summer.
Everyone has forgotten the economic crisis of 2008/09 that created market turmoil, job losses, portfolio losses and on and on. Most people think the problem has been solved, the bailouts worked, good times are just around the corner, the governments of the world have things under control. The coming G8/20 meetings will be the icing on the cake and will demonstrate to the world that everything will be hunky-dory. Some people think that this apparent pause the economic crisis is just the calm before the real storm.
Johan Norberg is a Senior Fellow at CATO and he sounds like that TV ad Canadians are accustomed to viewing from the ING guy "Fredrick" who cautions people to "save your money". Norberg has some sobering comments in this CATO video from last month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WEwy-uGKoI&NR=1

 

Obama is ready to kick BP in the ass

ReasonTV thinks Obama should be kicking himself first. The BP oil disaster is another clear example of how corporations can be vilified for their blunders. This is a shared blunder, it's not just BP.  The US Federal government is up to it's elbows in sticky brown goo because it is their fault almost as much as it is BP's. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quk0tb2qUwY

Cutting Government spending...where to start.

Here is a nice piece of research done by Dan Mitchell at CATO: "There Are too many Bureaucrats and They are Paid too Much". Of course this refers to the American situation but we in Canada should not feel smug. I don't need to add anything except that the same goes for Canada's Federal, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal bureaucracies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xzd3puYmiM

Who is Ayn Rand? by Charles Murray

A daily email from CATO@LIBERTY (you should subscribe) prompted this posting. It comments on the fact that two biographies have recently appeared describing the life and times of Ayn Rand. Apparently neither of them were particularly complementary (I have not read either) to Rand and I was aware of that.
Rand is reviled in most academic and philosophical circles possibly because her philosophy of Objectivism seems so simple (it's not really) and compelling. Her books have sold very well in the past 50 years and are selling even better these days possibly due to the economic crisis around the world (I'll wager they sell better than any other philosopher).
Some would say the books, especially Atlas Shrugged, are even prophetic. I don't think there is any prophesy involved, I think what is happening (and will continue to happen) around the world is a logical consequence of many bad decisions by many people in power over many years. If economics is a science (which I think it is) then certain actions will lead to undesirable  and unintended consequences, much the same as crashing a car into a concrete wall will cause damage and worse.
Anyway, Charles Murray wrote an interesting piece "Who is Ayn Rand", where he talks about Rand and the new bios and I'm thinking its time to reread some of her stuff. Despite her negative portrayal by modern-day academics, her popularity runs circles around any other of her kind, and she remains a positive and important influence on me and millions of others.  

Heretics Unite, you have nothing to lose.....

I wish I could say that this will be my final word on Global Warming.
Frankly, I think that the Copenhagen Conference (Dec. '09) was a turning point for the entire issue as it coincided with the "e-mail debacle" in Britain (true or not). That is one reason, and the other is the realization by everyone lately that not only can banks default and beg for bailouts, but whole countries can default on their bonds (loans) and need to be bailed out too. Obviously the economic ideas that have prevailed in recent times across the governments of the Western world will need to be revised. I hope that happens soon, but I think more severe pain will have to be endured before the poop really hits the propellor.
So I give you The Great Global Warming Swindle, (found on Facebook) a rather lengthy piece of video (get the popcorn) that is a compilation of the other side of Global Warming. Is it true? Well, maybe it is or maybe it's just another point of view.  Some things are for sure, you don't have to watch it, and if you watch it, you don't have to believe it, and if you believe it, you can't force anyone to do something about it; because there is nothing to do. So gather your children........I don't think it's your fault.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
  

TIME looks at Rand and Ron Paul

The recent Senate primary win for Rand Paul in Kentucky is having repercussions throughout American politics. Apparently Kentucky Republicans like what Rand Paul is saying, much the same as Galveston Texas area voters have liked Ron Paul for a dozen years now.

Ron Paul is arguably the world's best know libertarian, and his son shares many but not all his father's views. Is Rand's win significant? Well, TIME magazine thinks so, and so does CATO. Many libertarians dismiss Rand as "libertarian-light" with some statist ideas, but for me close-to-libertarian is better than almost any other option. As the TIME article mentions Ron Paul's views don't seem so wacky now:

"Twenty years later, Paul's views no longer seemed kooky: government spending soared even under a Republican Congress and President, leaving many conservatives fed up. At the same time, the human and financial toll of the Iraq war, which Paul decried as an act of imperialism, left some Republicans angry with the so-called neocon wing of their party."

The CATO-at-Liberty article is worth a read, because coming from a libertarian perspective it places the Paul's in the American context and gives us all a hopeful message for the future.

Obama is responsible for BP oil disaster. Who knew?

Yup that's right: “I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down,” Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. Gee I thought it was BP’s fault. When Obama swore to “protect and defend….etc.” I don’t think this is what the framers of the US Constitution meant. In fact this seems to take some responsibility off the shoulders of BP, but Obama went on calling the spill an “unprecedented disaster” and pointed to the “scandalously close relationship” he said has persisted between Big Oil and government regulators. 

Well that does it; I can’t believe that government regulators had anything to do with this. Aren’t US government regulators supposed to be regulating stuff on behalf of the American taxpayer? I thought they worked for the government, the people, by the people and all that shit. I guess I was wrong. Of course NOW Obama is in charge, and yes he is part of that same government he just blamed a couple of lines back. So I guess we can trust them now because it’s a different branch of government. Don’t you feel better?

The good news is that it is oil, and there is lots of sun and heat down there in the Gulf. With the help of “oil eating” microbes the mess gets cleaned up….eventually.

Big Government Canadian style and the right questions

When political parties give up their principles, bad things happen. Of course once in power, the operating principle of almost any political party becomes hold onto power - damn the principles.
In Canada if you belong to the Conservative Party then you know the truth of that last statement.
This morning in the Globe and Mail, Tom Flanagan points to just three issues (I think there are so many, many more) that have created unnecessary debate and discussion, all of them related to the Conservative government's increases in the size and responsibility of the state.
Issue one: the Jaffer-Guergis affair involving alleged lobbying of the federal state to garner subsidies for "green" businesses. Flanagan dismisses the affair then asks the right question: why has a conservative government created a $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund? Why indeed? Here is a giant plum ripe for the picking by lobbyists and insiders who would scam their own family for financial gain. How is creating this fund being fiscally responsible or conservative?
Issue two: Abortion in the Third World.
First let me say this to those who think abortion should be banned in Canada or anywhere. The only banning that should go on is your power to force anyone to do anything against their will as long as no one's rights are abrogated. If you think a fetus has rights over and above the mother that is carrying it, then you need to take that fetus and bring it to term yourself, good luck. Or should we lock up that pregnant female and force her to carry the fetus? Would you do that to your daughter? The current law in Canada on abortion is the one that is appropriate, that is, no law.
Now that you know my position lets see what Mr. Flanagan said. The Conservative government refuses to fund abortion in the health care part of Canada's foreign aid package. This angers many at home and abroad (including Hilary Clinton) and threatens to become an issue in the G8/G20 summits coming to disrupt your summer plans in Southern Ontario this June. Again Flanagan asks the right question: why is the Conservative government promoting government-to-government foreign aid? He points to scholars that have shown that government-to-government foreign aid (except for immediate disaster relief) actually impedes economic growth and good governance in the Third World. I hope Stephen Lewis reads Flanagan's article.
Issue three: Gay Pride. The Conservatives have decided not to fund this year's Gay Pride Parade in Toronto while continuing to fund a variety of other parades and festivals across the country. Is Harper pandering to the homophobic part of the Conservative Caucus? Probably, but again Tom Flanagan asks the right question: why should the federal state subsidize any parades or festivals anywhere? How is that being fiscally responsible? Well, it isn't and it's too bad that Flanagan stops at three, but it is a start and I recommend the article to you. Flanagan ends by suggesting that today's economic realities will of necessity shrink the size and scope of government, I can't wait.