Why I’m a climate change skeptic.

View from Apollo 8 December 20, 1968.

It seems almost every major natural disaster, or weather event these days is somehow related to Climate Change. Fires, floods, storms - everything short of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can be blamed on Climate Change.
The major climate change story of the year so far are the bush fires in Australia. But is it really a climate change story? My last blog post indicates that there are other man-made reasons for the fires. Its important to remain objective particularly when it's so easy to assign blame. Most broadcast media have already decided this is a climate change story, but a little digging provides other, simpler answers. Here are the conclusions from a recent online article:

"Blaming rising CO2 concentrations and global warming is only misdirecting real efforts to minimize wildfire destruction. What Australia and the world needs to address is 1) human ignitions, 2) invasive grasses and 3) fire suppression that allows surface fuels to accumulate and enable large intense and destructive fires to wreak havoc like never before!"

I am a climate change skeptic. I’m skeptical about the alarmism and our attempts to mitigate an objectively non-existent problem, and as I said in my last post, I consider the matter so unimportant (even though I’m still writing about it) that it does not warrant as much attention as it receives except maybe on a very local level to mitigate specifically local problems. I wasn’t always a skeptic.

Years ago, when I was a beginning science teacher and the idea of global warming became a cause célèbre among scientists, politicians and the general public, I was onboard. I brought up the issue to both my junior and senior biology students. Those were really the beginning days of ecological awareness. Acid rain was a big issue, so was over population, the “hole” in the Ozone layer and the idea of limits to growth. Even earlier, when I was a university student, Americans were racing to the moon. Astronauts onboard Apollo 8 around Christmas of 1968 snapped that famous image of “Earth-rise” as they swung around the moon. That powerful image contrasted our beautiful blue planet with the stark cratered greyness of the moon’s surface. We were just one lonely planet in the vastness of outer space, and we had better care for it. That was really not a bad sentiment and I was happy to teach young people these important concepts.

I didn’t even mind it when new government regulations came into force regarding sulfur-content in coal, or when bans on chlorofluorocarbons were instituted, despite my aversion to big government. 

It was only when noises got louder demonizing carbon dioxide and fossil fuels, that I became suspicious and skeptical.

Carbon dioxide is important, absolutely vital. It’s NOT a pollutant as many in our government think. I’ve taught lessons about the Carbon Cycle, and the fact that carbon dioxide is central to two of the most important processes in biology, photosynthesis in plants, and mechanical respiration in animals. Yet people were talking about carbon pollution and using computer models to show what would happen if CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere. Global Warming became Climate Change, which meant that any unusual weather event could now be related to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Worse yet, if anyone raised doubts about these affects or suggested they were due to natural variability, they were dismissed. 
Once politicians got into the debate, advocating against fossil fuels and using phrases like “settled science,” indicating an unassailable level of certainty around CO2 caused Climate Change, I knew there was a problem, and my skepticism was complete. Don’t get me wrong. That does not mean I think climate change isn’t happening or even that CO2 is a possible cause. My problem was with the idea of certainty. Once certainty is absolute, then science cannot exist. Dogma is the antithesis of science.

All of science is theoretical. Even those explanations we think of as scientific facts today, are just really good theories that have withstood the test of time. But doubt and uncertainty must always remain, however small. When uncertainty is totally dismissed or denied, then you are leaving science and entering the territory of dogma, a quality more associated with religion than science.

When I was a naive young student, then teacher, I used to think that science was self-correcting. Hypotheses were tested by experiments. Those experiments were replicated by others, and good ideas were affirmed while bad ideas were eventually dismissed. There was always a search for the truth. When Climate Change became political, the search for truth was subverted. That state of affairs is not unprecedented. Check out Lysenkoism in the former Soviet Union. More recently the idea that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease or that stomach ulcers are caused by environmental stress, are both widely accepted ideas but shown to be wrong. People still believe these erroneous ideas, which just shows how difficult it is to change a popular paradigm.

I’ll have more to say about skepticism in my next post.

Is climate change an existential threat to humanity?

Canonized! Saint Greta.

It’s ironic, even funny, that the year that climate change became a climate crisis, then a climate emergency, has ended in disappointment for the true believers at the COP25 (or as I prefer CON25) in Madrid.

2019 was also the year that media hype has reached fever pitch with stories of imminent disaster if we don’t act now, of tipping points, unlikely young heroines, climate strikes, marches, and of radical new movements, all in a concerted effort, allegedly, to save the planet.

By the way, the meeting in Spain was supposed to be held in Chile. Ironically Chile had to withdraw because of massive political protests regarding exorbitant price increases for fuel etc., which is precisely what the Madrid meeting would have encouraged the rest of the world to do to forestall climate change. But alas, they could not agree.

The latest climate change catastrophe everyone is pointing to, are the Australian Bush Fires. Yes, it has been hot and dry down under, and bush fires are common in the Aussie summer, but these fires are very severe. Why? The answer is likely related to available fuel, rather than climate change. Historically the aboriginals knew this and practiced “cool burning” when conditions allowed. This involved intentional local burn offs of accumulated fuel (brush) to reduce the chances of huge conflagrations of the type we are now witnessing. The aboriginal practices were discontinued when pressures from Green activists forced new and possibly unwise government policies.

But let me answer my question in the title. Emphatically NO! 

Climate change is no more a threat to humanity than overpopulation was in 1968 when Paul Ehrlich published his book The Population Bomb. There was no bomb, there were no worldwide famines, Ehrlich and his book were simply wrong. Some simple advances in agricultural technology solved the Malthusian crisis that Ehrlich had predicted. Coercive government action on a world-wide scale was NOT required. No taxes, no limits to the number of children in families (except for the Chinese, and they will rue that day). It did not require a concerted effort by a world government to solve the alleged crisis. It was solved because people became smarter, wealthier, and healthier through free markets. In fact, today we live in what is arguably the best of times ever for humanity.

The best of times.

How can I be confident that climate change won’t threaten humanity this time? History tells me. At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (we are living in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warmer interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. At its peak, ice thicknesses would have dwarfed building (see graphic below) in areas where cities now exist. I'm writing this blog post at a location just north of Toronto. In fact, very close to my home is a moraine left over from that last continental glacier.

The Great Lakes are remnants of the last glaciation.

That last ice age coincides with all of recorded human history. The entire history of our human civilization has taken place in this interglacial period after the continental glaciers retreated. Not only did humanity survive that ice age, but today humans are being accused of possibly preventing the next one. I’m assuming there will be another ice age, but maybe not. We don’t entirely understand why the previous glacial periods occurred, and we certainly have a very poor track record making predictions into the future, even the near future (see graph below).

The idea that humans are the primary cause of the climate change is now so entrenched in our media, in our culture, that anyone doubting it, even suggesting there was a debate, is dismissed and equated with being a Holocaust denier. I'll have more to say about that in a future post.

The models don't jive with reality.

The reality is that the media, most politicians and many scientists would say there is no debate. Climate change is happening and humans are the primary cause. We, the people of Earth, must do something now because its reached the point of an existential threat to humanity, despite my comments above. It's an emergency, a climate crisis no less.

That, I believe, is an accurate description of the present state of affairs for the affirmative side, if there were a debate.

However I believe there is still a debate and I take the contrary position, not that climate change isn’t happening, it is and has been throughout history, but that the matter is so unimportant, that its not even worthy of further discussion. The difference between these two opposing positions is staggering and needs to be unpacked. How serious should observers consider the debate given some interesting facts? 

Consider that the chief spokesperson for the climate crisis side is a sixteen year old autistic school girl from Sweden, who has lately been absent from school for great stretches of time. She is little more than a self-appointed (maybe not  self) media wunderkind with no particular expertise except her age and innocence. How she, aged 16, organizes rallies and marches around the world, no one seems to ask. It’s astounding to me, almost laughable given all the scientists that might be available, that the media has chosen her as the chief spokesperson for such a complex and apparently important scientific and politically significant idea. It’s beyond ludicrous that she was recently named most influential person of 2019 by none other than TIME magazine (see photo). It’s practically a self-parody. If, as many people would agree, belief in climate change has become a secular religion, Greta was just canonized by TIME. 

Consider also that most nations of the world have signed onto an “accord” that has set goals and targets for fixing the problem. However, the leader of one nation, the one with the largest economy in the world (USA) has decided to opt out of the accord and the nation with second largest economy (and growing fast - China) plus other smaller but important contributors (India) to the problem have been exempted from the accord. In fact they are not going to help solve the "emergency" for at least another ten years, and they will continue to exacerbate the problem in the meantime. Am I exaggerating?

I've got much more to say on this issue, but that will wait for another post.

The power of a single voice - war on superbugs

Lytic cycle of T4, a virulent phage. 

The media loves stories of looming crises and dire predictions. The story of antibiotic resistant superbugs has been around for over a decade and it periodically gets retold because there is a lot of truth to it. It’s a story of evolution by inadvertent artificial selection that is happening on a global scale. We are losing the ability to fight common bacterial infections because we have abused and overused common antibiotics. This has created bacteria that are immune to all but a few of our most potent antibiotics, and those too are disappearing fast. Soon people will be dying of infections that were once easily treated by modern medicine. We will soon revert back to a time before antibiotics, at least that is the "superbug" threat and the crisis being circulated by mainstream media.
 

On of my oldest friends, a high school buddy, a friend for more than 50 years, recently saw a media report on superbugs and the losing battle. He thought that that media report had omitted an important tool in the medical arsenal to fight common infections. So he wrote to the media outlet and pointed to a long known but overlooked and under used tool to fight infection: Phage Therapy. Subsequent stories from other media outlets prompted similar letters/emails, and he started getting thank you acknowledgments for his troubles. Here is what CTV News, a recipient of one of those emails has done with the story recently. It gives hope to those affected by these superbugs, even restoring people who were near death to good health.

The story of bacteriophages and their life cycle, is often told by biology teachers (like I was) to senior biology students as a model for how viruses work in general (see diagram above). It shows how viruses cause disease by destroying cells and also shows that viruses are not cells at all, so are not affected by antibiotics like bacteria. It’s only been in the last twenty years that there are anti-viral drugs that are commonly used today, mostly for immunocompromised patients (as I am now). Antibiotics have been around for almost 100 years, but commonly used for the last 80 years. 

I’d like to think that my old friend’s emails have influenced and corrected the dire warnings posted in the press, radio and TV. It's a lesson for us all: speak up when you can help. Certainly phage therapy appears to be a viable treatment for patients as a last resort as the CTV story (linked above) explains.

A man that says what others are afraid to.....

Douglas Murray

As Christmas approaches writers are out in full force promoting their latest publications for our gift consideration. Thanks to my wife, a voracious reader, for pointing out a column about such a book in the National Post. On top of all she does to support me in my condition, she also knows what I might write about.

In the Post, Barbara Kay writes about her recent interview with Douglas Murray and his latest: The Madness of Crowds: Gender , Race and Identity. This book and his previous book: The Strange Death of Europe, fit very well with my previous two posts on the cultural shift that has taken place. The Europe book opens with the following statements:

“Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide.”

I could not agree more with those statements, something I would have written about if I had been writing over the past four years, lots to catchup on. I also agree with much of what Murray says in general, as Kay points out he says what others are afraid to, a man after my own heart.
 See for yourself in this hour long interview with Murray done for the Hoover Institution in the YouTube series called Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson. It’s an excellent series that I have been watching for many years and Robinson is an excellent interviewer. You should subscribe and watch, its well worth your time.

 

A modern day quiet cultural revolution - Part 2

Cancel culture was a top news story over the past week. Former hockey coach and commentator Don Cherry was fired by Rogers/SportsNet. Cherry misspoke and refused to apologize for his comments during Coach’s Corner, comments that were not really out of character for him. Complaints against Cherry were so numerous that they overwhelmed the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council website and phone lines. Rogers/SportsNet, a private company trying to make a profit, acted to protect its brand, and Cherry did the same. I doubt this incident would have raised the same kind of furor had it happened in previous years. Don Cherry has done a great deal for veterans, soldiers, and Canadians in general, and does not deserve the treatment he has received. For me the whole thing is unfortunate, but evidence that a cultural shift has happened. 

The photo (top left) is more evidence of the “feardom” that has replaced freedom of speech even amongst journalists. Rotten Tomatoes rating of Dave Chappelle’s latest NETFLIX Special speaks volumes about what is politically correct these days. Why the wide discrepancy between the critics score and the audience? Well, if you watch the special, Chappelle has a segment early on that pokes fun of the letters “L G B T” and especially the “T’s.” Apparently the critics didn’t see the humour, the audience however, disagrees. Trust me, the comedy is riotously funny, but Chappelle seems to have crossed some invisible line in the eyes of the critics. None of the scores for his other specials have such widespread disagreement between the critics and the audience. Chappelle hasn’t changed over the years, he has always been controversial, but the environment has shifted under him. 

So what are we to make of this cultural shift? Important things have changed. People are afraid to speak to certain issues compared to the recent past. Our thoughts and words are now policed for fear of offending someone or some group. Offensive speech or ideas are now said to “trigger” those who are offended. An ironic choice of terms taken from gun culture. There is a suppression of disagreement, a lack of serious debate on many issues. There is even legislation in Canada (Bill C16) that prescribes which words can be used in general discourse. At the same time there is a genuine hunger for dissent. Witness the sudden rise in popularity of Jordan Peterson because he represented someone that could articulate arguments that are counter cultural. He rose to prominence because he disagreed with the C16 legislation around pronoun usage for people claiming to be transgendered. 

Serious discussion or disagreement for many issues has now been effectively outlawed, a very bad precedent has been set. 

In addition the cultural shift is anti-national, that is, it diminishes the principles and values that makes Canada and Western societies desirable places compared to many other places. It implies we are no better than they are. It stems from the idea that Western values like rule of law, individual rights, free markets etc. are in no way superior to non-Western or third world nations. Clearly that's not true. Canada and Western societies in general still attract droves of immigrants from non-Western nations, simply because our way of life is superior in many ways and the immigrants know it.

Worse still, the cultural shift embraces "identity politics" as mentioned in my previous post. So your skin colour, gender, ethnic origin, religion etc., automatically puts you into a group with similar "identities," and therefore you are assumed to act with your group and its characteristics. I know that's crazy, but that's what is happening. For example, the idea of "white privilege" is a quality in one's identity if you are white, and is bestowed on anyone that is white and well-off in Western society. I've been told I have white privilege by someone who had no idea who I was, nor what has happened in my life and has not defined adequately just what that means in my case. Its assumed, and its nuts. 

Its high time that we push back against this cultural shift. We need to speak out when we recognize how the negative aspects of the new culture are impacting each of us. My blog and my other social media outlets is how I will push back. How will you help? 

A modern day quiet cultural revolution - Part 1

Every Canadian who knows a bit of history has heard of “The Quiet Revolution.”
I was a teenager during much of that time (the ‘60s) and like most people I was oblivious and unaware that it was happening.

FYI according to Wikipedia: “The Quiet Revolution was a period of intense socio-political and socio-cultural change in the Canadian province of Québec, characterized by the effective secularization of government, the creation of a state-run welfare state, and realignment of politics into federalist and sovereigntist (or separatist) factions and the eventual election of a pro-sovereignty provincial government in the 1976 election.” It was a cultural revolution in Quebec. We continue to be impacted by it. The recent Federal Election displayed for all to see just how different Quebec is from the rest of Canada.  Quebec’s Bill 21 about wearing religious symbols while holding a government job, speaks to how secular and maybe intolerant the Province of Quebec has become. The Bloc Québécois, a Federal separatist party, won almost half the electoral districts in Quebec in the 2019 election. The Quiet Revolution has dramatically altered Quebec and its relationship within Canada.

But today, we are in the midst of a much larger global, leftist, cultural, quiet revolution that is dramatically changing countries across the planet from within, and the way individuals interact with each other and their governments. It’s ongoing, so the results are not yet determined, but many changes are already apparent.

I am certain that I’m not the first to suggest this world-wide, politically left leaning, cultural revolution in the works. I am just as certain that my views of the state of battle, and the winners and losers in this revolution, will differ from the main stream narrative. Let’s see.

Just this past week I came across a new phrase (new to me, anyway) that I think is characteristic of this revolution: “Cancel Culture.” Google it and you will get: “the practice of no longer supporting people, especially celebrities, or products that are regarded as unacceptable or problematic.” I’m sure most people were aware of cancel culture, without ever giving it a specific label. We all saw what happened when the #MeToo/#TimesUp movement began. All sorts of celebrities, mostly men, became socially persona non grata. In many instances this social shunning was well deserved, but it has become more than that, it now involves the policing of thought, the squelching of free speech in support of a new political correctness.



Take the recent case in Toronto Public Library system where a feminist author rented a room in a library to talk about gender identity and its legal implications. This author was called a NAZI by a well known CBC Radio journalist. 



Just as an aside, for me “gender identity” is not a subjective choice, on this the science is settled for me. It can be objectively determined, based on chromosome examination, never mind the genitalia, what is the gender of a particular human individual. Its almost funny that the same people that are certain the planet is overheating because they say the science says so, deny the science that says there are two and only two genders. But I digress.

The new cultural revolution has made any discussion or debate about gender, verboten, and politically incorrect. To the credit of the chief librarian of the Toronto Public Library, the gender talk was allowed despite the protestations of the transgender gestapo before and during the talk by the feminist author. Even the Mayor of Toronto, always on the hunt for more votes, came out favouring the cancellation of the talk. Before the revolution this would not have been a story, let alone a media headline. But here we are, the power of identity politics, in this case the LGBT etc.. community, such is the misplaced influence they have. 

Imagine if our feminist author tried to speak at a university today. I guarantee it would not happen. The thought police would have cancelled it, and very few people would say boo. It’s now accepted that universities are no longer places where diverse opinions and ideas can be expressed. Free speech is no more, we now expect filtered speech, speech that complies with revolutionary politically correct thought. The academy has been deadened. When I was a student, universities were the places where free thought was nurtured, and expected. Today, if its not politically correct, its cancelled. Such is the new culture. More next time.

Are there 11,000 scientists warning of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change or is it a scam? It's a scam!

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

I am shocked but honestly not surprised that one of the top news stories of the past week was just fake news.

You would think that the worldwide Climate Change Alarmist community would do a better job of vetting and delivering their message. Not in this case. The mainstream media of course have totally accepted the alarmist bullshit.  The identical story was broadcast and published around the world, apparently no one or vetted or checked the list of scientists. It was just accepted as the gospel truth in a paper that was not peer-reviewd: 11,000 scientists are warning of dire consequences unless major changes are made in people's lifestyle, diet, energy use etc. As the image says, scientists have a moral obligation to warn people. How could so many scientists be wrong? That's why the "11,000" was emphasized. It sounded plausible, until some people dared look at the signatories to the document. Unfortunately access to the list has now been blocked because they are vetting them. Bit late because, among the "scientists" when access was allowed was a Professor Mickey Mouse, and Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster  at Hogwarts and well... others of that calibre of scientist. Here is a news report from Australia on this topic:

....and another video from Canada. By the way, in this one someone I know is mentioned. He is not a scientist, he was a candidate for the Ontario Libertarian Party in Hamilton ON. He was a cab driver and he publishes emails (which I get) regularly with his opinion. If you don't watch the whole video below just check out the part after the 19 minute mark and you will meet my friend Hans.

Enjoy.

Why I've been absent from this blog.

94% of a full slate for the Ontario Libertarian Party in June 2018

It’s very hard for me to believe, but March 22, 2019, marked the 10th Anniversary of this blog. Just as difficult is the realization that the last time I posted to this blog was Dec. 30, 2015, almost 4 years ago. Lots of things have happened in the past 10 years, and big changes have occurred in the last four.

In November 2011, I became Leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party. After that it became difficult to cater to the blog because I was heavily involved with social media, policy work and candidate recruitment, etc. for the Party. But after two “successful” provincial elections in 2014 and 2018, it was time for a change. I resigned the Leadership in July 2018, mostly for health reasons.

The Party successes involved candidate recruitment and voter turnout. In 2018 we had technically recruited 117 out of 124 possible candidates. I say technically, because we had to remove one candidate just before polling day, so 116 was the final tally, almost our goal of a full slate. That was the best we had ever done. Of course the more candidates, the more votes, and our vote total was almost 43,000, also our best ever. I suspect these numbers are going to be difficult to match in the 2022 election.

My health began to deteriorate in the spring of 2018. After going through a winter for summer tire swap, I experienced shoulder pain, then back/rib cage pain that did not get better with time. Early in July of 2018, I woke up one morning with unexplained permanent central vision loss in my left eye. By August I was experiencing problems in my right eye. Doctors called it bilateral CRVO of unknown cause. I had no idea that the rib cage pain was related to my vision loss and the CRVO. But it was. By September of 2018, the back pain was unbearable and became chest pain, so my family doctor suggested I admit myself to a hospital emergency. Initial tests suggested a heart attack, but further examination showed no apparent coronary blockages, but my heart was not right and so I was kept in cardiac ICU. Eventually I was diagnosed with Takutsubo cardiomyopathy and Multiple Myeloma in my spine and chest. The good news was my heart righted itself by early December 2018, and now its normal, though I’m still taking heart medications because they are “good for me.” 

In hospital September 2018

The bad news was Myeloma is an incurable cancer of bone marrow cells, and it also increases the viscosity of blood which is what caused the vision loss and CRVO. I did a course of radiation in my spine and chest, before I left hospital in late September 2018, followed by 10 brutal months of chemotherapy which ended in July 2019, the side effects of which I’m still recovering from. The Myeloma is in remission for now, but I’m assured it will return in months or years and then another course of chemo will be tried, and so on.

On a much more positive note over the past 10 years, I became a Grandfather twice, way more fun than anything I’ve ever done.

So here I am, back at you, with commentary and opinions on issues local, regional and planetary.

I’d also like to remove the “Bright” designation in the header, changing it to “Right.” The Bright’s are secular humanists, advocating social justice and climate justice (whatever that means). Atheism is all I have in common with the Brights now, so I’ve decided that I am not really one of them as they are currently defined. I also prefer the insinuation of being “right,” who wouldn’t? And I like the political direction implied. Problem is, if I change the URL to “right,” then I’ve erased hundreds of posts over the years. So I will keep the URL, but modify the page header. I’ll try and post once a week for as long as I can. Thanks for coming onboard you won’t regret it.

Referendum or bust......

In 2011, the Harper Conservatives won a convincing majority in the Canadian Federal election. They did it with just over 39% of the popular vote.
Imagine if Stephen Harper had campaigned for election reform back then, saying words to the effect that the 2011 election would be the last one using the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system for selecting a Parliament. But at no time during this imaginary campaign, was it revealed what alternate voting system was preferred, just that it had to be changed. Choosing an alternate would be left to an all party parliamentary committee, and the choice would be put to a vote in Parliament where the majority party, the Conservatives, would likely prevail even though it had earned just 39% of the popular vote. Would people be incensed?

Since this is all hypothetical, and moreover would be antithetical to the very idea of 'conservatism,' I leave to your imagination what kind of outcry might ensue. Suffice to say that the main stream media would lead the charge with wall-to-wall coverage of the 'Harper Haters,' placards in hand, marching on Parliament Hill and in every similar hill in every village, town and city across the nation. The outcry would be deafening - maybe. I know there is wide spread support among the politically connected, especially Liberals, NDPers and other parties that see this as a chance to grab a seat in the House of Commons. Even some Libertarians erroneously view electoral reform as a good idea. But most people don't give it a second thought, and probably have no clue how the Parliament works currently. Their view might be characterized as: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The imaginary scenario I've described is what is actually happening right now, but its Justin's Liberals that are leading the charge. They too were elected with a convincing majority on the backs of just 39% of the popular vote. At no time in the campaign did Justin proclaim which system he favours. But he did pledge that this 2015 election would be “the last federal election held under the first-past-the-post voting system.” However, there is no outcry from media, no marching to the Hill, in fact very little reaction from most main stream media and very few 'letters-to-the-editor' on the issue. Some, politically connected media types have weighed in on the matter, but their main issue is: shouldn't this be put to a referendum?

Absolutely I say, as do several with no particular affection for young Justin and his gang. There is plenty of precedent for a referendum both inside and outside Canada.

I was a Poll Official in the 2007 Ontario Provincial Election which included a referendum on an alternative voting system. It was soundly defeated. Many that voted that day at my Polling Station had no clue about alternative voting methods, and as a "neutral" poll official I could not explain it to them without committing an election violation. I just pointed to the printed explanation Elections Ontario had given me to tape to the wall. Very few went to read it.

National Post columnists, none that love Justin, have written columns supporting the idea of a referendum. Rex Murphy did, then Colby Cosh, both gave good arguments for a referendum. But last week, Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc ruled out an explicit referendum on replacing first-past-the-post in federal elections. Dumb move I think, but I expect many, many more from this gang.

Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, also wrote in the National Post and explained the debate this way:

"......this debate has largely polarized into two camps: those who prefer the status quo and want a referendum on the presumption that any change can be defeated; and those who prefer some alternative system and fear a referendum would scuttle any chance for change. Both sides are more interested in getting the outcome they want and are merely using the question of a referendum as camouflage for predictable self-interest."

That's fair, but we still need the referendum, regardless of what LeBlanc said. 

Ignition.....or is it re-ignition?

Time to fire up my dormant blog again. It's not as though I have been absent from online commentary over the past year, far from it.

Facebook is where I spend much of my online time, posting comments, news stories, memes, even doing rudimentary graphics on behalf of the Ontario Libertarian Party. I also post on my own behalf but often it feels like a waste of time. For me ultimately, the purpose of posting comments in a publicly accessible venue, is to have those comments available for anyone who is interested (even me), at anytime. 
But my Facebook posts quickly fall into cavernous Facebook servers, still available yes, but not easily, and for all intents and purposes, lost unless Facebook decides to repost the comments or event as a "memory" in the future. Its in their control, not mine. Blog posts are different. Anyone can easily, and quickly, scroll down to my original posts almost seven years ago.
I'll be posting these blog posts onto my own Facebook, and a page with the same name as the blog. By the way, I've decided to turn OFF comments. Have something to say? Do it on Facebook, it will disappear in time. 

Should ER doctors turn in suspected drunk drivers?

Last weekend the Toronto Sun ran a front page story and two full pages inside, on an ER doctor's experience and opinion.

The story was about a woman that had been taken to the ER and examined by that doctor.

"The patient, a woman in her 40s, had driven her car into the back of another automobile, causing significant damage to her vehicle and injuring the two occupants of the car she struck.
As I examined this woman, it became apparent to me she was likely under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Her breath smelled strongly of liquor, her words were slurred, and her balance was unsteady. Speaking to the attending paramedics, I was informed police had not interviewed the woman at the scene and she had not yet been subjected to an alcohol breath test. Assessing the patient for injuries, I proceeded to order x-rays and CT scans, as well as lab tests to screen for alcohol and drugs of abuse."

The doctor's suggestion is that physicians be allowed to report suspected drunk drivers to the police in the interests of public safety, contrary to doctor - patient confidentiality. 

In this case the woman had the presence of mind NOT to permit blood tests, and even if they were done they could not be admitted as evidence because the law imposes a duty of confidentiality on physicians. In the article the doctor points out how this duty of confidentiality already has exceptions. His suggestion would simply add to the slippery slope that currently erodes doctor-patient confidentiality. Is it warranted? 

I would say no. In the case above, the actions of that woman, likely required police investigation because harm was done, people were hurt, property was damaged. So where were the police? That is their job. The issue should have been dealt with right there. 

Maybe there were witnesses (including the two that were injured) that could have testified that the woman was driving carelessly or even dangerously. Their encounter with the woman assuming they were able, would allow them to pursue a civil action against the woman, even if the woman wasn't charged. Careless and dangerous driving can be objectively observed. Both may cause harm, and appropriate penalties do exist. However, alcohol in the blood does not necessarily indicate impairment or result in careless or even dangerous driving. By allowing the doctor to hold or report the woman until police arrive just puts off what should have happened initially. When a traffic collision occurs and an ambulance is called, police should be there too.

I'm not in favour of drinking and driving, I doubt anyone is. Charging someone with a crime simply based chemicals present in their bloodstream is not reasonable in my opinion. That is what the doctor proposes and of course that already happens when police stop drivers and ask them to use a breathalyzer. But the police may have had cause for stopping that particular driver. The actions of that person, the way they are driving, that is what should be judged.

In Ontario police already have extraordinary powers with regard to alcohol consumption. All Ontario drivers are likely aware of The Ride Program, - the annual holiday police road block that assumes guilt by virtue of the time of year, and time of day. The statistics show that fatal collisions that have impaired drivers involved have been steadily decreasing over the years. Is that because of the Ride Program or is that because of all the advertising education that has occurred over the 26 years since Ride was initiated province wide? Its hard to know.

There are many reasons that could impair a person's ability to drive. Eating, drinking (alcohol), talking, texting, shaving, children in the back, putting on makeup, it's a long list. None of those are crimes in the right context. But if any of them causes a person to drive erratically or even dangerously resulting in a collision, that is potentially a crime, and that is what should be judged.     

  

Marijuana black market thrives

Colorado's marijuana loosening law is almost 8 months old. I say 'loosening,' because the law has many constraints associated with it.

Its always amazing to me that legislators, by and large, are economic ignoramuses. Maybe that's not fair, laws are hammered together compromises. The archetype statist Otto von Bismarck, probably said it best "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

The new freedoms in Colorado did nothing to reduce the size of the black market in marijuana, on the contrary it may have emboldened users, making the market bigger than ever. Why? Here is a more in depth story.

How to think about the Canadian aboriginal issue with a libertarian view?

Libertarianism is a very big tent (hence the tipi picture). It pulls in people from all political directions, left, right, centre and for various reasons too numerous to expound here.

But there are two moral principles that are touchstones to the libertarian idea that separate it from all other political ideas. The first is the concept of "self-ownership," each of us is a sovereign being. The second is the "non-aggression principle" or NAP, where any unsolicited violent force against another person or their property is wrong because it violates the principle of self-ownership. It is these two ideas that keep libertarians together and pointed in the right direction. 

For me those ideas themselves do not comprise a complete philosophy, far from it. My philosophy includes those ideas as well as others which you may find here. Reason and evidence are among the things I try to use daily and believe wholeheartedly. Sadly for me, too many libertarians that I know believe the latter two ideas are irrelevant. But I digress.

My last two posts were about aboriginal issues, and this will be my final post of the series. I see the two touchstones of libertarianism as instructive in how to approach this issue. They can be applied to the aboriginal situation in Canada. By using this reasoning a libertarian resolution to the issue can be achieved at some point in the future.

Let me summarize the present situation in Canada as I see it.

Many natives bands have signed off on the 11 treaties covering a wide swath of the country and gave up their rights to land etc. in return for ongoing payments of goods, various entitlements and money. There are also large parts of the country where lands are disputed by the local native bands. In either case individual natives on reserves have collective, not individual land rights. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs sends tax payers money to the band chiefs on reserves according to the Indian Act, money that is coerced from the rest of us. The Indian Act perpetuates the natives lack of property rights (20. (1) No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve). The money is distributed to band members according to the wishes of the chief and band council. Even if this was a voluntary arrangement between the Crown and the natives at one time, it most certainly is not now. The fact that the Indian Act precludes even fee simple property rights on reserves to natives without special permission is just wrong. Tax payers being coerced to enforce this legislation obviously contravenes the NAP, as most taxes do. No libertarian should support any of this. I don't.

Natives on the receiving end however, would have a very different view, many feeling entitled to their entitlements, which I think amounts to rent-seeking. Some even hold up the canard of "aboriginal sovereignty" to justify their situation. I'm a sovereign individual too, and my home is my castle. Reading the Indian Act puts the lie to sovereignty. Legislation that confers rights actually does the opposite, it is limiting because it gives permissions. It is not sovereignty, it is dependency. No libertarian should support the Indian Act.

From a governance viewpoint, the paternalistic Indian Act stipulates a type of crony wealth redistribution that is open to the possibility of corrupt practices by the Chiefs or band councils. Here is one Chief that made almost $1 million last year representing a band of just 81 members. This news only came to light after new legislation was instituted that requires bands to report their financial status which is absolutely unbelievable in 2014, but so typical of 'government oversight,' an oxymoron if ever there was one. You're welcome to wade through this opaque mass of government information generated by the transparency legislation here.

In my last post I mentioned the rent-like obligation placed on non-natives. This ongoing debt with no end in sight, is contrary to the NAP because no one wants to have an obligation they did not consent to, and no one should continue to acquiesce to this agreement. No libertarian should support this. 

Despite this, native leaders travel the world complaining of the bad treatment aboriginals receive in Canada. I found an exchange between Prof. Walter Block and Lorne Gunter on the issue of 'Human Rights' and natives here. Its well worth the read and contains some interesting data. Prof. Block, by the way, "....support(s) (my) view. Wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically," I asked him.
Some of the apologists for aboriginal 'rights' in Canada will point out that it's really not that expensive to satisfy the obligations in the treaties and agreements with the natives. That may be true (but still no excuse) in the grand scheme, but there are hidden costs that must be factored in:

Aboriginals have the highest incarceration rate in the country:

"While Aboriginal people make up about 4% of the Canadian population, as of February 2013, 23.2% of the federal inmate population is Aboriginal (First Nation, Métis or Inuit). There are approximately 3,400 Aboriginal offenders in federal penitentiaries, approximately 71% are First Nation, 24% Métis and 5% Inuit.
In 2010-11, Canada’s overall incarceration rate was 140 per 100,000 adults. The incarceration rate for Aboriginal adults in Canada is estimated to be 10 times higher than the incarceration rate of non-Aboriginal adults.
The over-representation of Aboriginal people in Canada’s correctional system continued to grow in the last decade. Since 2000-01, the federal Aboriginal inmate population has increased by 56.2%. Their overall representation rate in the inmate population has increased from 17.0% in 2000-01 to 23.2% today.
Since 2005-06, there has been a 43.5% increase in the federal Aboriginal inmate population, compared to a 9.6% increase in non-Aboriginal inmates.

Aboriginal youth have the highest suicide rates in the country:

"Suicide rates are five to seven times higher for First Nations youth than for non-Aboriginal youth, and rates among Inuit youth are among the highest in the world, at 11 times the national average. Some speculate that the problem is actually worse, as stats don't usually include all Aboriginal groups."

Aboriginals are treated differently by Police in all jurisdictions across Canada even though the Indian Act specifies:

"General provincial laws applicable to Indians
88. Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other Act of Parliament, all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act or the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, or with any order, rule, regulation or law of a band made under those Acts, and except to the extent that those provincial laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under those Acts."

I won't even go into the issue of contraband cigarettes/tobacco. This may not have been an issue when treaties and agreements were established more than 100 years ago, but things have changed.

Is it possible that the impact of the Indian Act, aboriginal dependency on big government and all of the things I've mentioned plus others, are the cause (direct or indirect) of the present situation? I'd say yes.


Milton Friedman said judge policy by results not intentions. It's very clear to me what the results have been between the various aboriginals and Crown/government over the past hundreds of years. The policies have not worked, particularly for the aboriginals.

I tend to agree with Lorne Gunter, this will not be fixed for a generation or two, if ever, and I have no idea where to start. But let me suggest that a good place to begin is to admit the problem and confront it. This is a huge waste of human resources, people that should be contributing to our country are being wasted literally.

I would like to see the Libertarian Party of Canada take up this issue, no other party seems to have the courage.

What's wrong with native rights?

If you read my previous post it ended with the question: "So you might wonder why so many libertarian and conservative thinkers are apposed to the way the First Nation's people were dealt with and are being dealt with in Canada?"

Many people think it's a property rights issue, and of course libertarians, particularly those from political parties, view property rights as fundamental rights, and I agree. 

But, is this a property rights issue?

European settlers made contact with North American aboriginals more than 500 years ago. Their had been wars, periods of peace and finally settlement through a series of agreements and treaties. You can read the history here and onward. The treaties were designed to prevent war while encouraging commerce, interaction and interdependence creating a virtuous circle of sorts. It worked, more or less, but to this day there are no final settlements. At the risk of oversimplifying the situation here is what I mean.
North American aboriginals were not a homogeneous group, some were farmers, some nomads and often there were territorial disputes between them. The Europeans complicated the situation, bringing a totally different culture and worldview to North America. Essentially agreements were reached with different bands that tried to accommodate their uniqueness, but nothing was resolved in finality. The unwillingness of past governments and native leaders to finalize issues, left us with half cooked deals. These are the so-called numbered treaties, mostly written after Confederation, which were modelled after one another across Canada (see map above). For example here is the summary for Treaty Number Nine, the one that encompasses much of Northwestern Ontario.

Many Canadians are under the illusion the somehow much of Canada still "belongs" to the aboriginals and the rest of us are interlopers, renting these properties. But the wording in all the treaties is very similar. Each treaty states that Aboriginal nations forever give up their land rights to the government of Canada for European settlement. That's pretty clear, this is NOT a rental agreement. But the problem with the treaty wording is the idea that land rights are given up in return for this sample from Treaty Nine: 

• 2.5 square kilometers of reserve land for each family of five or 600 square meters for each person. 

• $8 per person each year, plus an additional $4 annually for the family head; chiefs get $32 and an extra $8 payment. They also get a flag and a copy of the treaty.

• The right to hunt and fish on ceded land, except land used for forestry, mining, settlement or other purposes.

• $1 per family head for ammunition and fishing net twine.

• Funds to hire teachers, construct school buildings, and buy educational equipment as the government of Canada sees fit.

• A census to keep track of how many Aboriginals there were in each band, mainly for financial compensation purposes.

This, I think is outrageous. Treaty Nine was signed over 100 years ago and there are ten other treaties that are similar. It amounts to non-natives being in perpetual debt to natives through enforced rent-seeking. It looks, acts, and smells, like a rental agreement. Only a government would have the arrogance to proclaim something as silly as a property transfer agreement that has no end date and no resolution. These are the so-called "native rights" (plus others in each province), and of course they aren't rights at all but contracts based on and enforced according to racial origin. It is special treatment by race, it is racism by definition.

Many libertarians have issues with the so-called "social contract" that burdens citizens to accept certain obligations placed on them by government even though they did not personally consent to them or even make use of resources spent supposedly on their behalf. But this obligation to aboriginals makes it worse for all Canadians.

So I'm not speaking on behalf of my party here or even on behalf of other libertarians. The issue for me is rent seeking, and a debt that apparently will never be repaid.

What's wrong with native rights? The same thing that is wrong with Gay rights or women's rights or any particular group that seeks special rights. There is only one kind of rights: human rights, and they are the right to life, liberty and property. If you have given up your property, than make a final deal and walk away. 
More on this issue next time.

Are libertarians racist?

Strangely, the biggest issue in the recent Ontario election for me had nothing to do with our policy or platform. Two days before polling day, our candidate in Thunder Bay Superior-North (TBSN) purchased a full page ad that took issue with some First Nations' privileges in Ontario. She thought aboriginals had unfair advantages.

I'm sure many of you will think: Really, aboriginals have privileges, advantages? Aren't they second class citizens on their own land? Shouldn't we feel sorry for the way the government treats these people? Aren't Canadian governments criticized around the world for underfunding our First Nations? Shame! (here is media release with links that respond to the issue)

Frankly, I have never thought that, even though I do sympathize with the plight of aboriginals at the hands of governments all over the world.

The story goes back to late winter in 2014, the run up to the June election, which I was convinced was inevitable. The presumptive candidate for the PC party in TBSN, made a comment on her Facebook page that got her turfed out of the candidacy.

By the way, the PC's should change their name to "Politically Correct." And as far as I'm concerned the label Progressive Conservative is just oxymoronic, emphasis on moronic, because that's exactly how they appeared in this past election, but that's another story.

Some members of the party and several of the Libertarian executive committee saw this unfairness issue around aboriginals as needing to be addressed. Anyway, the PC TBSN candidate was forced out, so we asked her to join us and she did. We were attempting to fill the slate (107 ridings) and had candidates in all parts of the province for the first time ever. This candidate had already received media attention in her riding and throughout the North. Several of us spoke to her, and we agreed this was an issue created and exasperated by government and bureaucracy. Perfect for us.

Immediately I received emails and social media messages that accused us of harbouring a racist, and implying Libertarians were racist. I was bothered by this at first, and I even tried to defend the decision, but I soon realized these comments stemmed from outright ignorance.  

As a libertarian from the Objectivist school, I think Ayn Rand explained the foundations of "racism" best in the Virtue of Selfishness:

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

"Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men."

I've just commented on racism as a form of collectivism, abhorrent to me, so you will pardon me if I attempt to characterize the group (not a collective) called "libertarians."

My experience is that libertarians are the most accommodating people you would ever want to meet, by and large. All of them are, of course, very opinionated, and tend to abhor all the forms of collectivism present in our society. The only preconceived notions libertarians harbour deal with governments, bureaucracies and crony corporatism. On most other issues, libertarians will have an open mind.

So you might wonder why so many libertarian and conservative thinkers are apposed to the way the First Nation's people were dealt with and are being dealt with in Canada? It's definitely not racism.

More next time.