Making a difference

In the federal election just passed, the number of rejected ballots in Markham-Unionville beat my total as the local Libertarian candidate, again. But this time it was closer. I’m not discouraged because I know I made a difference. People don’t necessarily vote for or against a particular individual or party, so I don’t feel slighted in any way with only 0.5% of the popular vote.

As a case in point, look at the NDP surge in Quebec and elsewhere. One young NDP candidate never set foot in her riding, had no election signs or campaign office, spent a week of the campaign vacationing in Las Vegas, and was virtually invisible, but won her election handily. Effectively she was a “paper candidate,” riding on the coat tails of her leader, Jack Layton. The Harper majority has presented her with a four-year contract and an annual salary of $157,731 plus perks, just for showing up; not bad for agreeing to help out her party. She obviously made a difference with very little effort. For the NDP it was important to field candidates in every riding across the country for the sake of credibility, even if their candidates were not credible themselves. Helping the party is one important lesson for Libertarian candidates and potential candidates in the upcoming Ontario Provincial election.

For all the considerable effort that I put forth in this election campaign, my vote count barely budged from my 2008 results. It was not for lack of trying. I had an unpopular package to sell the voters of Markham-Unionville. Some day, in the future, that package may look more attractive to voters, but not yet.

This campaign was my second attempt. This time I had signs throughout the riding, attended “all-candidates debates” (except where I was involved with other party matters), I was profiled on the local cable channel, and local newspaper, had a widely heard radio interview on a Toronto Rock station, I used social media like my blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. I also had short YouTube clips online, and a website dedicated to the election campaign. I campaigned with pamphlets from door-to-door and in public areas.

Did it have an effect?

Well it certainly did not translate to votes. However, on several occasions people that I met on the campaign told me that they saw my signs, but didn’t know what the Libertarian Party represented, or more often, they had never heard of the party before. The point is, now they have. No party wins voter trust instantly, and it takes repetition and familiarity; look at the NDP story.

This year is the 50^th Anniversary of the creation of the NDP, and it has taken 50 years of repetitive collectivist rhetoric and thinking for them to achieve the trust of a large percentage of the electorate. Over 30% of voters across Canada (much improved from 18% in 2008) chose an NDP candidate in this election, making the NDP the official opposition for the first time. In those 50 years Canada has changed enormously from a nation that accepted a relatively limited role for government with emphasis on individual, family and community responsibility. The current paradigm in Canada, is one where government should do as much as possible for as many as possible. This happened in a slow but steady evolution, with the assistance of politicians that pandered to the public sector unions, corporations, and was abetted by the public school system, and the mainstream media.   

The other important lesson we Libertarians should take to heart is the role of leadership. If we are going to act like a political party and ask people to vote for us, they need a face, and a persona to go with the party name. The NDP example demonstrates my point; look at what Jack Layton accomplished. In ridings all over the country, disenchanted Liberal and Bloc voters chose NDP candidates sight unseen. That will not happen to us necessarily, but an effective leader allows the generally lazy mainstream media to zero in on one individual who can deliver the message for us all.   

We have much to offer to a thinking electorate. We are the only party where principles of freedom would direct policy.  The only party that openly advocates free enterprise, reduced spending, reduced government, and actually means it. The problem is we are few, and it will take each of us to make a difference, but make no mistake, you can if you try.

The above article originally appeared in The Libertarian Bulletin, The Newsletter of the Ontario Libertarian Party Summer 2011, Vol. 31 No. 4

The perfect propaganda circle

"Peer review or Pal review," that's the gist of an op-ed from Patrick Michaels in Forbes online this week. Michaels points out that the process of peer review, long held as the gold standard method of sussing out truth in science, is failing miserably because the double-blind rule is ignored in climate science. Unlike blogging, getting published in scientific journals is supposed to be tough, Michaels says.
In peer review, names are removed from submitted manuscripts to avoid favouritism or any other conflicts. Very sensible, and by and large the process works....eventually. Even hoaxes like Piltdown Man, are exposed, except that one took 40 years to fix. Michaels argues that climate science is riddled with favouritism and the double-blind rule is ignored. What about objectivity and fairness? He points out that: "in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that."
Rex Murphy in the National Post echoes some of Patrick Michaels' points but goes on to discuss the supposed great saviour of our planet: renewable energy. Murphy tells about Steve McIntyre's revelation that the "IPCC used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that 'close to 80% of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies' " (my emphasis). But that same "Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself." So much for conflict-of-interest or any of that double-blind bullshit; it is as Murphy calls it the "perfect propaganda circle." That last story is detailed earlier in the week by Lorne Gunter and Steve McIntyre.

Government sanctioned riots

House party gone wrong   

It's a common plot devise in Hollywood movies. The teenager's parents are away or on vacation, the teen has the big house to him/herself, invites friends who invite their friends and so on. The teen provides the house, the toilets, the entertainment, and before you can say: "Animal House" a mini-riot ensues. Drunkenness, drugs, police, the home is trashed.....you get the picture. That is just what happened the other night after the hockey game, except this party was held on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver.
The government of the City of Vancouver in its wisdom, announced (via Mayor Robertson) that the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs will be a community affair, funded by local taxpayers (because the city is flush with oodles of cash?), and presented for "free" to one-and-all in the downtown city core. Forget that a hockey riot had occurred in 1994, trust the City Council, this time it will be different, just remember that the 2010 Winter Olympics were a blast. The estimated price of this event will be half-a-million-dollars, chicken feed for all the good press vibes it will attract. Interestingly, I found this police report from 2010 that estimates that just the additional police presence, would cost almost $1 million. OK, lets forget that, for the moment because the City of Vancouver will set up "two giant TV screens mounted on flat-deck trucks that are expected to lure fans to the free, family friendly events." There will be sanitation costs, lots of port-a-potties, and on and on, come on down it will be fun. Lets not be too concerned that local business will be disrupted for many days, even weeks, lets just look at the benefits that will accrue, lets just look at one side and forget the other.
If this scenario sounds familiar to Canadians, let me cast your mind back just one year to Toronto and the G20 riots. This was to be a great boon to the city of Toronto, touted by all levels of government, attracting all sorts of media and prestige for the city. Well, businesses and individuals are still trying to recover damages from that mess.
Both of these events were effectively government sanctioned riots. Government officials set the location, set the time, provided the amenities, and invited the mobs and rioters; "bread and circuses" comes to mind. But even more obvious for me,  was the timeless essay written over 160 years ago by Fredrick Bastiat that should be required reading for anyone in government: That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.
By the way, there was an event almost totally ignored by the media during these really important Stanley Cup Finals. There were no invitations issued by government through official announcements, the media seemed to be totally oblivious to it, so barely a mention. In fact the media was busy, all over Anthony Weiner  who "tweeted his meat" (more bread and circuses). But this gathering was potentially world changing, or not, depending on your belief in conspiracies. It was the Bilderberg Forum of 2011 in St. Moritz Switzerland. Apparently only bloggers and conspiracy theorists are interested in this, no riots there.  
  

Fifty Million Climate refugees by 2010 - oops

Just for fun I thought I would post he United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) prediction that by 2010 there would be 50 million “climate refugees." I mentioned this in yesterday's posting.  That's the number they gave in 2005 when Al Gore was making climate news and the "evidence" was mounting that a climate catastrophe was imminent.

The handy map you see above left has been removed from their website with the excuse you can read for yourself from their website just to the left there below the map.

Interested in other comments? Check this out, and this, and this.