The new McCarthyism

In early July of 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 Pandemic, a letter appeared in Harper’s Magazine dealing with what was called “Justice and Open Debate.” Over 150 people signed the letter, most with ties to the literary world, writers, editors, commentators etc. Without mentioning the term, it complained about the creeping “cancel culture” in the press and media. Something I have written about before. I’m happy to see others consider it a danger too.

 

Later on in July, Bari Weiss, a writer, editor and former columnist for the New York Times, resigned with this letter to her employer. Both letters dealt with the “chill” that writers face when they write something that strays from the common consensus. This quote from the Weiss letter:

“..... standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.” BW 

What is this new McCarthyism, this cancel culture?

According to Dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It's] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Similar terms are “doxxing” and “deplatforming” Deplatforming conservative and right wing speakers at universities have been a common occurrence for a number of years now. One just has to listen and look at the drivel that comes out of most universities to understand why.

 

Of course it goes beyond just shaming for those shamed and one does not need to be famous to be affected. It damages careers, jobs, and ultimately its character assassination often unjustly and inappropriately delivered.

 

There is nothing wrong with publicly castigating the comments and the commentator for something said or written. But harmful comments need to be evaluated on their harm and degree of offence. Some comments do not rise to the level of public shaming, some do. Some are not offensive at all, but simply innocuous opinions that don’t really require a response. Of course there are evil people with evil and dangerous intent that need to be outed and ultimately marginalized. That makes it important to discover intent. Trying to be objective when evaluating speech and written work is all-important. But in many cases intent is ignored and the response of the evaluators is excessively harsh. Why?

 

In late July, while being grilled at a ridiculous anti-trust hearing, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, (Bezos testimony - this is great) commented that social media is a 'nuance-destruction machine' when asked about his views on 'cancel culture.' In other words, comments on Facebook, Twitter and the like, can be easily misinterpreted. Nuance disappears in the new world of triggering and micro-aggression. 

 

That’s part of the problem and the rest almost entirely involves identity politics. With that, civil discourse is stifled on all sides of the spectrum and that further polarizes individuals and groups.

 

Here is a troubling example. A former colleague and friend, who worked as a teacher for the largest school board in Canada, made what I consider an innocent post on Facebook. He commented that there was a “distinction between peaceful protestors in a just cause and violent rioters who undermine that cause.” This was related to the violent anti-racism protests occurring in the States at the time. After reading this, some irate and unknown to him, social justice warriors lodged a formal complaint against my friend to his employer. The employer instantly suspended him for possible “human rights violations,” banned him from school property, accused him of “discrediting the teaching profession,” put a formal reprimand on his record, and even threatened further investigation including possible termination of his contract. Naturally he was pissed to say the least, and fortunate to be close to retirement. And that’s exactly what he did, thankful to distance himself from those idiots.

I have studied and taught biology for over 40 years and have never encountered such low level life forms as those bits of slime that forced a career to end so undeservedly. Of course the idiot Board admins were no shining example of fairness and good judgment. These are the folks responsible for the education of our children and grandchildren, and that is what is most distressing.

This video puts forth a libertarian view of cancel culture:

 This is also a good link: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-cancel-culture-checklist-c63

Political Party Package Deals & Principles

Casting a ballot during an election is often a problem for libertarians and classical liberals. They would be the first to say its rare to find acceptable candidates advocating for the right mix of socially tolerant ideas as well as fiscal responsibility in government. Unless there is the rare appearance of a true Libertarian or libertarian-like candidate, the aforementioned voters would have to mark their ballots while holding their collective noses or abstain from voting entirely. It's a dilemma.

This problem is almost always because political parties offer package deals. What are “package deals?” They’re party platforms that are often a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions. Rarely do political parties hold principles consistent with strict social tolerance and fiscal responsibility, both important to libertarians. Parties cater to groups of people that have been influenced by prevailing social and cultural norms and popular economic beliefs. They also get labelled as being right-wing conservative or left-wing liberal in modern parlance.

As an aside I would challenge the common meaning of these terms “right-wing and left-wing.” For example, its common in the mainstream media to call communists and socialists left-wing, and fascists right-wing. But fascism is as authoritarian as communism in practice. Recall that the NAZI Party, the prototypical fascist party, were national socialists! How is that different from regular socialists? Really, its not.

So my preference, for the North American situation, is to define left-wing as authoritarian with huge government interference in all matters, and right-wing as the opposite, classically liberal and with little government interference in all matters.

But that’s not how it works in real politics. For example, many so-called right-wing conservative parties claim to be fiscally responsible (and rarely are), and advocate rights, but also would deny women access to abortion, and deny everyone access to recreational drugs. At the same time so-called left-wing liberal parties would tax and spend to support dubious social programs yet allow women the freedom to choose and also not penalize the recreational use of drugs. Of course libertarians and classical liberals share traits that tend to straddle both these supposed left and right positions as well as other issues. How does a libertarian choose?

Thats why it’s important to support libertarian parties, candidates and ideas. It's the ideas that eventually change the culture, and voicing the ideas in an election campaign and giving people the option to vote for them is often the only way people are exposed to them. Like this from the USLP:

USLP Presidential Candidate 2020

In Canada many ideas that had origins in Libertarian Party platforms and thought have already been adopted, even though Libertarians rarely make a dent in election results. Ideas like allowing Sunday shopping, equal rights for gay relationships, allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, and legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, have all been part of past Libertarian platforms, and now in Ontario, and much of Canada they are par-for-the-course.

Yes, its true that in practice these ideas are not precisely in line with libertarian preferences, but thats the way politics works. Good libertarian ideas start off as a whisper that gets louder as the culture changes. Eventually the ideas are ripe enough for implementation when the time is right and then some unprincipled mainstream party runs with them and wins. This gradual shift in political discussion is the concept of the Overton Window, which I have used to create policy for the Ontario Libertarian Party.

Having said all that, the only way to influence people in our system, especially voters, unfortunately, is to get involved in politics and help construct those package deals.

Why am I wearing a mask, and why you should?

When I posted that picture on my Facebook, most of the reaction was the simple Facebook ‘like.” One fellow sarcastically commented “Libertarian, lol.” Of course what he meant was that libertarians don’t wear masks. Wearing a mask implies submitting to government edict in his mind, and libertarians are contrarian by nature according to popular myth.
That guy did not seem to remember that governments here and around the world eschewed mask wearing at first; in fact most government officials claimed masks were somehow dangerous. Maybe if that idiotic advice had stuck, wearing a mask would have been the contrarian and therefore the correct libertarian thing to do.
 But as it happens government officials changed their collective minds, mostly.

In late February and early March 2020, when I realized SARS-CoV-2 was a respiratory virus likely spread by close contact, and inhaling virus, I began searching for masks online and in local stores. They were no longer in the stores or very hard to find, and online they had very high prices and far off delivery dates. My brother ordered some masks for me in early March (like the one I'm wearing) as a birthday present. They finally arrived May 26th.

 

Masks plus distance = very effective.


I’ve always known that masks were not completely effective but were worn to protect others as well as yourself. Better than nothing in my opinion. Medical professionals have used face masks for over 120 years, so when SARS-CoV-2 came to Ontario, I knew a face mask would afford me some protection, and I would need it.

Both the meme on the right and the video below from this site, illustrates that masks are at least partially effective. Together with adequate distancing (~2 m) they are very useful in preventing spread in enclosed spaces, and in my personal case, I really needed it.

My situation has made me extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of the virus. I have Multiple Myeloma, a blood cancer of the frontline cells of my immune system, the ones that produce antibodies that would fight an infection. I can produce antibodies, and in large quantities, but they are useless and so I’m an easy target for any type of infection. For me and others like me COVID19 has a case fatality rate of between 39 and 54%. I’m in my 70’s, male with type "A" blood, three more knocks. So needless to say I’ve been avoiding people including family since mid-March 2020.

So if wearing a mask or having those around me wearing a mask is even slightly effective, then why not? Of course I believe that wearing a mask should be strictly a voluntary choice, I also believe that it's a good choice, and a considerate choice. Since "do no harm" is the number one rule of libertarianism, then wearing a mask is the obvious choice. Most sensible libertarians will agree, and you can see the evidence here, and here. But, more and more governments are mandating the use of masks. While I don't agree with that, I certainly understand it. Private businesses and government have the right to require individuals to wear masks when entering their establishments. No mask, no admission, thats what I believe. Your freedom to be irresponsible ends when you step into someone's property. That is simply a property rights issue, whether you believe masks are useful or not.

More and more people and organizations are understanding that droplet transmission (and possibly aerosol transmission) is the primary method of spread of SARS-CoV-2. The early instructions in Ontario were to wash hands and stay home. Not a word about masks. Clearly we have learned that information was just plain inadequate. Listen to this physician speaking on "This Week in Virology" (TWIV) saying that masks work (@ 26 minutes, 28 seconds) and should be used in closed spaces. Listen to the entire podcast if you're wondering about that. In fact listen to TWIV if you're interested in viruses/pandemics/science etc. and want to understand from a reputable source whats really going on right now.

Even Trump wears a mask with the POTUS seal!

Several of my 'friends' on social media (Facebook etc.) insist on downplaying the effectiveness of masks sighting scientific studies that prove(?) masks are ineffective. Some even post lengthy exhortations about how useless masks are, how innocuous the virus is, and how we should not be that concerned. Frankly I don't understand their motivation. It makes no sense to refuse to abide by the simple precautionary principle which is just reasonable when unknowns abound. They will argue that they are against mandating masks and forcing people to stay home and on and on. Certainly governments have overreacted by shutting down the economy and possibly creating much more harm than the Pandemic. I understand and I agree. But there is also the idea of personal responsibility, respect for your neighbours, common courtesy, and the chance that you might help protect susceptible people (like me). It boggles my mind but I guess these folks don't really care that all lives matter, else why argue? 

Many of these folks point to the observation (and their own conclusion) that the pandemic seems to be over, the emergency has ended, so why are masks being mandated now? Thats a reasonable question, but the fact is that a second wave is very likely when the weather turns cooler. Masks could mitigate a second wave until an effective vaccine is found and distributed. Masks could allow semi-normal interactions which would help the economy and get people back to work. The second wave may be far worse than the Pandemic has been so far, especially in Canada because of our relatively low infection rate. Just look at infection rates in the US now in July 2020. There, politics has so contaminated good information from physicians and public health authorities, that Americans have not respected the serious implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ease of its transmission. Americans may be inadvertently heading for herd immunity, what Sweden has been doing on purpose. Both countries may (emphasis on MAY), have a milder second wave compared to places  like Canada. Wearing masks in Canada will have to be the next normal for the foreseeable future. 

This will make Greta mad.....

Angry Greta!

Good news! Big cracks are beginning to form in the climate alarmist environmental  movement. Even the true believers are asking media to cool it. Why? It may be because 2019 was a truly outrageous year even for the climate catastrophists. At the start of the year politicians and others, amplified by media, made claims that we had only 12 years before the world as we know it ends if we don’t buckle-down and address climate change now. The mainstream media gleefully reported that global climate catastrophe was imminent. Great fires, floods, storms, record heat, all those things were happening (they imagined) and were attributed to human caused climate change. The end was near unless there was some kind of massive intervention.

 

By the close of the year Greta Thunberg, the autistic, troubled teenage wunderkind, was proclaimed TIME magazine's person of the year (see this). She was recognized despite not yet finishing high school, but still credited with enough scientific credibility to be a world renowned self-proclaimed spokesperson against catastrophic climate change. Just remarkable, wouldn’t you say? What a world we live in! Greta, of course, will not like this blog post.

In the midst of the daily climate warnings by the media and almost on queue, the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic swept away the ridiculous notion that catastrophic climate change was the worst thing that could happen to humanity. Of course that did not stop the bleating from the apocalyptic hordes just so we didn't forget them during the lockdown. In fact they pointed out that CO2 levels continued to rise despite reduced human activity during the worldwide Pandemic lockdown. 

Maybe as result of all the outragiously scary stuff that appeared in 2019 an article was posted in Nature magazine, which in my opinion began the catastrophists retreat. The article admonished catastrophists to tone down their rhetoric without retreating from their alarmist position: 

“We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable.”

They pointed out that the worst case scenario envisioned by the IPCC was unlikely to happen and should not be used to terrify the general public, rather we were on track to a far lessor disaster (but still a disaster) unless we switch to so-called cleaner energy sources like “renewables” - wind, solar etc., and proceed with other mitigation strategies. Apparently when media reports on the future of climate change, they have a tendency to use the worst case scenario to make the case. Journalists have become climate activists, long ago tossing out objectivity. The Nature article suggested that the worst case was also the MOST UNLIKELY. Rather, the article suggested using more realistic scenarios to make policy and report to the public. Mostly the article was ignored, especially by media.

Every year the National Post features a week in June called Junk Science Week. Understandably climate change stories have been at the forefront of that week every year. This year the column written by University of Guelph Prof. Ross McKitrick highlighted the article above from Nature. That was the only press I saw commenting on it.

The onset of the COVID19 Pandemic pulled the world's attention from the fake but widely believed existential crisis of climate change, to a very real existential crisis for humanity. 

It was during the height of the North American Pandemic lockdown in April that a more dramatic and widely publicized event occurred. Film maker Michael Moore released a film onto YouTube for free called Planet of the Humans. It was the story of “green energy,” wind, solar and biomass, written and narrated by a climate catastrophist and friend of Moore's. Yet it was a critical condemnation of low carbon emitting "renewables” or rather “unreliables” as I prefer to call them. The film  exposed the false hope that these alternative energy sources provide, and the lies and corruption that has characterized Green energy advocacy. The fact that Nuclear Plants have no carbon emissions was totally ignored by the film.  But, the film made waves. It was roundly criticized by the environmental left, and eventually removed from YouTube due to protests and for very flimsy reasons. Nevertheless, reposted, the film can be seen here, and it is well worth a view.

But the biggest story so far this year in my opinion was the book and apology by Michael Shellenberger. I first became aware of it by reading a column by John Robson in the National Post, himself a climate change skeptic. Shellenberger is a frequent contributor to Forbes Magazine. His most recent contribution, an apology for the climate change scare, was posted then removed, censored by Forbes, and that was the reason for Robson's column. The apology will warm the cockles of your heart if you are a climate change skeptic. I have no doubt catastrophists will lose their lunch over it. Shellenberger reposted his apology here, on his website. Its a great read! He did an interview with Alex Epstein about the apology here:

Shellenberger has a history of criticizing the environmental movement. For example this TED Talk where he denounces so-called renewables and promotes nuclear power, which is a no-no among lefty environmentalists:

The book Shellenberger wrote is called Apocalypse Never:Why Environmental Alarmism hurts us all, is only available in electronic form, Kindle or Kobo so far (early July 2020) in Canada. It just got published in the States (June 30, 2020). The book is reviewed here by Alex Epstein. It's been well received and is popular and I'm hoping it will begin a retreat from the current anti-human man-made climate change hysteria to a more moderate humanistic form of environmentalism. If the book is widely read and taken seriously, it could change government policies.  

Can governments get off the climate change bandwagon? Events during the Pandemic prove governments can be wrong and change their approach quickly. For example the official view on masks for the general public has gone from they are ineffective and possibly even harmful, to they are now mandatory. Quite a switch, and climate change policies can and should change equally as fast. I hope so.