Enemy of the State? FOX caves in.

"Does the Government work for you or do you work for the Government?"

That is typical of sound-bytes that one would hear watching Freedom Watch. Judge Andrew Napolitano was host of Freedom Watch until it was abruptly cancelled by FOX News late yesterday. Rating were not an issue, what was? Well, one can speculate about many things. Complaints from disaffected Republicans, I can see that. How about this story from Reuters?

Is FOX News trying to cover their ass by dumping some of the more rabid adherents to the US Constitution? Napolitano is a Constitutionalist, not unlike Ron Paul. 

A new law came into effect recently, adding to the alphabetical morass that makes up much of the American government and legal system. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the government and the President sweeping powers that cast such a wide net, it might include libertarians. At least thats what a writer on LewRockwell.com thinks:

"Those who refuse to pay or even those who oppose taxation, those who defy government environmental regulations, and those who believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard, are now all considered to be extremists!" 

The article goes on:

  ".....any real libertarian is opposed to forced government taxation, is opposed to government mandated environmental regulations, and all real libertarians fully understand that the creation of the Federal Reserve and the destruction of the gold standard have bankrupted this country. Or is losing 97% of the value on our money not considered bankruptcy?"

So, here we have this new law (NDAA) AND the blatant freedom monger Andrew Napolitano, railing against big government everything, cancelled unceremoniously by FOX. Coincidence? 

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Superbowl 2012: not seen at half-time.......

If you haven't seen this parody of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad, have a look, its closer to the truth:

Religion for Atheists - Guidance for the Godless

Always interesting scrolling through Planet Atheism because its populated by idiosyncratic individuals that share some of my beliefs. It's a global aggregator, so I see viewpoints from everywhere, unfortunately many are just rants against religion, and that becomes tiresome - in the 'preaching to the choir' sense.

Religion certainly deserves to be ranted against, but it's not going away, because it obviously fulfils a basic human need. So I was impressed by an article in my morning paper about Alain de Botton (AdB) and his new book (see photo).
The article says that AdB is critical of the so called new atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the late Hitchens, because they have allowed their militant aggression toward religion, to cloud their imaginations.
“So opposed have many atheists been to the content of religious belief that they have omitted to appreciate its inspiring and still valid overall object: to provide us with well-structured advice on how to lead our lives,” Botton writes in Religion for Atheists.

Thats right, religions, as practiced worldwide have a purpose and its time to admit that fact. If they had no purpose, added nothing to peoples lives, they would have disappeared long ago.

In a clever turn of phrase the author of the Post article says that one thing that Botton suggests is "to save the baby of ritual from the bathwater of supernatural belief." That's part of the structure that religion offers automatically and that atheists sometimes dismiss too lightly. Marriage, birth, death, and other life events are covered by all religions, and atheists are left to fend for themselves with impromptu ceremonies that may or may not satisfy them or their families.

So, AdB suggests that atheists cherry-pick the faiths, choose what works from the buffet of religious practices available, incorporating those that are appropriate into the new atheism. Through millennia of trial and error, the major religions know how to keep their flocks faithful, and, like children we humans need authority, our knowledge needs to be re-enforced with frequent formal repetition like the major religions do, and our deepest emotions need external validation. That is the insight on which Botton bases the entire notion of religion for atheists. It's not as crazy as you might be thinking right now. He explains some of those ideas in the video you should watch below.

The problem of course is much of what is taught in the major religions, deals with affirming belief in the existence of, and praying to, the particular non-existant deity in question(no contradiction there). Not exactly helpful and well-structured advice on how atheists should lead their lives. If one searches around the major atheist groups, I don't think there is much help there either.

Take the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in both Canada and the US. They think society should be based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Well, science is a process, not a way to live ones life, it's a way of determining truth.....eventually. Science cannot tell us the way to live our lives in a moral or rational way. Science is mute (or should be) on ethics, values, and politics. There is much more to disagree with at CFI. Humanist values tend to be Judeo-Christian values (the default position) with a Marxist collectivist twist added. Using science, reason, and evidence, one sees that collectivism is failing everywhere it has been attempted. From the former Soviet Union, to China, to all of the so-called "free market" economies in Western Europe and here in North America. To the extent that collectivist ideas have been adopted, that is the extent these economies and their peoples are in trouble, economically, morally, spiritually, and by any measure.
How about the Bright's (see the name of this blog), what do they offer? They offer a worldview free of mystical and supernatural elements, not much help there. Richard Dawkins is a Bright, I share similar views on evolution with him, not much else.

Are there other places to look? Maybe, but most atheist groups are not significantly different from the aforementioned. But there is one other, its Objectivism.

Now I don't know what Alain de Botton had in mind for well-structured advice on how atheists should lead their lives. Maybe he would suggest many forms of atheism, each with its own structure and different advice on how to live, different philosophies. But why reinvent the wheel? Objectivism, in my view satisfies all the requirements of AdB's idea. It's a coherent, consistent philosophy that gives instruction on the proper way people should live, and interact with others. It even goes further than most religions in suggesting proper economic and political views. Now I may not agree with every detail, but it is very good, and has served me well for most of my life. A bit of ritual and repetition to help me, and others like me, keep on the straight, and narrow path of objectivist virtues, would not be a bad thing if it were done properly. Ayn Rand's birthday was Feb. 2, wouldn't it be better to celebrate that fact, then whether a groundhog sees its shadow? I think so.

Of course I am sensitive to the idea that Objectivists don't like it to be called a religion. It's the opposite of a religion though. I know Ayn Rand is often referred to as a high priestess in the popular press, and that is wrong too. Objectivism uses most of the ideas espoused by the major atheist groups above MINUS the collectivism.
Now all we need is someone to organize some structure and ritual. Volunteers?    

Signs of Freedom

Entering a court building these days is not unlike boarding an airplane, similar security, but you get to keep your shoes on. It was the Ontario Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, and Courtroom 10 was crowded with supporters of Jean-Serge Brisson and Howard Galganov.

We were there to listen to opposing lawyers slug it out orally in front of a tribunal of judges. At issue was the appeal of a business owner and his right to post a sign in the language of his choice, or, submit to a town bylaw that dictates language. The bylaw requires new signs to be bilingual French and English, with equal font size for both.

Mr. Brisson is the business owner with the new unilingual sign, and Mr. Galganov is a Quebecer and former talk show host, providing moral and financial support.

Lawyers for these appellants spoke first arguing that: "language is content," thus, dictating language, contravenes Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression." Furthermore, forcing business owners to have bilingual signs implies that two languages are spoken within the business, often not true.

Of course the broader question is, what are the responsibilities of the municipal (or any level) government to its citizenry? The lawyer for the Township of Russell that created this bylaw, argued that the protection of linguistic minorities is one of the major challenges of our time, and that municipalities should have the leeway to pass laws like this. Further, anyone who disagrees with such laws can rectify the situation at the next municipal election. The lawyer used the hackneyed argument that French is vulnerable in Canada, and without such legal protections Francophones will be assimilated. It's a weak argument, and not supported legally in Ontario.

But I thought the lawyer for Russell Township was the best presenter of the day. He used his voice and his mannerisms in an almost theatrical way to present his position. I hope the judges see past that, to his weak and sometimes humorous arguments. Humorous? For example, he argued that this hearing and the entire legal process is a financial burden on the municipality (no kidding), and that if this challenge to the bylaw stands, it will dissuade other municipalities from passing future bylaws for fear of challenges. Well, I glanced over at my colleagues in the courtroom and almost chuckled. Later one of them whispered to me "oh dear, how will they rule?" How indeed?

Do we really need laws for everything that politicians can conjure? The lawyer of course viewed the possibility of fewer bylaws as a negative, on the contrary, silly laws such as this one may be nullified by the threat of challenge.

Another young lawyer from the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) that had intervener status at the hearing, made a brief presentation that got to the heart of the entire day. He asked why the Township wouldn't just allow free choice for business signs? The fact is, 71% of the signs in the town are already bilingual, no law was required, its just good business sense. Some 28% of the signs are unilingual English, and 1% are unilingual French, is that really a problem?

The lawyer for the Russell Township stressed that "deference" is owed to municipalities, and that freedom of expression is not jeopardized because you can say whatever you want on the signs, BUT, you must say it in two languages. No coercion there, right?

The decision of the court will be weeks or months off. Whatever happens it is likely this case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

A self defence test - call the police? Think again.

You are roused in the early morning by men shouting death threats outside. They hurl firebombs onto your home injuring a pet dog and setting part of your property ablaze.
You happen to be a trained firearms instructor, so you retrieve a properly registered .38-calibre handgun from storage, load it, and fire three warning shots causing the men to flee without injury to anyone.

You hurry to douse the flames, see to your dog, then get another loaded handgun to put by your bedside, in case the men return. You call the police.
Police arrive, survey the scene, take your testimony, then they charge and arrest you.

What did you do wrong?

You.....
a) pointed and fired a gun as a warning.
b) defended your life and property.
c) were in possession of an improperly stored and loaded weapon.
d) did all of the above.
e) called the police.

The answer depends on who you are. If you are the police in this situation, the answer is "d". From my point of view the answer is "e". Unfortunately this story is true. It happened in Port Colborne Ontario in August of 2010, and the trial of the man that was attacked began on January 30, 2012. Ian Thomson, the accused "defender," may be wishing he didn't call the police.

One would think that the right of self defence is fundamental in a free society, I think it is, so does this column in the National Post. This is not the first time that the victim of a crime has been charged by police. This story in Toronto's China Town less than two years ago, did not involve guns but the police felt somehow that the victim needed to be charged. It boggles the mind, as does the story in Port Colborne.

Just a few days ago a fellow blogger wrote this regarding respect for the law. It cut right to the point. When was the last time you had an encounter with "the law," where you felt justice was done? When was the last time that you thought the police were serving and protecting you? When?

I can't recall being helped by the law in the form of the police.....in years, maybe never. Encounters with police have always been adversarial, a ticket, a warning. I just know that they watch that I and others obey the rules, like no speeding on empty roads where they hide themselves to entrap the unwary. I always get nervous when a police car pulls up behind me while I'm driving. Shouldn't I feel safer, protected somehow, because I'm paying part of their salary (whether I want to or not)? I think so. It seems the police are best at harassing and entrapping. I won't even talk about the G20 debacle in Toronto, or the tasering incident in Vancouver.

In my neighbourhood the local bank has been robbed several times this year. It's a quiet suburban neighbourhood, thats why the crooks like it - easy to hide and get away. Rarely do I see police in the neighbourhood, except of course on the main road, hiding, with a radar trap. That local bank branch has hired a security company to allay the fears of its customers, the guard wanders around all day. Where are the police?

Police are a microcosm of government, often unrestrained in power and too often irresponsible in its use. Just like government, the people prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because they mean well.

As for Mr. Thomson's trial, after two days it has been adjourned until early May. It seems the lawyers need to figure out what is entailed in the proper storage of ammunition. Lawyers!

Is it "Inscription des entreprises" OR "Business Sign?"

Does a legally operating business within a community, have the right to choose what language is preferred on exterior signage? Not in Canada!

Disputes over language issues have a long history in Canada, where the Federal Government is Officially Bilingual French and English, much to the consternation of many citizens. Only one province, New Brunswick, is also officially bilingual. The rest of the provinces and territories have a hodge-podge of rules where English is the de-facto language of government operations (but not officially), and other languages have some status. Only Quebec is officially unilingual French, but that is another story.

Though most of Canada operates in English, there are pockets of French throughout the country (outside of Quebec). Local governments and businesses seem to cater to the language(s) commonly spoken by residents without any need for regulation.

Where I live, there is a growing South Asian community. The local municipalities accommodate the new immigrants in their own language whether it is Urdu, Mandarin, Cantonese or Hindi. Business signs in my town and those neighbouring, are printed in a variety of languages to communicate with customers. This is as it should be, business owners should be free to communicate with their clientele in any way they wish, as long as no one's rights are violated.

But what if a town decides to impose a rule (a bylaw) on its citizens that dictates which language must be used on exterior signage? Such is the case in the Ottawa region. Ottawa, being the Capital, is available to citizens in both French and English since 2004. That might seem reasonable because it is a Federal town but within Ontario. The Ontario government offers French where warranted to its citizens, mostly in government building and services. What about private business in surrounding towns?

In 2008, the town council of Russell, on the South eastern border of Ottawa decided to make it mandatory for signs to be bilingual French and English. Of course this violates the freedoms of business owners and potentially could affect their business. Then there is the question of other languages as occurs in my own town? That issue, arguing the constitutionality of the bylaw, was brought to the Ontario Superior Court. The court found that the bylaw does not violate freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter, the bylaw stands.

In 2011the Ontario Court of Appeal granted permission for the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) to act as a friend of the court and appeal the previous decision of the Superior Court.  The CCF "will argue that the impugned bylaw infringes freedom of expression because it compels and coerces individuals to express themselves in a language not freely chosen, and in only French and English."


I have an interest in this story because one of the appellants is a colleague from the Ontario Libertarian Party, Jean-Serge Brisson.

Jean-Serge has a long history of defending liberty in Canada and is one of the few Canadian Libertarians ever to have held public office. The appeal is this week in Toronto at The Court of Appeal for Ontario located in historic Osgoode Hall, Toronto.

The hearing is open to the public: 130 QUEEN ST W, Toronto, Ontario - Courtroom 10 at 10:30 am Thursday Feb. 2, 2012.

Case Number C52704 Galganov, Howard v. The Corporation of Twp. of Russel et al

Signs of Hope & Change 2

Change:
There is trouble ahead on the labour front. Why else would two of Canada's largest Unions consider merging, for efficiencies or added clout? I'm thinking clout. The Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union,  (CEP) have a total of more than 320,000 members, and have been in discussions for weeks. They are circling the wagons, it won't be long before other unions do the same thing. We may be headed back to the era of general strikes in Canada, 91 years after the Winnipeg General Strike.
In Ontario, after eight years of spending like a drunken sailor, Premier Dalton McGuinty, is threatening to implement austerity measures because he has doubled spending and the provincial debt. The Province received a credit rating warning from Moody's, and he noted this week that half of all government spending (about $55 billion a year) goes to wages. His target will be the public sector unions. You can almost see the large chess pieces moving into place for the battle ahead, it will be epic.

In the US, Obama gave the State of the Union speech or should I say, the kick-off to his re-election campaign. This President is bankrupt, of both ideas and money. No more will Hope & Change be the mantra, we have moved into the era of envy and resentment. Equality and fairness will be Obama's new slogan. "A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy." Forget the American dream, tax the rich, the Buffett Rule, that will solve America's problems, and give numerous tax credits to incentivize everyone. Looks like the IRS, will be the arbiter of wealth creation in America. And I loved this line: "I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more." Right. That's why there are so many laws, and Obama will not hesitate to add to the pile.
All the while Mitt and Newt are duking it out for the GOP nomination, and are nothing to look forward to. I hope Ron Paul sticks it out to the end, and maybe brokers a deal for his support.

Hope:
Just for fun, and because it would be cool, two 17 year-old boys from a high school where I was once a teacher, sent Lego man into near space and recorded the entire adventure. They even managed to retrieve Lego man, the recording equipment, 1500 photos and two videos from the landing spot 122 km away, without much of a search. They did this with no government help, no incentives but the pure joy of doing and discovering. Check out the video:

The not so dog eat dog world of competition

Toward a sensible policy on prohibited drugs

"Do we stop fighting the war on death?" that was a quote from one of the three panelists during a seminar I attended this week on Drug Policy sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies. The speaker was comparing the struggle in the medical community to stave off disease and death, with the struggle by governments around the world called "the war on drugs." Don't worry if you don't see the analogy, I don't either. The quote was made during the Q & A near the end of the seminar after most in the room accepted that the war on drugs has failed. But the quote gets to the heart of who the first speaker was, a caring and concerned women, not an expert, but someone that has researched and written on the issue of prohibited drugs, and is convinced that legalization or loosening the rules, will increase drug use, addiction and crime. In the Canadian context, this woman espouses typical authoritarian Conservative values, and in fact she was a Conservative partisan for many years.

The second speaker was an expert, who has written on drug policy and is associated with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. While she was no libertarian on drug policy, her views are probably more in line with many Canadians. She admitted that the war on drugs has failed but was convinced "controls" needed to be in place, because of the risks to users. She was willing to consider legal regulation of certain drugs for the purposes of public health. Her goal was harm reduction.

The final speaker did have a libertarian view, again not an expert on drugs per se, but her efforts toward a doctorate in Latin American studies made it impossible for her to ignore the impact of the gang related drug warfare raging in that area. Victoria Henderson thinks that drug policy needs to be approached from a transnational view because that's how various authorities are prosecuting the war on drugs. Ms. Henderson pointed to the "balloon effect" in Latin American, where the US government has, alone or with help from local authorities tried to squelch drug production in say Peru or Bolivia, only to see production pop-up in Columbia like a balloon under pressure. Of course its primarily US drug consumption that funds the black market in drugs and the gang wars in Latin America. The simple fact that prices of illicit drugs have dropped while purity has increased, is testimony to the simple economics of supply and demand. Usage has increased while prices have dropped, meaning supply is plentiful and the restrictions imposed by governments don't work.
Ms. Henderson pointed to the Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy that begins with:
"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed." It doesn't get much clearer than that, and they don't stop there. Their recommendations are equally blunt, starting with:
"End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence." 

Practically a libertarian view, if only it were so simple. But as I indicated above, there are well meaning people that have diametrically opposing views.

But things might be changing. In recent weeks, the inappropriately named Liberal Party of Canada, has adopted a policy that involves legalizing marijuana. Not quite what was recommended by the Global Commission, but a move in the right direction. This is what might be called moving the Overton Window on the issue. Putting what was once unthinkable, into the realm of discussion, possibly at the next election. Nothing to get too excited about, but there is evidence from Portugal, here and here, that suggests decriminalization may have positive results, ammunition for future discussion.
Ms. Henderson displayed and described the horrific impact of the war on drugs in Latin America, tens of thousands willfully and accidentally (see video below) dead and she ended with this quote: "If you can't control drugs in a maximum-security prison, how can the government control drugs in a free society?" (Anthony Papa)

Guatemala, victim of the balloon effect in the war on drugs.

"I blame the war on drugs in the United States for what is happening here in Guatemala." -- Giancarlo Ibarguen

The graph above left, comes from Wikipedia on Substance Abuse: Legal drugs are not necessarily safer. A study in 2010 asked drug-harm experts to rank various illegal and legal drugs. Alcohol was found to be the most dangerous by far. The data comes from the UK, and may not be entirely transferable to North America. But even in the Global Commission report, alcohol is fourth behind heroin, cocaine and barbiturates, cannabis is tenth. Alcohol is not controlled in the same way, yet causes almost as much harm, more if you believe the UK graph above. On top of everything, there is hypocrisy in harm reduction and the war on drugs.

The Buffett Rule: comparing apples to oranges

Also read this from CATO: Class warfare in the State of the Union