Environmentalists are a Cancer on Society!

As is likely evident already, I do not hold Environmentalists in great esteem, as the title of this post demonstrates! They are the latest example of idealists who cannot, and do not want to see the truth that invalidates their idealistic view.

Greenies are making that transition from being our environmental conscience to a form of cancer. And why do I call them a cancer? Because they were normal people that have morphed into those who will only be satisfied when the civilization they are a part of dies taking all with them.

You think I am just using hyperbole but all you need to do is to examine the facts. A minority group is looking to stop the export of oil generated from the mining of the oil sands in Canada though Wisconsin, in the US. Thanks to other greenies in Canada the oil producers are unable to export to the west as they can’t get a new pipe line built through the mountains.

And here in Ontario a minority is lobbying heavily to prevent an under used high pressure gas pipeline that is being proposed to be converted to an  oil pipeline to get that oil to markets to the east. So we have oil but “green” politics is working hard to prevent moving that oil south, west or east.

So they shut the oil sands down. Big deal you say. And what about all those people who lose their jobs and the service workers who too are laid off? And the people who worked at the factories that made the components used at the mines with no buyer anymore?

And is this any different than Greenpeace attacking Resolute, a major employer in our area? Unfortunately not. But cancer can be beaten if you fight it.

Comments on Electoral Reform

For the last few years "Electoral Reform" has been on the national agenda with the proponents always being from the losers. A friend of mine lives in New Zealand where they have proportional representation and has seen first hand that it is not the panacea many hope but instead gives the minority opinion far more input than they deserve. So much for the "voice of the majority" that is supposed to be the keystone of democracy. Another example of where we are all equal but some of us are more equal than the others.

The last few years “electoral reform” keeps bubbling to the surface of public debate lead by the concept of “Proportional Representation”. The reason it keeps rearing its ugly head is because our “First Past the Post” system typically results in the winner not having a clear majority of 50% plus one. I for one have no problem with the current system as that is to be expected with our multi-candidate ballots; when there are three or more candidates it is not likely one will have more than 50% of the votes cast.

Those who cry and whine about “proportional representation” are just being poor losers thanks to the belief that their vote for the loosing side is a wasted ballot. If that is how you feel then vote for the winner! As for myself seldom has my vote gone to the eventual winner but not once did I ever blame it on the ballot system. But I do admit I would love to see an additional choice on each and every ballot: “None of the Above”!

Far too often the choices we have leave us wanting and we have no way of clearly voicing our displeasure. Sure, you could spoil your ballot, or not vote at all, but both fail to deliver the desired message that the policies being promoted do not resonate with some voters.

While some believe “Proportional Representation” is fairer that is far from the truth. New Zealand implemented such a system and now their legislative system is overly influenced by minority groups. How is that fair when a democratic system is supposed to represent the majority? Sure, we could have run off elections of the two top candidates. Now that would be “fair” but are we willing to absorb the cost for questionable gain?

Our multi-party system has seen the rise and fall of different parties over the years to the benefit of all Canadians. Take for example the NDP. While they have to date never held control Federally they still have had a major impact on our lives. So did even the Rhinoceros Party but in a tongue in cheek way. To see the opposite all we need to do is look to our neighbours to the south where politics usually is just black and white unlike our shades of gray. A varied palette has a much better chance of giving you something that most can find something positive to relate to!

Picking on the Senate is a battle not worth fighting.

Many years ago, when in high school, I took a course on Canadian Law and one aspect that has stayed with me, and in fact has become reinforced by continuing regional inequities due to bias brought upon us by "majority rule", is how a properly constructed Senate can help give the disenfranchised a voice.

Much has been said, especially in the last couple of years, that the Senate needs to be reformed or, better yet, eliminated. I for one am a firm believer that we need a second chamber that represents regional differences. While the current form and makeup is not ideal it is far better than not having a Senate.

Here in Ontario northerners especially have been victimized by legislation passed to sooth the core electorate in the Greater Toronto Area, typically to make those voters feel that serious efforts were being made to conserve and protect the environment. Examples include the Green Energy Act, the Far North Act and the Endangered Species Act. Other than the former, they were inexpensive with little negative effect on this core electorate. Yet none had much support or input from us in the north yet we are the ones most negatively affected.

Now if there had been an upper chamber in Ontario similar to the federal Senate with representation based on regions and not population it is very likely the voice of the north would have been heard and appropriate changes made. That is why the federal Senate was originally formed; to give a voice to the less populated areas of the country, and why such an institution is still needed.

The Constitution Act of 1867 established the Senate and designated four divisions, each with equal representation: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the West. And each Senator was to be a resident of the area being represented (and that is why Mike Duffy declared his principal residence as being his cottage in PEI, the province he is supposed to represent). Unfortunately the Canadian Senate is not the greatest due to flaws in its original design and as such still has too much influence based on population and how Senators are appointed.

The Federal Conservatives did try to make some improvements such as having Senators elected. But the Constitution Act of 1982 outlines the procedures that need to be followed to amend the Constitution including changes to the Senate. Any change requires approval by at least two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50% of the population. As Ontario and Quebec currently have about 62% of the population obviously nothing will happen without approval by one or the other, and to get at least five other provinces to agree, does the term “herding cats” come to mind?

While I disagree with the generosity of senatorial expense accounts, people like Mike Duffy have been following the rules, mainly because they are so vague. But for politicians such as Thomas Mulcair to stand on the stump and say that that they can reform the Senate or even eliminate it needs cooperation between provinces we have not seen since 1867 and I dare say may never see again! So rather than beating to death something that is virtually impossible to change it would be nice if our politicians, and the media who follow them, instead concentrated on the real issues such as the economy, employment, education and health to name a few. And to put this in a form we can all relate to, so far over 20 million dollars have been spent on investigations into about 1 million dollars in questionable expense claims. Is that a good return on our tax dollars? I certainly don’t think so!

The Trouble With NGO's

From my archive, here is one from July 1, 2015 that was published in the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal.

I am continually baffled as to why Non-Government Organisations (NGO's) such as the Wildlands League and people such as Anna Baggio, both based in that bastion of Environmental Purity called Toronto, are allowed to hammer us who live in the north unchallenged. What is especially galling is the hyperbole supported by little fact that is promoted by our own media sources and calling this “news”.

Debate is essential for informed decisions to be made but when the only view presented is by groups who have no interest in the area and whose stated goals are no development how can unbiased decision making be done? Take for example the statement that “they are changing the landscape and that’s disrupting the landscape”. Well, Duh! Has anyone ever looked at any form of human development and not seen change? But better yet look at the high resolution images available on Google Maps or Google Earth of the area in question: 

(https://www.google.ca/maps/place/McFaulds+Lake,+Kenora,+Unorganized,+ON+P0L/@52.757063,-86.2947342,5721m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4d702e58f721732b:0x6161b87013ed68fa)

And see for yourself the “surprising” changes that have taken place to the landscape, one dominated by string bog and sparse tree vegetation and still showing the effects of the last glaciation eons ago. I for one am surprised there is as little evidence of human occupation as there is considering that this is the location of chromite deposits of such magnitude there are few others in the world of equal scale or importance.

To me what is shocking is people like this continue to try and tell us who live in the North how to live our lives when they live in, and promote the truly mind-numbing devastating changes to the landscape urbanisation has wrought on Southern Ontario. This is certainly not helped when even our political leaders say they “want to do it right” and so do nothing because how can you prove they did anything wrong?

It is time that our local media, including the Chronicle Journal, start publishing the truth and stop letting a very vocal minority that rely on half-truths and hyperbole have free rein on telling us how to live our lives, the people who have to live with any change that takes place and thus have a vested interest in actually doing the right things in the first place! 

Where do I stand in the Political Spectrum? Good question!

It has been almost 10 years since I last posted anything to this blog! I find it interesting that the more things change the more they stay the same. While I have decided to start posting again, it is not that I haven't tried other venues. So what I am going to do is "set the stage" on where i am coming from with these musing then I will follow with old posts in the order that they were originally written.

So to begin, let's look at politics in general and my view on some aspects.

The US Election process and the final run up to when Americans finally get to cast their ballots has got me thinking of my political leanings and how it relates to politics in Canada, the jurisdiction in which I can vote. In simple terms I have considered, and continue to do so, myself to be a believer in "fiscal responsibility with a social conscience".

By being "fiscally responsible" I mean I believe in living within ones means or, in other words, having a "balanced budget". While I am debt adverse there are times one must have debt but only where you can afford to pay the required debt charges from your income - a balanced budget. An obvious example is the big ticket item of purchasing a home.

Having a "social conscience" to me, means helping others in society who need help to be self-supporting members of that society. You lost your job because of no fault of your own? You deserve help. And that applies to other inequities whether human induced or from nature. That also means that in the case of able bodied people that rather than look for work prefer living on welfare, no help from me.

I value my independence when it comes to choosing who to cast my vote for when election time comes. As a result only once have I ever taken out a membership in a political party and that was to prove the point of how much I valued the platform they promoted at the time and that was for the Reform Party of Canada. To this day I still agree with the belief that the Canadian political system is highly flawed and needs fixing! And no, I do not support eliminating the Senate as it, in theory at least, has a very important purpose in that it should represent geographic differences whereas the legislature only represents population and therefore major population centres.

Recently I did an online survey to determine if I was a "Conservative" or a "Liberal". In the end I was labelled as a "Libertarian", and once I looked up what that meant, I have to agree! A Libertarian believes in maximizing ones autonomy and freedom of choice. Or in other words the primacy of individual judgement. I do my own thinking, thank you very much, and I do not appreciate others trying to force their ideals on me, especially since it is obvious that those ideals are highly flawed!

So where do these core beliefs find their greatest support from the spectrum of existing political parties in Canada?

Environmentalists and environmentalism in general hold such flawed idealism. They are arrogant and unwilling to acknowledge facts! "Debate" to them is calling any opponent names and trying to denigrate why anyone could possibly hold an opposing view. Case in point are calling people "Climate Change Deniers", which I am by the way as there are NO facts that back it up, or saying a person isn't qualified to comment yet take as gospel the words of David Suzuki (a geneticist by the way) or Al Gore, a lawyer and politician with absolutely NO training in the sciences! What a bunch of hypocrites. Obviously the Green Party is for fools and I am no fool.

The NDP at one time stood up for some policies one could relate to such as treating workers fairly. Unfortunately "fiscal responsibility" has not been one of their strong suites as we have seen so many times from provincial NDP governments. While I have voted for NDP candidates in the past it was because the local candidate was the one who would best represent my riding. Now that they have adopted "green" policies that have nothing but negative impacts on workers I won't be thinking of voting for them any time soon.

At one time my personal philosophy and that of the Liberal Party, in general, seemed to  have more similarity than not. Not the case anymore! The provincial and federal Liberal parties have with rare exception adopted green policies to the point that they are the ones who actually are the "Green Party"; Red is now the new Green. So you take on a bunch of foolish polices that supposedly will "save the world" yet at the same time destroy our industrial society by killing current jobs  and preventing the creation of new ones? Then have the gall to say you will "stimulate" the economy you are helping to kill by spending money you don't have and will not have as there are now fewer and fewer tax payers? Again, only a fool would support such a party that the Liberals have devolved into and I am no fool.

So, that leaves the Conservatives. While provincially and federally their policy platforms do not fully align with my beliefs, without question at this point in time they don't look too bad compared to the rest.

Global Warming? Bring it on as I'm too cold!

With the pending Canadian Federal election the environment and specifically the fight against global warming and climate change started off being a major plank in the platform of at least two of the parties vying for our votes: the Liberals and the Greens. I freely admit that I am skeptical that this is the danger to humanity and the world at large that it is being painted as, but it is not because of lack of careful thought and research!

Many years ago I made, for me, an epiphany in how I digested what I was told by “experts” and others who I had assumed knew what they were talking about. The water shed moment came during university when I was confronted by conflicting statements from two of my professors. It was then that I no longer accepted blindly what I was told without question, but instead began to carefully weigh what I was hearing against the many fundamental “facts” I had been accumulating since I was a young child.

A case in point deals with the supposed rising carbon-dioxide levels within the atmosphere. I remember from High School biology that plants, through photosynthesis, take atmospheric CO2 and convert it into oxygen, which is then released back to the atmosphere, and the carbon is then used by the plant to construct plant cells. Thus atmospheric CO2 is the foundation of plant life. While at university studying Geology, I discovered that the Carboniferous period (from 359 to 299 million years ago)  was one where plant life exploded due to the much warmer temperatures we now have and the higher levels of atmospheric CO2. But high levels of atmospheric CO2 are also buffered by being absorbed into water and through various actions will form limestone as this dissolved gas combines with dissolved calcium, either through the action of little critters such as coral polyps or by chemical action. In other words nature is actively removing CO2 and putting it in long term storage. These and other tidbits are the basic foundation of my skepticism. By the way, have you ever seen a green house that was not rich in vibrant plant life?

Another lesson I have learned is to not jump to conclusions: just because you know some of the facts doesn't mean you can see the whole picture. For that reason I love the fact we have easy access to the internet, or as I like to refer to it, the repository of all knowledge!  And so I have searched and read many diverse sources of comment and opinion on this topic. An interesting feature became obvious very early on. Many sites that supported the idea of global warming, rather than using the weight of fact to support their arguments instead would try and call into question the qualifications of those presenting the opposite view. To me that in itself is a red flag that the reason no solid facts are being put forward is because there aren't any!

An easy test for this is to review comments from the other side and compare how they present their case. Do they resort to the same tactics or do they stick to “the facts and nothing but the facts”. Obviously from my tone that is indeed what I found – those that questioned global warming do so by sound argument. Another strike against the proponents of global warming. All of this is tempered by the fact I am old enough to remember when the experts of the day (the 1970's) were warning we were on the verge of another ice age!

Regardless of which position you favour the message that is being delivered, and will be leveraged to the fullest by politicians right across the political spectrum, is that global warming is bad for us and the world at large. Much of Canada is “blessed” with something called winter where it is cold enough that rather than rain we get snow. Having less winter can't be all that bad, can it? Our heating bills would be less. The growing season would be longer thus making us more self-reliant for food. We would spend more time outdoors without having to be bundled up in parkas, or sitting in front of the television “cocooning” until it gets warm again and in doing so creating our own vitamin D without the need of manufactured supplements. Sounds good to me!

Well, what about the flip side? What if the scientist's of the '70's were right after all? I don't really think I have to expand on that as it is so obvious. I find winter too long as it is without imagining it being even longer! Of course the extreme is that the continental glaciers do return and we would have to abandon completely this country we call home. Now that's scary!

So it boils down to this: if there is a country that could benefit from global warming is it not Canada? And some people want to prevent that by doing stupid things like buying "carbon credits". You know, where you give money to another country for nothing but the emperor's new clothes!

Personally, summers are too short so if there really is "global warming" bring it on!

Is Freedom of Speech disappearing?

In recent years there has been a strong shift by most forms of mass media to be "politically correct" to the point that commentary and discussion are suppressed because someone might be "offended". We see many examples of this these days with the most obvious one being Global Warming, or as it has now morphed - Climate Change. But I digress as that really is not my primary focus with this post.

This past week there have been two news items that have caught my interest: the CBC issuing an apology for posting on their news website (cbcnews.ca) an editorial piece by Heather Mallick, and Lesley Hughes being dropped as a Liberal candidate for Kildonan-St. Paul riding in the upcoming federal election.

In the former Ms. Mallick had few kind words to say about Sarah Palin and many republicans. And in the latter Ms. Hughes is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Did either try to incite hate against someone else? No, they expressed their opinion in a public forum; an opinion that others did not agree with. But that is what free speech is all about - the ability to state an opinion that goes against the norm. It is these "rebels" that allow us to be exposed to another view of "the facts" so that we are better prepared to make informed decisions.

This suppression of free-speech, whether you agree with the statements made or not, is the leading edge of censorship! It is the beginning of the destruction of what is considered a fundamental human right with serious potential of leading to a totalitarian state where many more human rights will be sacrificed.