tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52701352024-03-08T05:47:36.149-05:00Opinions of a CapitalistCapitalism is not simply the most practical system for creating wealth, it is also the most moral, being based and dependent on the principle of freedom - individual rights including property rights. Items here will be on a wide range of topics but all will be based on the same consistent ethical base.
<p>by Wayne Niddery</p>Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-41518048249967869912012-09-13T21:42:00.002-04:002012-09-13T21:42:45.079-04:00Embassy AttacksAttacks were made against U.S. property in Libya and Egypt and U.S. citizens were murdered. Instead of condemning these monstrous acts, many are
condemning
presidential candidate Romney for his criticism of the initial statement issued by the U.S. government, calling him wrong for saying the statement amounted to an apology to the terrorists - an apology for daring to allow U.S. citizens, engaging in their right of free speech, to make a nasty video offensive to Muslims.<br /><br />
I was by directed by another to an article detailing fact checkers where it was stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"PolitiFact asked four apology experts whether those words constituted the sort of regretful statement that qualifies as an apology." </blockquote>
<br /> Apology "experts"? Seriously? So because these so-called experts say a statement does not constitute an apology, that makes it a fact? <br /><br /> The original statement this issue is about "condemns" and "rejects" those that use their free speech to *hurt the feelings* of Muslims. Is there really a significant difference between using those words and saying "we are sorry" for hurting their feelings? I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is, as Clinton would say.<br /><br /> This statement was issued in response to violence against the embassy - allegedly as a result of someone producing a nasty video. Speech never justifies violent acts. Thus the ONLY proper statement that should have been made would have been along the lines of: <br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"While we do not condone those that deliberately insult others or their beliefs, we stand firm in upholding the right to free speech EVEN WHEN IT OFFENDS and we categorically condemn the violent actions of those taking part in the attacks on the embassy and wholly reject any attempt to hold the speech of others as a cause or an excuse for such acts."</blockquote>
<br /> In other words, the ONLY condemnation and rejection should be against those using violence. Free speech, even by those intending offense, should NEVER be condemned. Doing so implicitly grants the enemy the link between their actions and our speech, giving them license to commit more violence in response to speech in future.<br /><br /> And note that this entire issue is based on the fact that the MURDER of U.S. citizens was not yet known. Once that was known, any statement coming out of the U.S. government should have been far harsher and backed with action.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-83854000209943880632011-02-13T14:22:00.002-05:002011-02-13T17:22:48.122-05:00Iranium: The MovieIranium is a movie that Iran has recently attempted to have banned in <i>other</i> countries. It was to be shown in Canada and its showing was initially cancelled due to government cowards bowing down to Iranian diplomatic demands. Fortunately enough in government had enough sense to make sure it was rescheduled and shown.<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/widget/embed-widget.js"></script><br />
<br />
For anyone that has been paying attention over the years, you already know much of what is documented here. What this movie does by putting it altogether into a comprehensive whole and "connecting the dots" is greatly increase the impact. <br />
<br />
It shows clearly that Iran has and is following a very organized and deliberate strategy to achieve its goals, and it is succeeding because of the constant appeasement, self-abasement, and outright cowardice of the western nations to stand up to every aggression for more than 30 years now.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-39407981956478702432011-01-15T12:11:00.000-05:002012-05-12T10:30:58.661-04:00"Money for Nothing" lyrics banned in CanadaUpdate: Some months ago the CBSC decided, no doubt due in some measure to the outpouring of criticism for it, to repeal its decision on this song. Radio stations can once again freely air the original track.
<br />
<br />
After being continuously aired for more than 25 years, the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council (CBSC) has declared the original lyrics of "Money for Nothing", containing the word "faggot", is now verboten. All members of the council are required to obey this ban, thus all radio stations must now air a censored version of the song.<br />
<br />
Is the word "faggot" offensive to some? Of course! Is it "insensitive"? That depends on how and why it is used! If one reads lyrics as simply a stream of words or disparate sentences, then it is possible to take offense at a <i>lot</i> of words in the English language. But that is not how any text, whether song lyrics, or classic stories such as Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, are to be read. They must be read in the context of the story or article or song as a whole, including the context of the time those words were written.<br />
<br />
Attempting to sanitize history, whether of 25, 250, or 2,500 years ago, is to destroy it - to erase or lessen the impact of lessons that can be learned. In Twain's time, the word "nigger" was in common use, but Twain's stories, using irony, sarcasm, and humour, were all about pointing out the ignorance and stupidity underlying racism. Pretending that people did not talk that way at the time is to pretend they were not quite so ignorant - and thus <i>not quite</i> so racist. <i>We need to remember that they did talk that way and the reasons they did so!</i><br />
<br />
Mark Knopfler, in writing "Money for Nothing" was commenting on a conversation he overheard. He was using it to show in song what some people felt - he was exposing it much the way Twain was exposing racism. Sanitizing his lyrics loses its impact.<br />
<br />
Defense of this decision includes citing the fact that some stations have <i>voluntarily </i>aired an edited version of the song for some time already, and that even Knopfler himself in concert has not used the word for some years. But that evades the issues: voluntary action versus forced censorship; and changing one's current actions versus revising history.<br />
<br />
It is also repeatedly claimed that the CBSC is a private association (i.e. self-regulation by broadcasters)and thus it is perfectly proper for its members to be required to obey such decisions. But this is a <i>half-truth</i>. In fact, the operating license of many radio stations are contingent on them being a member of the CBSC. Thus such decisions have the <i>force of law</i> behind them. <br />
<br />
If it were truly a voluntary association then a radio station could resign from the CBSC if it did not agree with its decisions, and continue to operate on its own terms apart from standards set by the CBSC. But in fact to do so would be to violate its government-imposed conditions and the station would have to cease operations altogether. Thus such CBSC decisions are nothing less then censorship, whether or not a particular ban was at the behest of government. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a genuinely voluntary council would have procedures in place for members to appeal such decisions and bring it to a vote, it would not allow a very small board to have unappealable dictatorial powers over its members!<br />
<br />
Finally at issue is the basis of this decision - a single complaint by a single person. For the sake of avoiding offending the sensibilities of one person, every other person in the country is deprived of their right to hear the original version of this song on the radio. Once again, there are many words that can be taken offense at - should we start banning every song, movie, show, or article that uses any word that causes offense to any person? Where will that end? Might as well simply ban radio and every other type of private broadcast or media - only allow government stations instead!Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-24876718076199736882011-01-15T11:21:00.000-05:002011-01-15T11:21:51.796-05:00Attempts to smear Tea Party groups have no basisFrom the moment the recent tragic shooting of several people by Jared Lee Loughner, including U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was first reported, there has been a massive attempt to lay blame at the feet of the Tea Party groups.<br />
<br />
As fast as emerging facts showed a lack of any such link, the smears became even more intense and desperate - citing the use of phrases such as "targeting" and the image of crosshairs on political material from Sarah Palin and others as "evidence" of the right inciting violence. That such imagery and phrasing has been used for centuries by politicians of <em>all stripes</em> (as well as in business) without any known links to violent acts is desperately evaded.<br />
<br />
Even a cursory look at the Tea Party movement across the United States quickly shows that any attempt to connect them with such violence is utterly devoid of any merit. First, while most tea-party members tend to lean far more to the right, that is not at all exclusive - in fact much of the thrust of the tea-party movement is as much against the current republican status-quo as it is against the democratic side.<br />
<br />
There are many tea-party groups, a fact of their grass-roots origin. Some have merged into larger groups or linked together, but there are still many. And with that comes many variations. Some of these groups are made up of very religious, mostly Christian, members, and some are far more secular - a natural reflection of the people in the areas they formed. Some endorse Sarah Palin, many do not. <br />
<br />
What all these groups share in common though is a desire to re-establish limits on government power as originally intended by the founders of the republic. They advocate a return to strict observance of the Constitution which was designed to constrain the government, not citizens. It's not simply about reducing taxes, or protecting the right to bear arms, those are simply logical consequences of desiring a limited government and maximum individual freedom. <br />
<br />
Even the most religious of the tea-party groups, whether implicitly or explicitly, accept and uphold the separation of church and state necessary for freedom - including <em>religious </em>freedom; they are not advocating a theocracy.<br />
<br />
Given their advocacy of individual rights - which start with the right to one's life - an attempt to link them to murder and other violence is absurd.<br />
<br />
There are, sadly, some deranged individuals. One of those is responsible for this latest horrible incident. Such individuals will find motivation for their evil acts no matter what anyone else does or does not do. To suppose this one was motivated by the tea party movement, directly or indirectly, is to clutch at straws.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-4347008675181428892008-02-04T15:57:00.000-05:002008-02-11T22:53:46.215-05:00Athiest States<em>The following letter to the editor was published in the Toronto Sun on December 23.</em><br /><br />A reader writes (Dec. 16) that "Judeo-Christian based societies are hands down the most decent, fair societies on Earth today". That is true, but he has reversed cause and effect. The reason this is true is not because of religion but because of the separation of church and state and recognition, to at least a significant degree, of individual rights and the freedom that brings - including religious freedom by definition.<br /><br />The citing of communist dictatorships as athiest failures is flawed because in those cases the state was not secular, rather it elevated "athiesm" to a position as a religion and demanded its citizens obey. The vast majority of people, at least in the former Soviet Union, were never atheist, they were just not allowed to publicly practice their religious beliefs - one freedom among all the others they were denied. The current Chinese government still persecutes religious minorities.<br /><br />Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. Atheists are not the problem, the problem is always and only when people have their freedoms denied by a despotic government; it is irrelevant whether such an oppressive, and often murderous, government is secular or religious.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1127666668467499492005-09-25T12:35:00.000-04:002005-09-25T12:44:28.466-04:00Gas prices and Hurricanes<p>As usual, during the recent hurricanes, there have been accusations of gouging (contrasted with accusations of price-fixing during normal times), and demands for investigations, charges, and price controls against oil companies.</p><p>Higher prices during an emergency are the free market's version of rationing - it encourages people to make do with less, which means supply lasts longer and more people can get at least some of it. Highest prices in one area (e.g. areas hit by the hurricanes) also help direct more of the existing supply there from other areas that do not need it as desperately. If a situation lasts for more than a short time, those higher prices also encourage more production to fulfill the demand.</p><p>Price controls just guarantee shortages. It does so, because it encourages many people to buy more than they need (leaving none for many others) while at the same time suppressing the profit motive that would cause supply to go where it is most needed (and thus most profitable) - in fact supply is driven out of a price-controlled area in favour of any place free of the controls. Government then often compounds the problem through rationing - exactly what the free market and profit motive would've done far more quickly and efficiently if left alone.</p><p>The emergency area needs as much of various resources it can get - not only gas but building supplies, food, fresh water, etc. High prices frees up these resources in areas outside the emergency area (people use less) and even higher prices in the emergency area draw in those resources and at the same time ensure people there buy the minimum needed, thereby maximizing distribution to as many as possible.</p><p> </p>Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1127665868354889562005-09-25T12:24:00.000-04:002005-09-25T12:31:08.360-04:00Theocratic Law<em><span style="font-size:85%;">For sometime, Ontario has been considering allowing legal backing for Sharia law (it has finally, fortunately, decided against it). Recently it has come to light that some members of Muslim groups opposing enshrinement of Sharia have not only been criticized, but have had their lives threatened by other Muslim groups. I had the following letter to the editor published by the Toronto Sun on Sept 25, 2005.</span></em><br /><br />It is telling that Muslims opposed to enshrining Sharia law here are now the target of threats and intimidation from other Muslims. Given this mentality of some - that violence is acceptable in their quest to bring ancient religious law to Canada, how can it not be clear why such religious codes must never be given force of law in a civilized nation?<br /><br />Secular law is a necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite for guaranteeing individual freedom, including the freedom to peacefully practice any religion. A measure of freedom is the ability to disagree with others without fear of violent reprisal. As this current situation (and the entire history of theocratic law) demonstrates, religion-based legal codes are not compatible with such freedom regardless of the religion involved. Theocratic law is collective law by definition and inherently opposed to individual freedom.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1118508548988088602005-06-11T12:20:00.000-04:002005-06-11T12:51:20.196-04:00Private Medicine is a RightThe debate in Canada is getting more interesting. One of the laws here is that private insurers are not allowed to compete with the government insurance, they are only allowed to offer extended insurance beyond what government programs cover. For example, the government system does not, for most people, cover costs of prescriptions, thus I'm allowed to buy private insurance to cover that.<br /><br />What this means is that, for anything government deigns to cover, most Canadians are effectively forced to endure rationed care (waiting lists) since they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for the treatment. Moreover, even if they have the means to pay it themselves, they are not allowed to use that money in Canada, but must go to the United States - it is against the law for any doctor or hospital to take cash directly from patients since that would be "jumping the queue".<br /><br />However, the Supreme Court of Canada has just handed down a ruling recognizing that barring the purchase of private insurance for <b>any</b> health care, and by implication, the ability to get actual treatment privately, is a violation of rights. Technically this ruling currently only applies against the specific prohibition in the province of Quebec, but it has implications for all provinces and for the Canada Health Act.<br /><br />This is a good step. The idea that one should be <b>stopped</b> from acquiring needed or desired treatment, or insurance for same, even though one is able and willing to pay for it, is an obscene violation of rights and is blatantly anti-life. People <b>do</b> suffer and even die here as a direct result of being forced to wait on government lists. <br /><br />Everyone talks about throwing more government (tax) money at the problem to <b>reduce</b> waiting times. But the only way waiting lists will ever be siginificantly reduced is to introduce private competition. In a perfect chance timing, there are currently advertisements from a firm just south of the U.S. border explaining how the increasing popularity of their diagnostic services (MRI, etc) had pushed new appointments out to a full month. They have now acquired new equipment (the latest in technology) and were now able to again offer <b>next day</b> appointments to Canadian customers. This is a direct result of competitive forces in a free market - the competitive free market that most Canadians, and many others, continue to insist is, somehow, evil and to be avoided at all costs.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1112321100381333252005-03-31T20:36:00.000-05:002005-03-31T23:40:45.276-05:00Miltary DesertersSince the start of military action in Iraq, there have been a number of deserters from the U.S. military running to Canada hoping to escape prosecution.<br /><br />The good news is at least one such deserter just had his case for asylum denied by a Canadian court. There are several others that have applied for asylum and their cases should also be denied. The bad news is that Canadian law allows appeal after appeal and so these deserters are likely to tie up our courts - and be free to live here - for a few years before finally having to face justice in the U.S.<br /><br />The basis of their claim? That the action in Iraq is illegal. Whether one considers that a fact or nonsense is a separate issue, however it has no bearing on a "right" to desert. These soldiers are trying to have it both ways - join a <em>voluntary </em>military (and enjoy free university), but not actually have to fight if called on to do so. The military has one purpose - to <em>fight </em>for the defense of a nation. Having soldier's that run away instead of fighting when called on kind of defeats the purpose of having a military.<br /><br />During the Viet Nam conflict, the U.S. had a draft - conscription. If you did not volunteer service, your were <em>forced </em>into it. This is a blatant violation of the individual rights the U.S. was founded on - a claim by the state that <em>they </em>own your life instead of you. As such, it was perfectly moral for draftees to run in order to protect their own lives and, as such, when there is conscription, I personally welcome any and all draft-dodgers able to make their way here.<br /><br />But there is no conscription now (and hopefully never again). One is not required to provide military service. Doing so is completely voluntary, but for that reason, one is also expected to uphold their end of that voluntary contract. Violating it, by deserting, <em>deserves prosecution</em>.<br /><br />In any civilized country such as the U.S., a soldier has the right, and in fact the duty, to refuse to carry out an order if he believes that order is illegal or immoral. In other words, a soldier cannot claim "just following orders" to justify illegal or immoral acts. However, a soldier better be right because in refusing such an order, it is also proper for him to face military justice in order to establish the rightness of his claim. He cannot refuse an order on whim, and he cannot decide, contrary to his nation's laws, what is legal or illegal.<br /><br />The action in Iraq was perfectly legal by the laws of the United States - the very laws under which he <em>volunteered </em>his services to the military. There is no basis for subsequently claiming it is illegal under any other law because he did not volunteer, let alone be drafted, under any other law.<br /><br />In summary, it is perfectly within his choice to refuse service, thereby violating his military cotnract, but only if he is also willing to face the just consequences of his actions for doing so. Running away to live here in Canada is the action of a coward, not a conscientious objector.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1099586087612524222004-11-10T11:01:00.000-05:002004-11-12T22:47:04.926-05:00Bush, Religion, and MoralityThere has been much discussion in the press and in many forums about whether Bush's re-election was driven by the religious right and whether this gives him a mandate to further a religious agenda in the U.S. - possibly breaching the wall separating church and state.
<br />
<br />Of those who voted for him, it's a sure bet there would be at least a few who are actually in favour of breaking down this wall, paving the way for a partial or even full theocracy. But such would be an extremely small minority and are not a threat. That doesn't mean there is no danger at all, certainly there is a possibility of some erosion, perhaps a few leaks; but not a breach.
<br />
<br />Bush, for his part, is a mixed bag, on the one hand indicating through some statements that he has no religous agenda and that he understands the reason for separating church and state and will uphold it in the U.S., while on the other hand, saying that he would accept a theocracy in Iraq as long as it is "democratically" chosen by the Iraqis. If a theocracy is wrong anywhere then it is wrong everywhere.
<br />
<br />More recently some sites have published statistics indicating that, while there was indeed an increase in votes coming from the religious right over the last election, it was a much smaller increase than Bush received from other groupings where religion was much less a concern.
<br />
<br />However, what most statistics <em>do</em> show is that a very high number voted for Bush, or at least for the conservative right, out of concern for <em>moral values</em>. This concern cut across many groups regardless of their religious positions.
<br />
<br />This seems to indicate a general trend towards renewed recognition of the importance of moral values, this after decades of moral values being more and more trivialized by many of the world's intellectuals. The left, over the last few decades, has become less and less principled while for the right it has increased, and this seems to have drawn more people to the right.
<br />
<br />Renewed interest in moral values and moral <em>principles </em>is a good thing, however for centuries there has been a packaging of morality and religion that has been and continues to be accepted by a large majority. Many cannot imagine that there can even be a code of morality without a religious backing. This comes down to the alternative between reason or faith. If one believes moral principles must be accepted on faith - handed down from some higher authority than man - then one comes to such conclusions as "in reason there is no reason to be moral".
<br />
<br />But this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role morality plays in our lives. Obeying a commandment is not an act of morality. Choosing an action <em>because it is right </em>is an act of morality. But to determine what action is right requires the use of reason, not faith. Judging the morality of an action is a measurement we must make in each situation. But a measurement of what? To measure anything there must be some standard, what is the standard of measure for a moral code proper to man? The only <em>reasonable </em>answer is: <em>life - </em>human life. The act of murder is not wrong because some alleged higher authority commands it, it is wrong because it violates a human's life - it is one person taking what is not rightfully his to take. The purpose of choosing one's actions based on moral principles is not for the sake of some afterlife, it is for the sake of <em>this</em> life here on earth. Ayn Rand said: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
<br />
<br />Along with the separation between church and state, we need a separation between church and morality. The former is dependent on the latter and without it, the former <em>will </em>be breached eventually.
<br />
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1094004879128113042004-08-31T22:12:00.000-04:002004-08-31T22:21:41.433-04:00Sharia Law in OntarioThe Province of Ontario has apparently all but officially announced it will be sanctioning the operation of Sharia law here. Defenders of this say it poses no problems since it will obviously be a watered-down version – women won’t be stoned to death for their “crimes” for example, and women and others will be safe since, if they do not like the ruling against them under Sharia, they will be able to appeal to Ontario law.
<br />
<br />Watering down evil does not make it non-evil, and if those convicted under Sharia can appeal to Ontario law and have their sentence voided anyway, then there’s no valid purpose in sanctioning it in the first place.
<br />
<br />Some defenders also claim that Muslims have the right to practice Sharia here under freedom of religion protections. That is wrong; freedom of religion does not include the right to set up your own laws, laws are a function of a government. To allow Sharia to be sanctioned is to allow the creation of a <em>theocracy</em> running parallel to our secular government.
<br />
<br />A theocracy, by definition, is opposed to individual rights and freedoms. To tolerate any part of a theocracy to any degree is to violate those principles and further erode all our rights. It directly violates equality before the law.
<br />
<br />The majority of those who will be judged under Sharia will <em>not</em> appeal to secular law, if that were so then the Muslim groups advocating this would have nothing to gain by it. They want to practice Sharia precisely to retain the power over others, particularly women, which they had in the theocratic nations they came from. Victims of this law will be under great pressure from their families (read: husbands and fathers) and from their community to submit and not go outside to appeal rulings. For them to appeal would, in most cases, also require them to leave their families and friends as life would become even more intolerable for them to stay after “dishonouring” their faith and their families.
<br />
<br />This action must be stopped.
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1089243058881259432004-07-07T18:50:00.000-04:002004-07-07T19:30:58.883-04:00Antitrust - Where do I begin...Let's begin here: <a href="http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aGKF5OaFU.tc&refer=us">U.S. Antitrust Agency Probing Plan to Shut Refinery</a>
<br />
<br />So the government, via antitrust laws, are now to decide when a company can open and close its facilities.
<br />
<br />They already extensively control corporations in just about every respect - from deciding for a company what it's products should be, what can or cannot be delivered with those products, what prices can be charged, what agreements it can enter into with vendors or retailers, etc.
<br />
<br />They define what constitutes a market for any product in order to decide whether there are antitrust violations. Did you know there was a specific market for "Super-Premium Ice Cream"? There never used to be, until one company started producing such a product, got a little competition from others and suddenly the government swoops in and successfully blocks the first company from buying one of its competitors. They found they could not block it based on the entire ice-cream market, nor on even on the sub-markets of regular or premium ice-cream - there was plenty of competition there. So they looked harder and discovered there was a super-premium product and only three or so companies offered it. Aha! Evil ice-cream monopoly must be stopped!
<br />
<br />Even non-profit help organizations are not immune - one such organization to help alcoholics was busted under antitrust because they required their affiliates to sign an agreement not to enter into any other affiliates area. Oh, but there must be competition between the affilates in any given area, says the government! Competition for what? Catering to alcoholics that need help at no charge to them and for no profit?
<br />
<br />Back to the case that triggered this post - the planned closing of a refinery in California. The claim being made by government is that closing it is simply an effort to further constrict supply in the state and there by force prices even higher. Never mind that it has been losing money due to costs of transporting crude inland to that location. Never mind that the reason California has the highest prices is because they require the refineries to meet specfications different from anywhere else.
<br />
<br />The linked article above focuses (as do most reports) on the large profits oil companies are making in California, always forgotten is the large expenditures ($billions) the oil companies have had to make refitting refineries to meet ever more ridiculous state laws - expenditures that have to be covered out of <em>future</em> profits.
<br />
<br />Yet we have the government threatening the possibility of blocking the closure - meaning they would force the oil company to continue operating at a loss. What they miss is that forcing an inefficient facility to stay open actually puts more pressure on prices to rise in order to cover that cost. Closing that facility means gas previously refined there will now be refined at more efficient locations. Its bad enough government thinks it can command the economy, but they show their ignorance at every turn in regard to economic principles, not to mention the whole concept of a <em>free </em>market.
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1089148233068312742004-07-06T16:59:00.000-04:002004-07-06T17:10:33.120-04:00Intelligent DesignI've become aware of this effort by its advocates to sneak Creationism into schools by dressing it up to seem more "scientific" and thus fool politicians and education bureaucrats into making it part of the curriculum. The goal is to use it as a wedge to dislodge the teaching of evolution.
<br />
<br />A Google search produces a wealth of links, mostly advocating this junk. One reference working to refute it is <a href="http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/">http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/</a>.
<br />
<br />Creationism should not be taught as though it had scientific merit, it is purely a fiction of religion and does not belong in academia (other than as part of studying the beliefs of various religions <em>apart </em>from studying science).Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1088112643059419132004-06-24T17:22:00.000-04:002004-06-24T17:32:07.746-04:00Even Michael Moore has a right to Free SpeechI read today: "Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel."
<br />
<br />I have absolutely no use for Michael Moore and wish he'd just go away. However, as much as I cannot stand him or his anti-American trash, his right to free speech must be protected. That there is an election coming up is irrelevant. Actually that's not right, it is even <em>more</em> crucial in the context of elections that free speech be protected! If Bush should lose the next election, I do not believe it will be due to Michael Moore's rantings, but if it is, <em>that's fair and proper too</em>.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1086486397652542462004-06-05T21:39:00.000-04:002004-06-05T21:50:09.660-04:00Recommended article: ''Our Enemy Is Not Terrorism'<a target=_blank href=http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Meeting_0504,00.html> An address by Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman </a>
<br />
<br />Excerpts: "... today it is still a prohibited offense for an airline to have two people of the same ethnic background interviewed at one time, because that is discrimination. Our airline security is still full of holes."
<br />
<br />"Actions have consequences, and people must be held accountable. Customs officer Jose Melendez-Perez stopped the 20th terrorist, who was supposed to be on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Probably because of the shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the terrorists. Melendez-Perez did this at great personal risk, because his colleagues and his supervisors told him, "You can't do this. This guy is an Arab ethnic. You're racially profiling. You're going to get in real trouble, because it's against Department of Transportation policy to racially profile." He said, "I don't care. This guy's a bad guy. I can see it in his eyes." As he sent this guy back out of the United States, the guy turned around to him and said, "I'll be back." You know, he is back. He's in Guantanamo. We captured him in Afghanistan."
<br />
<br />
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1085448852647081102004-05-24T20:52:00.000-04:002004-05-26T13:20:28.646-04:00The Ethics of Waiting ListsIn Canada, waiting lists for medical services, whether MRI diagnostics or heart surgery, have become the norm. It has developed and grown worse over many years, so much so that most citizens <em>do not even think of questioning the existence of such waiting lists</em>.
<br />
<br />All controversy concerns, not their existence, but merely how long those lists are and whether anyone is "unfairly" jumping the queue. As mentioned in <a href="http://wniddery.blogspot.com/2004/05/fear-of-private-medicine.html">Fear of Private Medicine</a>, a simple MRI disagnostic can require a waiting time of 13 months in Ontario at present.
<br />
<br />Jumping the queue is immediately associated in the minds of many Canadians with private medicine - the free market, and the reaction of most is horror that anyone would suggest allowing any part of that evil "American-style" health care system into Canada. What they are really concerned about, of course, is that someone would be allowed to use their hard-earned money to buy better health care.
<br />
<br />Such "concern" is nothing more than envy and the desire to cut down anyone who would do better than themselves. This envy is becoming pervasive in every aspect of life, for example the hatred of Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and many others purely as a result of their <em>success</em> (what Ayn Rand referred to as <strong>hatred of the good for being the good</strong>), but it seems to draw special focus on the medical system here (and is increasingly evident now in the U.S.).
<br />
<br />The very existence of waiting lists is what needs to be re-established as the issue. They need not and should not exist. The only reason there is still any choice at all is because the U.S.A. is our neighbour - if I were to need an MRI, instead of waiting many months to get one here, I would very happily drive across the border where that evil "American-style" system will happly provide me that MRI and anything else I need on demand and at a price I'm more than happy to pay.
<br />
<br />But I shouldn't have to drive to the States, I should be able to drive into my local town, or at worst, the closest city, pay my money and get my test with nothing more than perhaps first making an appointment over the phone with whichever private testing facility is able to fit me in the earliest or at a time most convenient to <em>me</em>.
<br />
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1085436289139471192004-05-24T17:12:00.000-04:002004-05-26T13:13:04.703-04:00Fear of Private MedicineThe belief that private medicine is somehow evil and dangerous has become so ingrained in Canada that merely including the words "private" and "medicine" in the same sentence will cause people to react with horror as though one had just advocated genocide or worse.
<br />
<br />The mere thought that any citizen, if allowed to do so, could acquire better medical services than any other by using (horrors) <em>money</em> sends them into a panic. Thus we are not allowed to pay for any medical service covered by government. The result, as is typical with any government monopolized service, is scarcity and rationing.
<br />
<br />Presently in Ontario, getting a simple MRI requires getting on a waiting list that can be as long as <strong>13 months</strong>! Waiting weeks or months for a diagnostic test can result in unncessary pain, disability, <em>and even death</em>. Waiting lists essentially defeat the entire benefit of such tests, and medicine as a whole!
<br />
<br />But, the reasoning goes, it is not "fair" that some ("the rich" of course) would be able to get better medicine than others, that such "two-tier" (shudder) medicine is immoral.
<br />
<br />So let's see how such egalitarianism works in practice:
<br />
<br />In a free-market system, it is true that there will be some that cannnot afford the best diagnostics or the best doctors, or the insurance to acquire same, while others enjoy good treatment whenever it is needed. Everyone, of course, would fall on various points in a scale rather than all being at one extreme or the other.
<br />
<br />Under our "fair" egalitarian system, everyone is entitled to equal services and, of course, everyone believes those equal services will be good - if only government would spend enough. The actual result, since every expenditure in a government system is a cost and to be avoided, is that everyone gets equally <em>poor</em> service - and waiting lists for most things.
<br />
<br />Or to drive the point home a little more clearly, picture two kids suffering from some condtion causing them much pain and which might evetually kill them if not treated soon enough. One is in a poor family, the other isn't...
<br />
<br />In the free market, one child will get immediate diagnostics, treatment will begin, the kid will most likely be relieved of pain and of the possibility of premature death. The poor child may not be able to get needed treatment as quickly and may have to accept less than the best. In rare cases this may even result in death.
<br />
<br />But the actual chance of dying <em>as a result</em> of having a free market is extremely remote for several reasons: 1) It is a very small minority that would be in such a circumstance to start with; 2) Faced with such a desperate case, few doctors if any would turn their backs, they would give needed aid first and worry about payment later, if at all; 3. Most importantly, in a free market, supply rises to meet demand - with the result of wiping out waiting lists and making aid available sooner for <em>everyone</em>; 4. Finally, charity still works in a free market at least as well as it does now.
<br />
<br />In our "fair" system, both children suffer in pain for many months or even years, and both have an equal chance of dying prematurely since neither of them is permitted to get <em>timely </em>diagnostic tests or medical treatments. With no profit motive, there is no incentive for supply to meet demand because everything is a cost. The motivation is exactly opposite - and the result is what we have - currently over 28,000 people in great pain and disability waiting up to a year to get hip replacement surgery.
<br />
<br />Somehow, in this country and many others, it has been decided that the latter is somehow better, that it is more desirable that two children suffer needless pain and possibly even die - in the name of egalitarianism.
<br />
<br />Somehow it has become accepted that, if not everyone can get the best <em>then none is to be allowed to have it</em>; that rather than allowing the majority get the best medicine their money can buy, all are to be held down to a mediocre <em>but equal </em>level of care.
<br />
<br />To my American neighbours, this is where your system is currently headed if you do not seriously begin to fight it now.
<br />Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5270135.post-1085349732140262172004-05-23T17:40:00.000-04:002004-05-23T23:04:03.993-04:00Perspective on U.S. abuses in IraqThere is no doubt that some soldiers and officers are guilty of abuse and acted without due authority in these cases - and should be tried and punished appropriately.
<br />
<br />However, a package deal is being passed by most of those antagonistic to the U.S. presence there - the notion that many or even most of those prisoners are innocents and, regardless of that, the notion that anything short of treating these prisoners as honoured guests is de facto abuse.
<br />
<br />The first is simply wrong; there <em>may </em>be a few exceptions but otherwise all prisoners there are there for a legitimate reason. If they did not directly attack civilians or coalition soldiers, they at least aided and abetted those who did, or are otherwise involved in undermining efforts to bring stability and a better form of government to that nation.
<br />
<br />The second is a blurring of the difference between prisoners of war and domestic criminals. Prisoners of war are taken in lieu of killing them, and because it is a war, it is perfectly legitimate to use various tactics on prisoners in an attempt to gain information that can help the war effort.
<br />
<br />Does this mean torture is ok? Well, <em>yes it does</em>, however there can still be objective measures on what is acceptable to a civilized nation. A common sense rule here is that any such tactics (including humiliation and demoralization) is legitimate only if it is conducted with the clear and specific purpose of gaining information that might help save lives, either soldier's or civilians, or contribute to defeating the enemy. If any such acts are conducted out of nothing but hatred, sadism, etc, then it most definitely is abuse and must be stopped.
<br />
<br />Most of these prisoners, if free, would not hestiate to kill coalition soldiers, and in many cases, civilians too. There is no moral basis for not treating them <strong>accordingly</strong>.Wayne Nidderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00770264770215957212noreply@blogger.com