Monday, December 29, 2014
Saturday, December 27, 2014
The Rand Formula
Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I can't recall either of them making much of an impression and I certainly did not fixate on the most singular part of those novels - Ayn Rand's philosophical system which she called "Objectivism". How could I have missed that? Meh.... philosophical systems... advocates and apologists for greed and selfishness....
Ayn Rand. Hard to say how many North Americans know of or care about the person behind this name. She was born in 1905 in Russia, moving to the United States in 1926. She was an author, known for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Aside from that, she is also known for the philosophical system called Objectivism. Anyone wanting to know more can easily learn more, but I suspect most people won't really care.
A few American politicians seem to have swallowed Rand's philosophy completely as a justification for their view of the world. It seems as though they represent some of the more regressive factions in American society and politics, but that's just my opinion....
I've felt, either correctly or not, that Rand's philosophy, and Rand herself, espouse a self-centered, selfish, viewpoint. What I can't understand is why Ayn Rand is still a thing. I'm not the only one apparently.
If Ayn Rand ever sent Christmas cards, they might have looked like this. I've had one local Randian (is that what we call her acolytes?) agree that those cards reflect her philosophy perfectly. Wonderful.
Some have wondered if Rand's philosophy has contributed to some of the "uncharitable" attitudes that we hear about from time to time. Or, to put it more succinctly, turned us into a greedy, selfish, nation. Well, that's the USA...surely couldn't be Canada....
One opinion about her philosophy's effect in America can be found here. You want to see what Randian philosophy looks like when put into practice? Look no further than the state of Tennessee. Close to the bottom in anything one could call socially progressive and near the top when it comes to child poverty. Charming statistics.
I've had a few exchanges with one of Rand's local supporters. He's claimed that the only (sorry - that should read "ONLY") reason anyone does anything is as a result of selfish self-interest. Altruism does not exist. Really?
Ayn Rand. Hard to say how many North Americans know of or care about the person behind this name. She was born in 1905 in Russia, moving to the United States in 1926. She was an author, known for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Aside from that, she is also known for the philosophical system called Objectivism. Anyone wanting to know more can easily learn more, but I suspect most people won't really care.
A few American politicians seem to have swallowed Rand's philosophy completely as a justification for their view of the world. It seems as though they represent some of the more regressive factions in American society and politics, but that's just my opinion....
I've felt, either correctly or not, that Rand's philosophy, and Rand herself, espouse a self-centered, selfish, viewpoint. What I can't understand is why Ayn Rand is still a thing. I'm not the only one apparently.
If Ayn Rand ever sent Christmas cards, they might have looked like this. I've had one local Randian (is that what we call her acolytes?) agree that those cards reflect her philosophy perfectly. Wonderful.
Some have wondered if Rand's philosophy has contributed to some of the "uncharitable" attitudes that we hear about from time to time. Or, to put it more succinctly, turned us into a greedy, selfish, nation. Well, that's the USA...surely couldn't be Canada....
One opinion about her philosophy's effect in America can be found here. You want to see what Randian philosophy looks like when put into practice? Look no further than the state of Tennessee. Close to the bottom in anything one could call socially progressive and near the top when it comes to child poverty. Charming statistics.
I've had a few exchanges with one of Rand's local supporters. He's claimed that the only (sorry - that should read "ONLY") reason anyone does anything is as a result of selfish self-interest. Altruism does not exist. Really?
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Canada's Radical Makeover
Party of One - Stephen Harper and Canada's Radical Makeover
by Michael Harris
My in-house library aficionado brought this home for me to read the other day and I've been almost unable to put it down. There are a number of reviews of this book available on-line. One from the The Star and one from the Globe & Mail. To quote one of the comments that followed: "Everyone who can vote should read this book".
Having now done my civic duty by reading this book, I can offer the following comments:
Electoral Politics - The Unfair Elections Act
Some Canadians may remember the "robocalls" issue. During the 2011 election, Elections Canada received complaints from a thousand or two voters about calls directing them to the wrong polling station. Other calls were nuisance calls (usually made in the middle of the night) intended to turn voters against the Liberal (or other) candidate.
There was an investigation and one person, Michael Sona, has been found guilty, although it was clear that at least some other people must have been involved.
In response, the Harper government introduced the "Fair Elections Act" - Bill C-23. Once it appeared, it quickly became known as the Unfair Elections Act, whose main champion was Pierre Pollivere. The proposed legislation would actually reduce the authority of the chief electoral officer, would reduce Election Canada's investigative powers, would allow the incumbents in each riding to select the poll workers, thereby increasing the opportunity for skulduggery. Although some changes were made to the bill, it has been passed into law and will affect the running of the 2015 election.
Defense Procurement - The F-35 Saga and the Big Lie
By the time 2012 rolled around, the Harper government had been misleading Parliament and Canadians for almost 6 years about the new jet fighter program. The government was still insisting that the entire program would only cost $15 billion.
Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (hired by the Harper government under the Accountability Act in 2008), claimed the real price tag was closer to $29 billion. The Harper government proceeded to badmouth Page as an incompetent busybody. Kevin Page describes himself as a "nerdy guy who doesn't like wasting money".
Meanwhile, the government continued to insist that the F-35 was the only option available for the military. As 2012 progressed, the Auditor General weighed in, pointing out that the DND's numbers had been kept secret, that critical information had not been made available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that there had not been a proper bidding process for the new fighter. The bad news just continued to get worse. One of the defense ministers, Peter MacKay, perhaps one of the most incompetent ministers ever in this post, continued to promote the project, even posing in plywood models of the fighter. Indeed, in the 2011 election, Harper accused any opponents of the project of being unpatriotic deadbeats. At this point, the plane hadn't even been flight-tested, and there were problems. Many of them.
Two Canadian companies that will benefit from the project have ties to Harper. It also came to light that the Harper cabinet had signed off on the $25 billion cost but had kept that secret, claiming that the cost was only $14 billion. A more recent estimate of the total cost is closer to $70 billion.
The whole case has been one of number-fudging. So much for sound fiscal management.
Personal Advisers, the Senate Scandal and other Misadventures
Senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin... all appointed by Harper and all in trouble, one for assault, the others for expense claim fraud.
Nigel Wright - appointed as Harper's Chief of Staff. Reputed to be a brilliant addition to the wheels of government, or at least to the Conservative Government, but forced to leave his position after it became public that he gave a $90,000 gift to Mike Duffy so that his improper expense claims could be re-paid.
As one reporter who broke the story put it, how the Harper government had reacted to the expose of cash payments, shady deals and possibly illegal acts coming from the PMO... "Basically, it's been one lie after another".
Resource Development, Canada's First Nations and the Environment
Throughout the whole "energy debate" the tactics of the Harper government have been to say things they have no intention of carrying out (ie: regulating the energy sector), misrepresent the issue in various ways (ie: claim that any regulations would kill the economy; make claims about hundreds of thousands of jobs when a fraction of those would be more realistic), embarrass the country with infantile demands and aggressive saber-rattling (one former Conservative PM has observed that Canada has adopted an "almost adolescent tone" in dealing with other countries), demonizing any who disagree and, in the process, ignoring treaty obligations to consult and negotiate with First Nations about resource development.
Under The Bus
A number of Harper minions have managed to get themselves into trouble. The usual tactic of the Harper PMO is to deny there is any problem, reiterate their support for the person in question, demonize anyone who continues to raise questions and then, if things are still going down the toilet and the facts can't be misrepresented any longer, throw the person at the center of the conflict under the bus. Some examples:
Michael Sona - the only person charged and found guilty of mis-deeds related to the 2011 election Robocall travesty. It was quite clear that other people must have been involved, but only one person was cut loose and allowed to take the fall for the Party and the Leader.
Mike Duffy - appointed by Harper, initially defended by Harper and the PMO when Senate financial irregularities starting appearing. Abandoned and cut loose by the Senate and the Party when defending him eventually became untenable.
Support Our Troops (Unless it Actually Costs Money)
More than any Canadian government in recent times, the Harper government has seemed almost anxious to send our armed forced into battle. As a former Canadian ambassador put it: "The neo-conservative idea of foreign policy is about flexing military muscle.... It is a reversal of our history. Now we are a country with baggage. We have become outliers. We are seen as more American than the Americans, more Israeli than Likud...."
The Conservatives have repeatedly promoted the "Support Our Troops" campaign. As a member of the Official Opposition, Harper had wanted to send Canada to war in Iraq, just one example of Harper's belief in a military solution to issues that he didn't well understand.
Support for Canada's military veterans, on the other hand, has received less enthusiastic support. Cases of PTSD, suicides, medical issues, pensions....all have been ignored in the interests of balancing the budget by 2015. Never mind that millions have been spent promoting the War of 1812 ($28 million).
Party of One contains a damming indictment of the Harper Government's treatment of the veterans who served Canada, seeming intended to frustrate any possible course of justice for these men and women in the hopes that they would either go away or die. As the author put it, a classic case of "Delay, Deny and Die".
Harper's war on science, facts and the people who have worked to inform, is well documented in this book. Harper vs Canada's (supposedly independent) nuclear regulator; Harper vs Statistics Canada (spreading false stories about StatsCan's chief statistician in the push to ditch the long-form census); Harper vs scientific research; Harper vs the environment. Not everything is covered in the book: Harper vs Canadian Public Broadcasting; Harper vs the Supreme Court and Madame Justice McLachlin, but there is hardly a Canadian institution that Harper has not set out to discredit, dismantle or destroy.
I will make no secret of my intense dislike of Stephen Harper and the fascist thugs that masquerade as his government. He has waged a war on reason, science, facts and history. Despite cuddly photo ops with pandas, he represents possibly the greatest danger to Canadian democracy of any politician in Canadian history. My dislike is obviously shared. You can read the opinions of others here and here.
There are a number of sites on the Internet with lists of why Harper and his government ought to be relegated to the dustbins of infamous history. One such is here.
One comment critical of Harper was slagged by a Harper supporter as being uninformed and "not understanding" him or his actions. One reply to that attack went like this:
"Your remarks suggest that because people strongly disagree with you (or Harper), it is because they have made no effort to understand him or his actions. There are a lot of Canadians who really do understand him, what he is saying and what he is doing and what his "allies" are saying and doing. We understand the economics of neoliberalism, the goals of TE, the loss of sovereignty over our policy, the austerity that hurts only less wealthy people, the social sciences, the social services, the riding manipulations, the robocalls, the attempts to undermine the singularity of the country, the attempt to return Canada to colonial status under U.K. or U.S. (or both), the geopolitics, the lies, the secrecy, the hidden agendas, etc. We understand."
[Update1] - Michael Harris, the author of Party of One, appears in this 25 minute video clip. Watch the video and read the book. Decide if this is the Canada you want.
[Update2] - An article from the Globe & Mail which, although pointing out many negative aspects to the Harper regime, padded the beginning and end with sort of nice stuff, recognizing that most readers skip the middle bits. Nice bit of media manipulation.
[Update3] - Veterans are angry even though Conservative MPs seems to thing things are rosy.
[Update4] - And then there have been the science book burnings a la 1930s Germany
[Update5] - And the push to turn Canada into a petro state.
by Michael Harris
My in-house library aficionado brought this home for me to read the other day and I've been almost unable to put it down. There are a number of reviews of this book available on-line. One from the The Star and one from the Globe & Mail. To quote one of the comments that followed: "Everyone who can vote should read this book".
Having now done my civic duty by reading this book, I can offer the following comments:
Electoral Politics - The Unfair Elections Act
Some Canadians may remember the "robocalls" issue. During the 2011 election, Elections Canada received complaints from a thousand or two voters about calls directing them to the wrong polling station. Other calls were nuisance calls (usually made in the middle of the night) intended to turn voters against the Liberal (or other) candidate.
There was an investigation and one person, Michael Sona, has been found guilty, although it was clear that at least some other people must have been involved.
In response, the Harper government introduced the "Fair Elections Act" - Bill C-23. Once it appeared, it quickly became known as the Unfair Elections Act, whose main champion was Pierre Pollivere. The proposed legislation would actually reduce the authority of the chief electoral officer, would reduce Election Canada's investigative powers, would allow the incumbents in each riding to select the poll workers, thereby increasing the opportunity for skulduggery. Although some changes were made to the bill, it has been passed into law and will affect the running of the 2015 election.
Defense Procurement - The F-35 Saga and the Big Lie
By the time 2012 rolled around, the Harper government had been misleading Parliament and Canadians for almost 6 years about the new jet fighter program. The government was still insisting that the entire program would only cost $15 billion.
Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (hired by the Harper government under the Accountability Act in 2008), claimed the real price tag was closer to $29 billion. The Harper government proceeded to badmouth Page as an incompetent busybody. Kevin Page describes himself as a "nerdy guy who doesn't like wasting money".
Meanwhile, the government continued to insist that the F-35 was the only option available for the military. As 2012 progressed, the Auditor General weighed in, pointing out that the DND's numbers had been kept secret, that critical information had not been made available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that there had not been a proper bidding process for the new fighter. The bad news just continued to get worse. One of the defense ministers, Peter MacKay, perhaps one of the most incompetent ministers ever in this post, continued to promote the project, even posing in plywood models of the fighter. Indeed, in the 2011 election, Harper accused any opponents of the project of being unpatriotic deadbeats. At this point, the plane hadn't even been flight-tested, and there were problems. Many of them.
Two Canadian companies that will benefit from the project have ties to Harper. It also came to light that the Harper cabinet had signed off on the $25 billion cost but had kept that secret, claiming that the cost was only $14 billion. A more recent estimate of the total cost is closer to $70 billion.
The whole case has been one of number-fudging. So much for sound fiscal management.
Personal Advisers, the Senate Scandal and other Misadventures
Senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin... all appointed by Harper and all in trouble, one for assault, the others for expense claim fraud.
Nigel Wright - appointed as Harper's Chief of Staff. Reputed to be a brilliant addition to the wheels of government, or at least to the Conservative Government, but forced to leave his position after it became public that he gave a $90,000 gift to Mike Duffy so that his improper expense claims could be re-paid.
As one reporter who broke the story put it, how the Harper government had reacted to the expose of cash payments, shady deals and possibly illegal acts coming from the PMO... "Basically, it's been one lie after another".
Resource Development, Canada's First Nations and the Environment
Throughout the whole "energy debate" the tactics of the Harper government have been to say things they have no intention of carrying out (ie: regulating the energy sector), misrepresent the issue in various ways (ie: claim that any regulations would kill the economy; make claims about hundreds of thousands of jobs when a fraction of those would be more realistic), embarrass the country with infantile demands and aggressive saber-rattling (one former Conservative PM has observed that Canada has adopted an "almost adolescent tone" in dealing with other countries), demonizing any who disagree and, in the process, ignoring treaty obligations to consult and negotiate with First Nations about resource development.
Under The Bus
A number of Harper minions have managed to get themselves into trouble. The usual tactic of the Harper PMO is to deny there is any problem, reiterate their support for the person in question, demonize anyone who continues to raise questions and then, if things are still going down the toilet and the facts can't be misrepresented any longer, throw the person at the center of the conflict under the bus. Some examples:
Michael Sona - the only person charged and found guilty of mis-deeds related to the 2011 election Robocall travesty. It was quite clear that other people must have been involved, but only one person was cut loose and allowed to take the fall for the Party and the Leader.
Mike Duffy - appointed by Harper, initially defended by Harper and the PMO when Senate financial irregularities starting appearing. Abandoned and cut loose by the Senate and the Party when defending him eventually became untenable.
Support Our Troops (Unless it Actually Costs Money)
More than any Canadian government in recent times, the Harper government has seemed almost anxious to send our armed forced into battle. As a former Canadian ambassador put it: "The neo-conservative idea of foreign policy is about flexing military muscle.... It is a reversal of our history. Now we are a country with baggage. We have become outliers. We are seen as more American than the Americans, more Israeli than Likud...."
The Conservatives have repeatedly promoted the "Support Our Troops" campaign. As a member of the Official Opposition, Harper had wanted to send Canada to war in Iraq, just one example of Harper's belief in a military solution to issues that he didn't well understand.
Support for Canada's military veterans, on the other hand, has received less enthusiastic support. Cases of PTSD, suicides, medical issues, pensions....all have been ignored in the interests of balancing the budget by 2015. Never mind that millions have been spent promoting the War of 1812 ($28 million).
Party of One contains a damming indictment of the Harper Government's treatment of the veterans who served Canada, seeming intended to frustrate any possible course of justice for these men and women in the hopes that they would either go away or die. As the author put it, a classic case of "Delay, Deny and Die".
Harper's war on science, facts and the people who have worked to inform, is well documented in this book. Harper vs Canada's (supposedly independent) nuclear regulator; Harper vs Statistics Canada (spreading false stories about StatsCan's chief statistician in the push to ditch the long-form census); Harper vs scientific research; Harper vs the environment. Not everything is covered in the book: Harper vs Canadian Public Broadcasting; Harper vs the Supreme Court and Madame Justice McLachlin, but there is hardly a Canadian institution that Harper has not set out to discredit, dismantle or destroy.
I will make no secret of my intense dislike of Stephen Harper and the fascist thugs that masquerade as his government. He has waged a war on reason, science, facts and history. Despite cuddly photo ops with pandas, he represents possibly the greatest danger to Canadian democracy of any politician in Canadian history. My dislike is obviously shared. You can read the opinions of others here and here.
There are a number of sites on the Internet with lists of why Harper and his government ought to be relegated to the dustbins of infamous history. One such is here.
One comment critical of Harper was slagged by a Harper supporter as being uninformed and "not understanding" him or his actions. One reply to that attack went like this:
"Your remarks suggest that because people strongly disagree with you (or Harper), it is because they have made no effort to understand him or his actions. There are a lot of Canadians who really do understand him, what he is saying and what he is doing and what his "allies" are saying and doing. We understand the economics of neoliberalism, the goals of TE, the loss of sovereignty over our policy, the austerity that hurts only less wealthy people, the social sciences, the social services, the riding manipulations, the robocalls, the attempts to undermine the singularity of the country, the attempt to return Canada to colonial status under U.K. or U.S. (or both), the geopolitics, the lies, the secrecy, the hidden agendas, etc. We understand."
[Update1] - Michael Harris, the author of Party of One, appears in this 25 minute video clip. Watch the video and read the book. Decide if this is the Canada you want.
[Update2] - An article from the Globe & Mail which, although pointing out many negative aspects to the Harper regime, padded the beginning and end with sort of nice stuff, recognizing that most readers skip the middle bits. Nice bit of media manipulation.
[Update3] - Veterans are angry even though Conservative MPs seems to thing things are rosy.
[Update4] - And then there have been the science book burnings a la 1930s Germany
[Update5] - And the push to turn Canada into a petro state.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
More Climate Change Denial Claptrap
A few days ago, a post appeared on the Kaslo Community Web FB page. One of the irregular posters on that page had found what he obviously considered the coup de grace in the on-going battle between science and anti-science. It was a movie trailer for The Global Warming War. It claims that it is "... not motivated by politics, money or emotionalism". It also claims that climate change "hasn't been proven scientifically". I imagine most people will watch it without any analysis or background checks. Let's see who and what is involved in this expose.
First, just remind yourself that nobody involved in real science every uses the phrase "proven scientifically". Evidence may build up and persuade based on the sheer volume of that evidence, but the term "proven" is pretty much never used.
The people involved in this video include:
Marc Morano - works for a "think-tank" in Washington DC that receives lots of funding from Big Oil. Just because he can get on a camera and state that human-caused climate change is "bullshit", doesn't make it so. Like most climate change science deniers, he presents no evidence to support his position.
Dr H. Sterling Burnett - a philosopher who works for the National Center for Policy Analysis, a "free market" think tank funded by billionaires including the Koch Brothers. Burnett has been quoted as saying the Gulf Coast disaster was "more hype than reality". He's also quoted by the Heartland Institute as a climate expert. He's not.
Dr Tim Ball - identified in the video as a "climatology professor". He's actually a geographer. He is also a "scientific advisor" to the Exxon-funded "Friends of Science". As an aside, the University of Winnipeg doesn't seem to have a climatology department.
Dr Paul Driessen - associated with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Among many other climate change science denial activities, he has spoken at the Heartland Institute's ICCC7, which received over $67 million from ExxonMobile, the Koch Brothers and the Scaife Family Foundations.
Dr John Theon - is listed as an "expert" by the Heartland Institute. He is retired from NASA.
Dr Mark Alliegro - a cell biologist that the Heartland Institute lists as an expert. He claims that there has been no increase in severe weather. Interestingly, the insurance industry sees it differently. Stories about that here and here.
Dr James Wanliss - actually does research into Physics and Space Weather. His position as a climate change denier seems to be rooted in Christian fundamentalism as evidenced in the following: "it is possible to have a balanced Biblical view of stewardship and conservation to the critical issues of environment and development."
Dennis Avery - is an agricultural economist. His position can be best described with this quote from him: "Why did most of our moderate modern warming take place before 1940 (with 1934 being the warmest year) and why haven't we had any warming over the last nine years? Could it possibly be the moderate natural 1,500-year cycle revealed in the ice cores and seabed sediments?". He seems to have missed the warm years in the past few decades. His biography describes him as "a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade. He also considers himself an expert on “agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues. Most warming "before 1940"? Where has he been?
Then there is FOX News with the story that "It's the Sun's Rays". Fox News, the mouthpiece of American Conservatism, the Republican Party. Faux News has a history of inaccurate and misleading coverage of many things, including climate change. Google lists many sources that have studied this inaccuracy. More here and here. It would be safe and fair to say that FOX News has no credibility on anything.
The Cosmic Ray Theory of climate change and Dr Henrik Svensmark. This could be an interesting explanation, but it appears that it's dead.
John Coleman - the founder of The Weather Channel. His degree, 50 years ago, was in journalism. That said, he did spend a few decades in the "weather business". He is credited with claiming that climate change is a hoax. Snopes considers the veracity of that here. Although this item is superficially "true" in the sense that the words quoted above were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they "refute" global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration. As Coleman's critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others. Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work.
Once again, just because someone wants to claim climate change isn't happening doesn't mean they have "refuted" climate change. They need evidence.
Dr David Deming - He is another climate change denier affiliated with the National Center for Policy Analysis, funded by the Koch Brothers, among others. One quote of his: "The largest mistake would be to start to move away from petroleum, a proven and economic energy source, to more speculative and expensive sources…The world will eventually leave the age of oil, but there is no geologic reason for this to happen until near the end of the 21st century."
Lawrence Solomon - a journalist who describes himself as "one of Canada's leading environmentalists". He has an interesting mix of affiliations, one being as the Executive director of Energy Probe, a fossil fuel lobbyist group.
To summarize: no politics, no money? I don't think so. Massive funding from the Big Oil lobby and many associated foundations. Politics? Well, it sure isn't science that they're espousing. This is typical of climate change science deniers. They spend all their time pointing fingers, jumping up and down, accompanied with lots of arm waving, but they DO NOT present any evidence that climate change isn't happening or that we're not the main cause. What is true is that there's no science in what they're claiming.
If anyone wants the real story, there is a good article in Science or Not? which lays out the extent of our current knowledge on climate change and the role of humans in it.
First, just remind yourself that nobody involved in real science every uses the phrase "proven scientifically". Evidence may build up and persuade based on the sheer volume of that evidence, but the term "proven" is pretty much never used.
The people involved in this video include:
Marc Morano - works for a "think-tank" in Washington DC that receives lots of funding from Big Oil. Just because he can get on a camera and state that human-caused climate change is "bullshit", doesn't make it so. Like most climate change science deniers, he presents no evidence to support his position.
Dr H. Sterling Burnett - a philosopher who works for the National Center for Policy Analysis, a "free market" think tank funded by billionaires including the Koch Brothers. Burnett has been quoted as saying the Gulf Coast disaster was "more hype than reality". He's also quoted by the Heartland Institute as a climate expert. He's not.
Dr Tim Ball - identified in the video as a "climatology professor". He's actually a geographer. He is also a "scientific advisor" to the Exxon-funded "Friends of Science". As an aside, the University of Winnipeg doesn't seem to have a climatology department.
Dr Paul Driessen - associated with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Among many other climate change science denial activities, he has spoken at the Heartland Institute's ICCC7, which received over $67 million from ExxonMobile, the Koch Brothers and the Scaife Family Foundations.
Dr John Theon - is listed as an "expert" by the Heartland Institute. He is retired from NASA.
Dr Mark Alliegro - a cell biologist that the Heartland Institute lists as an expert. He claims that there has been no increase in severe weather. Interestingly, the insurance industry sees it differently. Stories about that here and here.
Dr James Wanliss - actually does research into Physics and Space Weather. His position as a climate change denier seems to be rooted in Christian fundamentalism as evidenced in the following: "it is possible to have a balanced Biblical view of stewardship and conservation to the critical issues of environment and development."
Dennis Avery - is an agricultural economist. His position can be best described with this quote from him: "Why did most of our moderate modern warming take place before 1940 (with 1934 being the warmest year) and why haven't we had any warming over the last nine years? Could it possibly be the moderate natural 1,500-year cycle revealed in the ice cores and seabed sediments?". He seems to have missed the warm years in the past few decades. His biography describes him as "a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade. He also considers himself an expert on “agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues. Most warming "before 1940"? Where has he been?
Then there is FOX News with the story that "It's the Sun's Rays". Fox News, the mouthpiece of American Conservatism, the Republican Party. Faux News has a history of inaccurate and misleading coverage of many things, including climate change. Google lists many sources that have studied this inaccuracy. More here and here. It would be safe and fair to say that FOX News has no credibility on anything.
The Cosmic Ray Theory of climate change and Dr Henrik Svensmark. This could be an interesting explanation, but it appears that it's dead.
John Coleman - the founder of The Weather Channel. His degree, 50 years ago, was in journalism. That said, he did spend a few decades in the "weather business". He is credited with claiming that climate change is a hoax. Snopes considers the veracity of that here. Although this item is superficially "true" in the sense that the words quoted above were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they "refute" global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration. As Coleman's critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others. Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work.
Once again, just because someone wants to claim climate change isn't happening doesn't mean they have "refuted" climate change. They need evidence.
Dr David Deming - He is another climate change denier affiliated with the National Center for Policy Analysis, funded by the Koch Brothers, among others. One quote of his: "The largest mistake would be to start to move away from petroleum, a proven and economic energy source, to more speculative and expensive sources…The world will eventually leave the age of oil, but there is no geologic reason for this to happen until near the end of the 21st century."
Lawrence Solomon - a journalist who describes himself as "one of Canada's leading environmentalists". He has an interesting mix of affiliations, one being as the Executive director of Energy Probe, a fossil fuel lobbyist group.
To summarize: no politics, no money? I don't think so. Massive funding from the Big Oil lobby and many associated foundations. Politics? Well, it sure isn't science that they're espousing. This is typical of climate change science deniers. They spend all their time pointing fingers, jumping up and down, accompanied with lots of arm waving, but they DO NOT present any evidence that climate change isn't happening or that we're not the main cause. What is true is that there's no science in what they're claiming.
If anyone wants the real story, there is a good article in Science or Not? which lays out the extent of our current knowledge on climate change and the role of humans in it.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Debunking Denialism
If you spend much time on-line, you will have been exposed to an increasing number of sites that are anti-this and anti-that. Examples abound - the anti-vaccine, anti-science, anti-climate change. Then there are all the sites that try to promote nonsense like creationism, alternative medicine, various conspiracy theories.
Here is one site that tries to look at and debunk a good deal of that kind of claptrap.
Here is one site that tries to look at and debunk a good deal of that kind of claptrap.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Don't Move to Florida
There was an interesting interview on CBC Radio's Sunday Edition this morning with a climate scientist from Florida.
I know, I know, the climate change science deniers will scoff and claim BS, but those "skeptics" aren't science researchers.
What this scientist has to say is very interesting and disturbing. Read more and see a link to the full audio interview here.
The Anti-Anti-Vax - Part 3 - No Benefit?
An article was posted to Kootenay Debates that claimed little benefit from vaccines. The article can be seen here:
This is typical of the anti-vax movement, an attempt to discredit vaccines, the science behind the vaccines and public health in general.
My response went like this:
Wow. One rarely sees a web page that is so long and so filled with half-truths and misinformation and inaccuracies. It would be almost the work of an honors thesis to refute all of their claims. Doing some research takes time and most people will see the sensational headline of sites like these and go no further.
Seriously. What are these assertions based on? A serious belief that government and "Big Pharma" are out to kill us all or do us harm in some other way? If that's the case, my questions would be "Why?" and "How"? For what benefit to whom? And how could a giant conspiracy like that actually be kept secret? I do hope that believers in such conspiracies aren't suggesting that we go back to faith healing.
First, though, obviously your personal decision is yours to make. I would just hope that it's based on real facts and not what's on this website. There are a few medical reasons not to use a certain vaccine like MMR. 1) people with serious allergies to any of the components of the vaccine, 2) women who are pregnant or trying to conceive, 3) immunocompromised persons, 4) persons receiving cancer chemo, 5) people receiving blood products, and, 6) people who are seriously ill.
Otherwise, vaccines help and have been very valuable in combating certain diseases. The history and the facts show it, clearly.
Also keep in mind that any individual choice doesn't just affect you. It potentially affects every single person you come into contact with. Just so you know.
As for the website's "expose"..... Let's deal first with measles and the MMR vaccine.
Before the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, almost everyone got measles by the time they were 20. Since then, there HAS been a 99% reduction in CASES of measles. This graph http://www.iayork.com/Images/2009/3-31-09/Measles.jpg shows the drop in cases as well as deaths, starting around 1963 with a further reduction in cases and deaths after the MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1980s.
Websites like the so-called "child safety" site, usually focus on deaths (mortality), not "cases" (incidence or morbidity). https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg actually supports the benefits of vaccines. Just look at the reduction of deaths after 1963 and again after 1988. And these are just "deaths", not "cases" of measles.
It is very true that deaths from measles were in decline before the vaccine was introduced. There is no argument that improved sanitation, improved medical care of ill patients, even Vitamin A and better nutrition for young children, have all helped. Just take a look at undeveloped countries who don't have those benefits. Measles cases are still very high.
Speaking of undeveloped countries. Some of these anti-vax websites cast aspersions on using vaccines in these countries. I would agree that improving sanitation, medical care and nutrition in these countries would be a great help. However, I see, on various social media sites, lots of bitching about how much money we're spending on foreign aid. So the real story here is that many wealthy westerners aren't prepared to support foreign aid to improve basic conditions in poor countries and also don't think we should be providing vaccines either. I have no polite words to describe how I feel about those kinds of attitudes.
By the way, measles is NOT a minor childhood disease. It's not as bad as smallpox, but it's serious and often leads to deadly complications.
Those complications are: 1) pneumonia - about 5% develop this. Treatable in western countries but a death sentence in undeveloped countries, 2) encephalitis, a brain infection, can develop, resulting in permanent brain damage, 3) SSPE - rare but fatal, 4) other conditions such as croup, conjunctivitis and diarrhea (very serious in small children). I would NOT want my children, or my grandchildren, to be at greater risk of any of these.
Mercury. Some chemistry wold be helpful here. The mercury that "was" used in some vaccines wasn't elemental mercury or methyl mercury. It was ethyl mercury, called thimerosal. There is a big difference. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal In any case, the MMR vaccine in Canada has NEVER contained thimerosal. Most other vaccines have not contained thimerosal since 2000 or earlier, yet autism rates continue to rise. How could that be?
Risks and Effectiveness: Yes, vaccines have risks. Any medical procedure has risks. Nothing is 100% safe. Nothing is 100% effective. Just compare the risks from vaccines (negligible) to the risks from contracting a disease like measles, polio, smallpox. Obviously we've forgotten what those diseases were like.
Autism. Still, years after a fraudulent paper was published, we still hear about this supposed link. The evidence doesn't support it. And yet this single report, unproved, unsupported, proven to be fraudulent, has been responsible for large increases in measles cases and more deaths because of it. It was blamed on thimerosal, yet that additive hasn't been in vaccines for years, and, in some vaccines, ever.
A recent article in the G&M perhaps puts it best, although with some sarcasm. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/the-return-of-measles-where-did-we-go-wrong/article598566/
There is a more serious series of articles about measles and the vaccines here: http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/index.php?s=measles
This is typical of the anti-vax movement, an attempt to discredit vaccines, the science behind the vaccines and public health in general.
My response went like this:
Wow. One rarely sees a web page that is so long and so filled with half-truths and misinformation and inaccuracies. It would be almost the work of an honors thesis to refute all of their claims. Doing some research takes time and most people will see the sensational headline of sites like these and go no further.
Seriously. What are these assertions based on? A serious belief that government and "Big Pharma" are out to kill us all or do us harm in some other way? If that's the case, my questions would be "Why?" and "How"? For what benefit to whom? And how could a giant conspiracy like that actually be kept secret? I do hope that believers in such conspiracies aren't suggesting that we go back to faith healing.
First, though, obviously your personal decision is yours to make. I would just hope that it's based on real facts and not what's on this website. There are a few medical reasons not to use a certain vaccine like MMR. 1) people with serious allergies to any of the components of the vaccine, 2) women who are pregnant or trying to conceive, 3) immunocompromised persons, 4) persons receiving cancer chemo, 5) people receiving blood products, and, 6) people who are seriously ill.
Otherwise, vaccines help and have been very valuable in combating certain diseases. The history and the facts show it, clearly.
Also keep in mind that any individual choice doesn't just affect you. It potentially affects every single person you come into contact with. Just so you know.
As for the website's "expose"..... Let's deal first with measles and the MMR vaccine.
Before the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, almost everyone got measles by the time they were 20. Since then, there HAS been a 99% reduction in CASES of measles. This graph http://www.iayork.com/Images/2009/3-31-09/Measles.jpg shows the drop in cases as well as deaths, starting around 1963 with a further reduction in cases and deaths after the MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1980s.
Websites like the so-called "child safety" site, usually focus on deaths (mortality), not "cases" (incidence or morbidity). https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg actually supports the benefits of vaccines. Just look at the reduction of deaths after 1963 and again after 1988. And these are just "deaths", not "cases" of measles.
It is very true that deaths from measles were in decline before the vaccine was introduced. There is no argument that improved sanitation, improved medical care of ill patients, even Vitamin A and better nutrition for young children, have all helped. Just take a look at undeveloped countries who don't have those benefits. Measles cases are still very high.
Speaking of undeveloped countries. Some of these anti-vax websites cast aspersions on using vaccines in these countries. I would agree that improving sanitation, medical care and nutrition in these countries would be a great help. However, I see, on various social media sites, lots of bitching about how much money we're spending on foreign aid. So the real story here is that many wealthy westerners aren't prepared to support foreign aid to improve basic conditions in poor countries and also don't think we should be providing vaccines either. I have no polite words to describe how I feel about those kinds of attitudes.
By the way, measles is NOT a minor childhood disease. It's not as bad as smallpox, but it's serious and often leads to deadly complications.
Those complications are: 1) pneumonia - about 5% develop this. Treatable in western countries but a death sentence in undeveloped countries, 2) encephalitis, a brain infection, can develop, resulting in permanent brain damage, 3) SSPE - rare but fatal, 4) other conditions such as croup, conjunctivitis and diarrhea (very serious in small children). I would NOT want my children, or my grandchildren, to be at greater risk of any of these.
Mercury. Some chemistry wold be helpful here. The mercury that "was" used in some vaccines wasn't elemental mercury or methyl mercury. It was ethyl mercury, called thimerosal. There is a big difference. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal In any case, the MMR vaccine in Canada has NEVER contained thimerosal. Most other vaccines have not contained thimerosal since 2000 or earlier, yet autism rates continue to rise. How could that be?
Risks and Effectiveness: Yes, vaccines have risks. Any medical procedure has risks. Nothing is 100% safe. Nothing is 100% effective. Just compare the risks from vaccines (negligible) to the risks from contracting a disease like measles, polio, smallpox. Obviously we've forgotten what those diseases were like.
Autism. Still, years after a fraudulent paper was published, we still hear about this supposed link. The evidence doesn't support it. And yet this single report, unproved, unsupported, proven to be fraudulent, has been responsible for large increases in measles cases and more deaths because of it. It was blamed on thimerosal, yet that additive hasn't been in vaccines for years, and, in some vaccines, ever.
A recent article in the G&M perhaps puts it best, although with some sarcasm. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/the-return-of-measles-where-did-we-go-wrong/article598566/
There is a more serious series of articles about measles and the vaccines here: http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/index.php?s=measles
The Anti-Anti-Vax - Part 2 - Aluminum
Aluminum, in the form of aluminum salts, is added to some (but not all) vaccines in Canada. The salts are in the form of aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or potassium aluminum sulfate (alum). These are the only adjuvants added to vaccines in Canada. An adjuvant is used to enhance the response of the immune system and means a smaller amount of antigen material can be used in the vaccine. An antigen is the weak or dead virus or bacteria. The antigen is what stimulates the immune system to develop antibodies. This is what happens naturally every time you are exposed to a virus or a bacterium. It starts when you’re born and continues for your whole life.
These aluminum salts have been used in vaccines in Canada since the mid-1920s.
Aluminum is pretty common everywhere in our environment. Some examples: cast aluminum pots, cookie sheets, cars, airplanes, some antacids, baking powders, Asprin coatings, antiperspirants and tap water worldwide. It also found naturally in potatoes, tea and spinach.
It’s been estimated that each person’s average intake of aluminum is about 5 mg/day. That’s 25 times more than what you would get from using aluminum cookware. If you take an antacid, you’ll be getting about 1000 times as much aluminum as you get from your veggies.
The LD50 for aluminum sulfate is 6200 micrograms/kilogram (oral,mouse) which would be about 500 grams in an 80 kg person. Realistically, the greatest concern would be excessive use of antacids and antiperspirants and there has been some toxicity shown for daily amounts in excess of 40 mg/kg (about 3.2 g in an 80 kg person).
People are generally more worried about newborns. According to one source, in the first 6 months, a baby will receive about 4 mg of aluminum from vaccines, about 10 mg from breast milk, about 40 mg from infant formula and over 120 mg from soy-based formula.
Aluminum is eliminated from the body fairly quickly. About half in the bloodstream is eliminated within 24 hours and 75% within 2 weeks. Some does remain in the body, mostly in the bones (60%) and in the lungs (25%). About 1% remains in the brain. By adulthood, a child will have accumulated between 50-100 mg of aluminum. Most of that will have come from food.
Health Canada limits aluminum level in vaccines to no more than 1.25 mg/single human dose. That’s pretty much the same standard as the WHO and standards in Europe.
Aluminum is used in vaccines for Hepatitus A&B, DPT, etc but is not used in vaccines for flu, polio and live viral vaccines such as measles, chickenpox, mumps, etc.
Although aluminum salts are considered to be generally pretty safe, intake of high amounts can be of some concern. The amounts in vaccines are considered to be small enough to be trivial, considering other normal sources that individuals are exposed to.
These aluminum salts have been used in vaccines in Canada since the mid-1920s.
Aluminum is pretty common everywhere in our environment. Some examples: cast aluminum pots, cookie sheets, cars, airplanes, some antacids, baking powders, Asprin coatings, antiperspirants and tap water worldwide. It also found naturally in potatoes, tea and spinach.
It’s been estimated that each person’s average intake of aluminum is about 5 mg/day. That’s 25 times more than what you would get from using aluminum cookware. If you take an antacid, you’ll be getting about 1000 times as much aluminum as you get from your veggies.
The LD50 for aluminum sulfate is 6200 micrograms/kilogram (oral,mouse) which would be about 500 grams in an 80 kg person. Realistically, the greatest concern would be excessive use of antacids and antiperspirants and there has been some toxicity shown for daily amounts in excess of 40 mg/kg (about 3.2 g in an 80 kg person).
People are generally more worried about newborns. According to one source, in the first 6 months, a baby will receive about 4 mg of aluminum from vaccines, about 10 mg from breast milk, about 40 mg from infant formula and over 120 mg from soy-based formula.
Aluminum is eliminated from the body fairly quickly. About half in the bloodstream is eliminated within 24 hours and 75% within 2 weeks. Some does remain in the body, mostly in the bones (60%) and in the lungs (25%). About 1% remains in the brain. By adulthood, a child will have accumulated between 50-100 mg of aluminum. Most of that will have come from food.
Health Canada limits aluminum level in vaccines to no more than 1.25 mg/single human dose. That’s pretty much the same standard as the WHO and standards in Europe.
Aluminum is used in vaccines for Hepatitus A&B, DPT, etc but is not used in vaccines for flu, polio and live viral vaccines such as measles, chickenpox, mumps, etc.
Although aluminum salts are considered to be generally pretty safe, intake of high amounts can be of some concern. The amounts in vaccines are considered to be small enough to be trivial, considering other normal sources that individuals are exposed to.
Conversations with Libertarians - Part 4
Somehow...don't ask me how these things happen...the Facebook discussion turned to the concept of a public good. It's been interesting to see the posts from the free-market Libertarian anti-government faction.
One thing that gradually became clear early in the discussion was that few understood the meaning of "good", as in "public good". The term as used here refers to "item" or "thing". It doesn't necessarily mean that whatever we're talking about is good for society, although usually is, in some way or another. Here is an explanation of "public good". Here is a shorter explanation for those on a time budget.
But the lack of understanding of this basic economic fact was clear: So you are saying public goods are the stuff that was paid for with tax dollars, right? You say public can have feelings and emotions outside of the feelings of the individuals in the group called "public"? That is double counting. See you're missing my point. If you want to say they need to be funded by government because they were funded by government, fine. But that is circular reasoning.
<facepalm> <sigh>
Public goods are things built/developed with tax money and which are available for everyone to use, pretty much without restriction, without a direct cost to use, and available to everyone no matter where they live.
Examples are: public non-toll roads, the public education system, provincial and national parks, national defense, public health and safety, food inspection systems, public libraries, transportation networks, even, at one time, the Internet.
When I posted this, the response was: My argument is the market can and has and will supply all those things so they are not public goods.
When I mentioned libraries, this was the response: Only because someone decides to call them that. You admit yourself that a building called a library is a public good but I assume a building called a bookstore isn't. It's just an arbitrary classification that means you think it should be managed by government. But if access to reading materials or traffic free roads or any other good and service is the desire then the government is the most inefficient and the market the most productive means to that end.
My response went like this: Nonsense. A library is not a building. It may be housed in a building, but it's much more than a building. Check one out sometime. You'll see. A bookstore isn't built and paid for from tax revenue. Bookstores sell things. Libraries don't. Libraries aren't "managed" by governments. In my experience, they are managed by independent volunteer boards, certainly here in BC they are. They receive tax-based funding to provide a public good. And they do that much, much cheaper than a private business could which would have to make a profit. You really should learn more about libraries.
The "discussion" went on for some time, my point being that some things (goods) are best provided by government through tax revenue at least partly because there was little profit incentive for private business to provide such goods. There are other reasons as well but you'll have to read the information from the link provided above.
The Libertarian view was, so far as I could see, for no role for government, nothing should be public goods, everything should be private goods, private ownership.... and so it went.
There was more...much more. About roads: No. they aren't a public good. They are just long and thin and that confuses people. Roads are property like anything else. Every good reigns down benefits on more than just the purchaser. My neighbours garden is beautiful and I enjoy the view. It doesn't make it a public good because of my enjoyment of it. "Good" implies someone values it. Someone is an individual. The public can't value something, that is anthropomorphic metaphor.
And my response: Your neighbour's garden wasn't developed and paid for with tax dollars. It isn't a public good, by definition. I'm glad you like it, but it's not a public good. The use of the term "good" here is a synonym for a "thing" or an "item". A public park, built and paid for with tax $$ is a public good... a public "thing". Public goods are generally developed because sufficient numbers of tax payers, though their government, decide that something is worthwhile. Often because private enterprise has no interest in providing that something because there isn't a profit motivation available to them. Anthropomorphism refers to attributing human feelings to inanimate objects or to non-human organisms. Since the public is made up of people, it's entirely appropriate to argue that the public can value something. Just go see how much a city park is enjoyed by the public on a hot summer's day. The "public" is just a collective (oooops, "collective", that nasty socialist word...) of individuals, all liking something together. Have you ever been to a park? Did you like it? Or did the fact that it was created using tax $$ completely sour the experience for you?
Just for interest, there are other categories of "goods" - private goods, which are easily exchanged through markets, common-property goods, which aren't easily exchanged through markets and where government is often called upon to regulate (air, water), and near-public goods.
The "common-property " goods are another interesting case because this is where we have so many problems related to overuse (fisheries) and pollution (oceans, lakes, air, water). Since they are not owned by anyone directly, nobody seems to look after them properly. There was a term that appeared some years ago: "The Tragedy of the Commons" that describes the failure to look after common-property goods.
One thing that gradually became clear early in the discussion was that few understood the meaning of "good", as in "public good". The term as used here refers to "item" or "thing". It doesn't necessarily mean that whatever we're talking about is good for society, although usually is, in some way or another. Here is an explanation of "public good". Here is a shorter explanation for those on a time budget.
But the lack of understanding of this basic economic fact was clear: So you are saying public goods are the stuff that was paid for with tax dollars, right? You say public can have feelings and emotions outside of the feelings of the individuals in the group called "public"? That is double counting. See you're missing my point. If you want to say they need to be funded by government because they were funded by government, fine. But that is circular reasoning.
<facepalm> <sigh>
Public goods are things built/developed with tax money and which are available for everyone to use, pretty much without restriction, without a direct cost to use, and available to everyone no matter where they live.
Examples are: public non-toll roads, the public education system, provincial and national parks, national defense, public health and safety, food inspection systems, public libraries, transportation networks, even, at one time, the Internet.
When I posted this, the response was: My argument is the market can and has and will supply all those things so they are not public goods.
When I mentioned libraries, this was the response: Only because someone decides to call them that. You admit yourself that a building called a library is a public good but I assume a building called a bookstore isn't. It's just an arbitrary classification that means you think it should be managed by government. But if access to reading materials or traffic free roads or any other good and service is the desire then the government is the most inefficient and the market the most productive means to that end.
My response went like this: Nonsense. A library is not a building. It may be housed in a building, but it's much more than a building. Check one out sometime. You'll see. A bookstore isn't built and paid for from tax revenue. Bookstores sell things. Libraries don't. Libraries aren't "managed" by governments. In my experience, they are managed by independent volunteer boards, certainly here in BC they are. They receive tax-based funding to provide a public good. And they do that much, much cheaper than a private business could which would have to make a profit. You really should learn more about libraries.
The "discussion" went on for some time, my point being that some things (goods) are best provided by government through tax revenue at least partly because there was little profit incentive for private business to provide such goods. There are other reasons as well but you'll have to read the information from the link provided above.
The Libertarian view was, so far as I could see, for no role for government, nothing should be public goods, everything should be private goods, private ownership.... and so it went.
There was more...much more. About roads: No. they aren't a public good. They are just long and thin and that confuses people. Roads are property like anything else. Every good reigns down benefits on more than just the purchaser. My neighbours garden is beautiful and I enjoy the view. It doesn't make it a public good because of my enjoyment of it. "Good" implies someone values it. Someone is an individual. The public can't value something, that is anthropomorphic metaphor.
And my response: Your neighbour's garden wasn't developed and paid for with tax dollars. It isn't a public good, by definition. I'm glad you like it, but it's not a public good. The use of the term "good" here is a synonym for a "thing" or an "item". A public park, built and paid for with tax $$ is a public good... a public "thing". Public goods are generally developed because sufficient numbers of tax payers, though their government, decide that something is worthwhile. Often because private enterprise has no interest in providing that something because there isn't a profit motivation available to them. Anthropomorphism refers to attributing human feelings to inanimate objects or to non-human organisms. Since the public is made up of people, it's entirely appropriate to argue that the public can value something. Just go see how much a city park is enjoyed by the public on a hot summer's day. The "public" is just a collective (oooops, "collective", that nasty socialist word...) of individuals, all liking something together. Have you ever been to a park? Did you like it? Or did the fact that it was created using tax $$ completely sour the experience for you?
Just for interest, there are other categories of "goods" - private goods, which are easily exchanged through markets, common-property goods, which aren't easily exchanged through markets and where government is often called upon to regulate (air, water), and near-public goods.
The "common-property " goods are another interesting case because this is where we have so many problems related to overuse (fisheries) and pollution (oceans, lakes, air, water). Since they are not owned by anyone directly, nobody seems to look after them properly. There was a term that appeared some years ago: "The Tragedy of the Commons" that describes the failure to look after common-property goods.
Sunday, December 07, 2014
The Anti-Anti-Vax - Part 1 - Mercury
Mercury has not been in most vaccines for many years. Currently, only the multi-dose flu vaccines and the Hepatitis B vaccines have any mercury-based preservative in them at all. However, because of the recurring assertions that somehow mercury in vaccines has some link with autism, it’s worth taking one more look at this additive.
One sad fact about this is how one fraudulent story convinced many people that vaccines might not be safe. That view exists today. The short version is displayed here.
The kind of mercury at the center of all the furor is ethyl mercury. It’s NOT elemental Mercury (the silvery liquid we might remember from high school chemistry). It’s NOT methyl mercury either. The difference is important.
The actual additive that was used in some vaccines starting in the 1930s was thimerosal. It was added as a preservative to make sure that the vaccine didn’t contain mold or bacteria. Thimerosal is made of ethyl mercuric chloride, thiosalicylic acid, sodium hydroxide, and ethanol and is more properly called sodium ethylmercuric thiosalicylate, C9H9HgNaO2S. Once in the body, it breaks down rapidly to release ethyl mercury.
In the body, ethyl mercury has a half-life of about 18 days so it disappears from body tissues quite rapidly. In this way, it behaves differently from methyl mercury.
Methyl mercury, on the other hand, IS serious stuff. It accumulates in body tissue and can cause neurological damage. One classic case happened in Japan in 1956. Waste from a chemical plant was dumped into Minamata Bay. It accumulated in fish and shellfish, which people ate. By 2001, almost 1800 people had died, many others were seriously ill and damaged. By 2004, almost $100 million had been paid in compensation. Methyl mercury is quite common in the environment and if you eat fish, you’re taking on some methyl mercury along with your Omega 3 fatty acids.
Methyl mercury is not and has never been, in vaccines. Only ethyl mercury, from thimerosal, used to be in many vaccines and is now only used in multi-dose versions of flu and Hep B vaccine.
Thimerosal has many accepted uses as an antiseptic and antifungal agent. It has been marketed as Merthiolate, an antiseptic that older people might remember. It is used in a variety of products such as antivenins, nasal preparations and tattoo inks.
Over health-risk concerns, thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines that contained it starting in 1999. At this point, only one variety of the flu vaccine and the Hep B vaccine still contain Thimerosal.
Since 1999, continued research has failed to find any link between thimerosal, ethyl mercury and autism in children.
In BC, no routine childhood vaccine has contained thimerosal since 2001. Autism rates have continued to rise, even though mercury was removed from vaccines a decade and a half ago. All of this contributes to the conviction that there is no link between mercury in vaccines and autism or any other condition.
[Update] - I received a comment from "Anonymous" today. His or her main contention was that I said that there couldn't be a link between Autism and Mercury because mercury had been removed from vaccines in Canada and then that I proceeded to mention that two vaccines still had mercury in them. So my argument was invalid. Q.E.D.
Unfortunately, Anonymous didn't read carefully enough. What I "actually" said was that only two vaccines in Canada still contained thimersol (an ethyl mercury compound), namely the multi-dose version of the flu vaccine and the Hep B vaccine. I further went on to say that "...no routine childhood vaccine has contained thimersol since 2001." Neither the multi-dose flu vaccine nor the Hep B vaccine are "routine childhood vaccines".
Note also that there is a single-dose version of the flu vaccine that does not contain thimersol, but neither the single or multi-dose version is routinely given to children.
And yet Autism rates continue to increase. So the argument IS valid. Sorry Anonymous. And, by the way. I have the guts to identify myself when I make my comments and write my blog. Some reason why YOU can't?
Conversations with Libertarians - Part 3
The depression/recession of 1920-21. You probably don't remember that one, being all consumed with concern and anger about the most recent crisis, but it's apparently an important one in the minds of Libertarians. And I would have never thought it was an event I needed to know anything about. How wrong I was, apparently....
My FB Libertarian buddy enlightened me: You should read his book on the subject. He talks a lot about the recession in 1922? No one remembers it because it was sharp and very little government intervention was taken so people sorted it out in six months, without government.
It's not my natural proclivity to pass up instructional moments, for me or anyone else (must be a professional instinct), so with a few keystrokes I was able to review some relevant material. What I found seemed at some variance with what I'd been told.
First, I discovered that these notions of "short" [sharp?] and "without government intervention" are the views of the so-called Austrian school, who claim that such recessions can end quickly and without government intervention. The ubiquitous Mr Woods seems to have cast his lot with this bunch. Quelle surprise. Not surprisingly, there are economists who disagree with such simplistic notions. and I quote some of their points below. However, in brief, I found:
1) The recession wasn't particularly "sharp". It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921 (18 months) and is considered about medium-length as recessions go.
2) There WAS government intervention. The USA changed presidents (from Wilson to Harding), the tax base was expanded and the Fed lowered the discount rate. That certainly seemed like government intervention to me and I said as much when I posted back.
My Libertarian buddy was not swayed by this one little bit. Amid the flurry of exchanged views, the main contention remained: Yes but compare it to every recession since and we see that it was over faster because of less government meddling. The recession was caused by government intervention as well.
It was my turn to be unconvinced, so I passed on some alternative economic views on the matter: The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or for a period of 18 months. This was a long recession by the standards of the post-1945 US business cycle, where the average duration of US recessions was just 11 months. The average duration of recessions in peacetime from 1854 to 1919 was 22 months, and the average duration of recessions from 1919 to 1945 was 18 months (Knoop 2010: 13). Therefore the recession of 1920–1921 was not even short by contemporary standards: it was of average length.
And then there is this little matter: The US economy in fact had significant government intervention in 1921: it had a central bank changing interest rates. The Fed lowered rates and had a role in ending this recession: in April and May 1921, Federal Reserve member banks dropped their rates to 6.5% or 6%. In November 1921, there were further falls in discount rates: rates fell to 4.5% in the Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and to 5% or 5.5% in other reserve banks (D’Arista 1994: 62). By June 1922, the discount rate was lowered again to 4%, and the recovery gained momentum.
There were other points, but you get the picture. My local Libertarian continued with the central theme, however: The way they measure what is a depression has changed and is arbitrary anyway. The point is intervention is the cause of the bubble/bust and ongoing depression. Laissez faire will solve and prevent the business cycle.
The issue remains unresolved.
My FB Libertarian buddy enlightened me: You should read his book on the subject. He talks a lot about the recession in 1922? No one remembers it because it was sharp and very little government intervention was taken so people sorted it out in six months, without government.
It's not my natural proclivity to pass up instructional moments, for me or anyone else (must be a professional instinct), so with a few keystrokes I was able to review some relevant material. What I found seemed at some variance with what I'd been told.
First, I discovered that these notions of "short" [sharp?] and "without government intervention" are the views of the so-called Austrian school, who claim that such recessions can end quickly and without government intervention. The ubiquitous Mr Woods seems to have cast his lot with this bunch. Quelle surprise. Not surprisingly, there are economists who disagree with such simplistic notions. and I quote some of their points below. However, in brief, I found:
1) The recession wasn't particularly "sharp". It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921 (18 months) and is considered about medium-length as recessions go.
2) There WAS government intervention. The USA changed presidents (from Wilson to Harding), the tax base was expanded and the Fed lowered the discount rate. That certainly seemed like government intervention to me and I said as much when I posted back.
My Libertarian buddy was not swayed by this one little bit. Amid the flurry of exchanged views, the main contention remained: Yes but compare it to every recession since and we see that it was over faster because of less government meddling. The recession was caused by government intervention as well.
It was my turn to be unconvinced, so I passed on some alternative economic views on the matter: The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or for a period of 18 months. This was a long recession by the standards of the post-1945 US business cycle, where the average duration of US recessions was just 11 months. The average duration of recessions in peacetime from 1854 to 1919 was 22 months, and the average duration of recessions from 1919 to 1945 was 18 months (Knoop 2010: 13). Therefore the recession of 1920–1921 was not even short by contemporary standards: it was of average length.
And then there is this little matter: The US economy in fact had significant government intervention in 1921: it had a central bank changing interest rates. The Fed lowered rates and had a role in ending this recession: in April and May 1921, Federal Reserve member banks dropped their rates to 6.5% or 6%. In November 1921, there were further falls in discount rates: rates fell to 4.5% in the Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and to 5% or 5.5% in other reserve banks (D’Arista 1994: 62). By June 1922, the discount rate was lowered again to 4%, and the recovery gained momentum.
There were other points, but you get the picture. My local Libertarian continued with the central theme, however: The way they measure what is a depression has changed and is arbitrary anyway. The point is intervention is the cause of the bubble/bust and ongoing depression. Laissez faire will solve and prevent the business cycle.
The issue remains unresolved.
Conversations with Libertarians - Part 2
Because of the magic of Facebook, I managed to be having a concurrent "discussion", with the same self-styled Libertarian, about another topic. Still connected with "GOVERNMENT MEDDLING" and 'INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE MARKET", but there you go. Some people have a one-track mind....
I came across an article in The Economist the other day and an article called "All It Needs Is Love". The basic premise was that Capitalism has been damaged by Bankers and <sshhhh> people are starting to notice. So I posted the article, guessing, correctly, that some of my favourite free market fundamentalists would take up the thread and not leave me alone. I was right.
First, I was educated about a few of life's little realities:
Yes it is for sure. But the banking industry is a wholly regulated and hampered enterprise. That is the reason it is a tool to damage wealth and civilisation.
It's a myth that they are unregulated. It is one of the most regulated industries in history. Along with medicine.
I responded, protesting that history clearly showed that any time regulations or appropriate oversight was taken away, even just a little bit, the financial boffins managed to get themselves, and sometimes the rest of the world's economy, into trouble. I was thinking, of course, of the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Law in the USA which was supposed to keep retail banking and investment banking separate, presumably to keep the boys out of trouble. One only needs to realize that the Law was repealed in 1999 and by 2007.... well, you're old enough to remember Bear Sterns, Bank of America, Citibank.... Nearly tanked the whole world's economy. Here it is late 2014 and we still aren't completely over it. My correspondee was having nothing of that line of thinking:
Regulations aren't removed. They are messed with to keep it as bureaucratic and confusing so that any one is basically in violation of something at all times. Also both those industries are completely infused with the government credit matrix. It's not deregulation that brings the problem. It's over regulation and price controls and regime uncertainty that leads to malinvestment.
I was then introduced to the doctrine according to Tom Woods. Not a person of my acquaintance, but I'm always happy to meet new people..... Mr Woods is definitely a Libertarian. Wikipedia says so, that's how I know, and the article being used to intruduce me to the prophet was: Mr Woods claimed that the Glass-Steagall Law had nothing to do with the most recent financial crisis. Mr Woods is an author and a historian, but I was unable to find his economics credentials. But these days, any opinion is a valid opinion, and Mr Woods seems to be making money giving vent to his.
His basic premise seems to shoot in several directions at once. Obviously, he rails against any government action that messes with the free market. Alternatively, he claims that lack of regulation wasn't what brought on the 2007-8 crisis, it was stifling regulation, or something, back with the recession of 1920-1, or that Canada did better during the last crisis because we didn't have Glass-Steagall, but that couldn't be because we were so much better regulated, or something about a government guarantee of deposits... it was just so confusing.
The mention of "government guarantee of deposits" and Canada in the same sentence caught my attention so I wondered if Mr Woods actually understood how the CDIC worked. He must have been waiting at home to read my words because, within a short time, he responded that he assumed that I was talking about the FDIC and that if I didn't understand how this was a government intervention, then it was obvious that it was I who didn't understand how it worked.
I know it's probably nit-picking, but I didn't make the claim that it wasn't "government intervention". I used his phrase: "government bailout". It's definitely a form of intervention, that nasty habit of making companies do something they wouldn't otherwise do, but if you understand how CDIC works (and FDIC - which gets NO Congressional appropriations), then almost any fool can see it's NOT a government bailout.
Actually, I think the real problem here is the word "government". Libertarians just go all wonky any time they hear/see/use that word and it doesn't seem to matter what other words appear in the same sentence. It's ALL bad and ALL evil. <sigh>
I can't wait to tell my favourite local Libertarian that I actually conversed with Mr Woods. I'm sure he'll be impressed. Coming up: Tom Woods and the "depression" of 1920-21.
I came across an article in The Economist the other day and an article called "All It Needs Is Love". The basic premise was that Capitalism has been damaged by Bankers and <sshhhh> people are starting to notice. So I posted the article, guessing, correctly, that some of my favourite free market fundamentalists would take up the thread and not leave me alone. I was right.
First, I was educated about a few of life's little realities:
Yes it is for sure. But the banking industry is a wholly regulated and hampered enterprise. That is the reason it is a tool to damage wealth and civilisation.
It's a myth that they are unregulated. It is one of the most regulated industries in history. Along with medicine.
I responded, protesting that history clearly showed that any time regulations or appropriate oversight was taken away, even just a little bit, the financial boffins managed to get themselves, and sometimes the rest of the world's economy, into trouble. I was thinking, of course, of the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Law in the USA which was supposed to keep retail banking and investment banking separate, presumably to keep the boys out of trouble. One only needs to realize that the Law was repealed in 1999 and by 2007.... well, you're old enough to remember Bear Sterns, Bank of America, Citibank.... Nearly tanked the whole world's economy. Here it is late 2014 and we still aren't completely over it. My correspondee was having nothing of that line of thinking:
Regulations aren't removed. They are messed with to keep it as bureaucratic and confusing so that any one is basically in violation of something at all times. Also both those industries are completely infused with the government credit matrix. It's not deregulation that brings the problem. It's over regulation and price controls and regime uncertainty that leads to malinvestment.
His basic premise seems to shoot in several directions at once. Obviously, he rails against any government action that messes with the free market. Alternatively, he claims that lack of regulation wasn't what brought on the 2007-8 crisis, it was stifling regulation, or something, back with the recession of 1920-1, or that Canada did better during the last crisis because we didn't have Glass-Steagall, but that couldn't be because we were so much better regulated, or something about a government guarantee of deposits... it was just so confusing.
The mention of "government guarantee of deposits" and Canada in the same sentence caught my attention so I wondered if Mr Woods actually understood how the CDIC worked. He must have been waiting at home to read my words because, within a short time, he responded that he assumed that I was talking about the FDIC and that if I didn't understand how this was a government intervention, then it was obvious that it was I who didn't understand how it worked.
I know it's probably nit-picking, but I didn't make the claim that it wasn't "government intervention". I used his phrase: "government bailout". It's definitely a form of intervention, that nasty habit of making companies do something they wouldn't otherwise do, but if you understand how CDIC works (and FDIC - which gets NO Congressional appropriations), then almost any fool can see it's NOT a government bailout.
Actually, I think the real problem here is the word "government". Libertarians just go all wonky any time they hear/see/use that word and it doesn't seem to matter what other words appear in the same sentence. It's ALL bad and ALL evil. <sigh>
I can't wait to tell my favourite local Libertarian that I actually conversed with Mr Woods. I'm sure he'll be impressed. Coming up: Tom Woods and the "depression" of 1920-21.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Conversations with Libertarians - Part 1
I must say that Facebook discussions have done at least one thing for me, and that is to introduce me to some people with some strange...er... divergent... points of view. Over the past few weeks, I've exchanged arguments with climate change science deniers, anti-vaccine alarmists and general conspiracy theorists and, most recently, Libertarians. In a perverse sort of way, it's been kind of fun arguing with them. Very similar to arguing with a wall. Or a pet dog. You're never sure if your words connected in any real sense.
Libertarians have what could be quite an understandable point of view. They see a limited role for government in society. The smaller the government, the better, so far as they're concerned. But what happens, because of their intense dislike of government (still, understandable, as most of us would agree), is that every time there is even a hint of government involvement, even a slight suggestion, even if it's one they made up, there's lots of arm waving, finger pointing and shouting "GOVERNMENT MEDDLING" and "INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE MARKET" and such like. It's all rather exciting, and amusing.
My most recent exchange began innocently enough. The person I was exchanging views with is an acknowledged anarchist. I think he actually believes it, at least sort of. He also sits firmly in the science denialist camp and seems to be a Libertarian as well. I'm almost certain that some government civil servant must have short-sheeted his bed once. What else could generate such antipathy? I digress....
We were exchanging polite comments about financial institutions that are/were "too big to fail". We had even agreed that letting bad firms fail would be a good thing. Weed the bad ones out. Punish them for poor business decisions. We were all smiles and fuzzy feelings in our unanimity. It doesn't happen often between us. I commented that this was a great idea as long as they didn't take everyone else with them and then made some reference to what about account holders, lost bank accounts and such. And would we still have CDIC (Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation) to insure bank accounts or would that be government intervention in the so-called free market.
The response was: "Those things would be returned to the market where if they didn't supply benefit to their customers they would fail and get out of the way for someone else. Banking deposit insurance is a cost that should be paid by the depositer not all taxpayers. It's hilarious because that is a direct tax grab for corporate banks. The exact thing leftists think they are against."
I have to admit I was nearly speechless...er...typeless... but only for a moment. Surely not the CDIC? A leftist tax grab? Ever grateful for my (slow, free market) Internet connection, a minute or so returned me an answer.
The facts are these: The CDIC is a Crown Corporation. It's entire operation is funded by "premiums" paid by member institutions (ie: banks). I even looked at their last Income statement. No doubt about it. It's basically a Crown Corporation masquerading as an insurance company. I hastened to enlighten my fellow debater.
My correspondee replied: "It doesn't matter if the taxpayer pays the premium. It is a fee. The tax payer pays for government itself.
Now I was getting concerned, partly because I wasn't even sure what his point was. In my mind, it matters who pays. And I do understand what it is taxpayers do.... So let's use an analogy. The government insists that all vehicles be insured by their owners. So we grumble and wander off to purchase an insurance policy. In most provinces, we pay our premiums to some private insurance company. We get into an accident. It's judged to be mostly our fault. Rather than having to pay out of our own pockets, our insurance company pays. The CDIC works in much the same way, except they don't bail out the bank, they make sure the bank's customers don't lose everything, at least within certain limits. According to this guy,though, that's "government meddling", presumably because the government made us take out insurance, I guess. See the logic of that one? Yeah. Me too.
Libertarians have what could be quite an understandable point of view. They see a limited role for government in society. The smaller the government, the better, so far as they're concerned. But what happens, because of their intense dislike of government (still, understandable, as most of us would agree), is that every time there is even a hint of government involvement, even a slight suggestion, even if it's one they made up, there's lots of arm waving, finger pointing and shouting "GOVERNMENT MEDDLING" and "INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE MARKET" and such like. It's all rather exciting, and amusing.
My most recent exchange began innocently enough. The person I was exchanging views with is an acknowledged anarchist. I think he actually believes it, at least sort of. He also sits firmly in the science denialist camp and seems to be a Libertarian as well. I'm almost certain that some government civil servant must have short-sheeted his bed once. What else could generate such antipathy? I digress....
We were exchanging polite comments about financial institutions that are/were "too big to fail". We had even agreed that letting bad firms fail would be a good thing. Weed the bad ones out. Punish them for poor business decisions. We were all smiles and fuzzy feelings in our unanimity. It doesn't happen often between us. I commented that this was a great idea as long as they didn't take everyone else with them and then made some reference to what about account holders, lost bank accounts and such. And would we still have CDIC (Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation) to insure bank accounts or would that be government intervention in the so-called free market.
The response was: "Those things would be returned to the market where if they didn't supply benefit to their customers they would fail and get out of the way for someone else. Banking deposit insurance is a cost that should be paid by the depositer not all taxpayers. It's hilarious because that is a direct tax grab for corporate banks. The exact thing leftists think they are against."
I have to admit I was nearly speechless...er...typeless... but only for a moment. Surely not the CDIC? A leftist tax grab? Ever grateful for my (slow, free market) Internet connection, a minute or so returned me an answer.
The facts are these: The CDIC is a Crown Corporation. It's entire operation is funded by "premiums" paid by member institutions (ie: banks). I even looked at their last Income statement. No doubt about it. It's basically a Crown Corporation masquerading as an insurance company. I hastened to enlighten my fellow debater.
My correspondee replied: "It doesn't matter if the taxpayer pays the premium. It is a fee. The tax payer pays for government itself.
Now I was getting concerned, partly because I wasn't even sure what his point was. In my mind, it matters who pays. And I do understand what it is taxpayers do.... So let's use an analogy. The government insists that all vehicles be insured by their owners. So we grumble and wander off to purchase an insurance policy. In most provinces, we pay our premiums to some private insurance company. We get into an accident. It's judged to be mostly our fault. Rather than having to pay out of our own pockets, our insurance company pays. The CDIC works in much the same way, except they don't bail out the bank, they make sure the bank's customers don't lose everything, at least within certain limits. According to this guy,though, that's "government meddling", presumably because the government made us take out insurance, I guess. See the logic of that one? Yeah. Me too.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
They're From the Government, and We Don't Trust Any of Them
It's probably the small subset of FB posters that I've been talking to recently, but I've decided that there is sizable number of otherwise ordinary folk out there who don't trust anything connected to government. I'll go further: belief in conspiracies abounds.
If the topic is climate change (and action necessary to deal with it), someone will inevitably mention that any climate action is really intended to expand the role of government, deny individual freedoms, impose massive new taxes and will lead to some kind of oppressive world control.
Someone will often mention "chemtrails". Before moving to this part of the country, I had never heard of this conspiracy, but all you have to is look up. Waaaay up. Those trails behind passenger jets? They are full of mind-controlling chemicals designed to keep the populace docile. And here I'd thought all along they were just vapour trails. Who knew?
If the topic is GMOs, the conversation will quickly come to include someone's comment that it's mostly a government plot, designed to cede control (and massive profits) to corporate buddies.
If the topic is vaccines (and here we can include Big Pharma and the entire sweep of the medical care system), there will always be someone pointing to some "article" exposing decades of massive cover up, dangerous additives, the "reality" of sub-optimal efficacy, and the like. To what purpose, I've started to wonder?
There are many, many, many reasons not to trust "government" actions. One would need only to emerge from one's cave very occasionally to be quickly aware of some decision-making travesty or another. But I draw the line well before accepting the existence of massive conspiracies to dupe the public, hide test results, poison little children and enrich multinational corporations. Well, perhaps the last is true....
First, although it's fashionable to describe "government" as some faceless entity capable of autonomous actions, the reality is that all of government is made up of people who are, more or less, your neighbours. Real people, with children, at least some morals, a conscience, and (mostly) good intentions. Sure, individuals screw up occasionally, but they never seem to get away with it for very long.
Secondly, although everyone likes to complain about the size of government, those numbers can confer some sense of security. Do you really think that any secret could be kept, for very long, between so many people in such a large organization? Even if every person in a government department could be co-opted into some grand scheme, how long would it be before some maverick whistle-blower spilled the beans. Even in an organization as secret as the US military, there have been massive exposes n recent years. And readers will have heard of Wiki Leaks. In this day and age, nothing stays secret for very long.
And finally, for now, keep in mind how risk averse most people in government departments really are. If there is a chance, no matter how insignificant, that something could pose a hazard to the public, most government operatives will err far on the safe side of caution. They know perfectly well that their asses are on the line should anything unpleasant happen. As an example, I was talking to an environmental scientist friend of mine the other day. She was telling me about a situation locally where some water wells were contaminated and unfit for use. One problem, among a list of several, was cadmium, possibly contamination from a nearby rail siding. The thing is, she said, is that the "safe" level for cadmium in drinking water is so low that almost any place around here would exceed it, just because of the kind of rocks and mineralization we have. I'm pretty convinced that most government regulators are terribly risk averse to the point of paralysis. That's why I don't spend a lot of time worrying about government conspiracies.
So put away your tin hat. There may be less to worry about than some people believe.
If the topic is climate change (and action necessary to deal with it), someone will inevitably mention that any climate action is really intended to expand the role of government, deny individual freedoms, impose massive new taxes and will lead to some kind of oppressive world control.
Someone will often mention "chemtrails". Before moving to this part of the country, I had never heard of this conspiracy, but all you have to is look up. Waaaay up. Those trails behind passenger jets? They are full of mind-controlling chemicals designed to keep the populace docile. And here I'd thought all along they were just vapour trails. Who knew?
If the topic is GMOs, the conversation will quickly come to include someone's comment that it's mostly a government plot, designed to cede control (and massive profits) to corporate buddies.
If the topic is vaccines (and here we can include Big Pharma and the entire sweep of the medical care system), there will always be someone pointing to some "article" exposing decades of massive cover up, dangerous additives, the "reality" of sub-optimal efficacy, and the like. To what purpose, I've started to wonder?
There are many, many, many reasons not to trust "government" actions. One would need only to emerge from one's cave very occasionally to be quickly aware of some decision-making travesty or another. But I draw the line well before accepting the existence of massive conspiracies to dupe the public, hide test results, poison little children and enrich multinational corporations. Well, perhaps the last is true....
First, although it's fashionable to describe "government" as some faceless entity capable of autonomous actions, the reality is that all of government is made up of people who are, more or less, your neighbours. Real people, with children, at least some morals, a conscience, and (mostly) good intentions. Sure, individuals screw up occasionally, but they never seem to get away with it for very long.
Secondly, although everyone likes to complain about the size of government, those numbers can confer some sense of security. Do you really think that any secret could be kept, for very long, between so many people in such a large organization? Even if every person in a government department could be co-opted into some grand scheme, how long would it be before some maverick whistle-blower spilled the beans. Even in an organization as secret as the US military, there have been massive exposes n recent years. And readers will have heard of Wiki Leaks. In this day and age, nothing stays secret for very long.
And finally, for now, keep in mind how risk averse most people in government departments really are. If there is a chance, no matter how insignificant, that something could pose a hazard to the public, most government operatives will err far on the safe side of caution. They know perfectly well that their asses are on the line should anything unpleasant happen. As an example, I was talking to an environmental scientist friend of mine the other day. She was telling me about a situation locally where some water wells were contaminated and unfit for use. One problem, among a list of several, was cadmium, possibly contamination from a nearby rail siding. The thing is, she said, is that the "safe" level for cadmium in drinking water is so low that almost any place around here would exceed it, just because of the kind of rocks and mineralization we have. I'm pretty convinced that most government regulators are terribly risk averse to the point of paralysis. That's why I don't spend a lot of time worrying about government conspiracies.
So put away your tin hat. There may be less to worry about than some people believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)