My E-mail to CTV's "Ask Us"

To Whom it may Concern,

Though I was unable to catch the "Ask Us" question on March 16, 2007 that Joy Malbon was responding to, her answer contained statements that were at the very least misleading, if not outright wrong.

First she said that every U.S. President has been a Republican or Democrat since 1776 except for George Washington and the "accidental president", John Tyler (a Whig). She failed to mention that Millard Fillmore was also elected as a Whig. Prior to Abraham Lincoln, today's Republican Party didn't exist, though another party now referred to [by historians] as the "Democratic-Republican Party" elected four Presidents under that [the Republican] name. Also, John Adams considered himself a Federalist, and thus was neither a Republican or a Democrat.

Then she went on to describe the candidates vying for the Republican and Democratic nominations in the current Presidential election. I was surprised she decided CTV is empowered to act as a "benevolent censor" by failing to mention any Republican candidates other than John McCain or Rudy Guliani. Even though her U.S. media counterparts are also guilty of selective reporting, at least they have also generally acknowledge Mitt Romney's Republican Presidential candidacy. Several other competent Republicans and Democrats, that have and will be ignored by the U.S. news media, are already registered with the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) as Presidential candidates, have and will be ignored by CTV as well.

The choice - Tweedledum or Tweedledee?

With so few "legitimate" choices being presented to the public in [elections] by the press and network news media, old media should accept their complicity in the poor caliber of leadership the electorate are left with - Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

Such a lack of thoroughness and accuracy belies the increasing mistrust of the public in old media, and their willingness to rely on independent new media via the Internet.

Sincerely,
Al Cruikshank

Global warming.

Some believe that all truth and reality are subjective. This is a false belief. Truth does not care if you choose to ignore it. No amount of unbelief in the law of gravity is going to change the consequences of jumping off a cliff.

Well, in science you better not call something a truth that is only rooted in a philosophy or belief, no matter how authoritative the source.

Years ago, a church messed around with the domain of astronomy by pronouncing that the earth was the center of the universe. Being as this church used its authority to impose its dogma on the state, people suffered. Those who publicly challenged this dogma were even branded as heretics, and were persecuted for their beliefs.

Nowadays, many scientists are calling anthropogenic global warming, "an inconvenient truth." Some have even advocated silencing heretics who challenge this "truth." Most of these same scientists wish to use the power of the state to reverse the alleged consequences of this "truth." Sounds like dogma to me. Sounds like their proposed prescriptions might be worse than the illness.

However, giving these scientists the benefit of the doubt I ask, "why not adapt?" Here in Canada, we are liable to have a net benefit from global warming. More arable land, an open northwest passage, and a more moderate climate would be welcome by many a Canadian and tourist alike. Also, needing less fuel to heat our homes may result in cleaner air.

Most animals can adapt too. Some won't. My thoughts drift to a photo of a bunch of "stranded" polar bears on an iceberg. Its not like polar bears haven't ended up on icebergs before. If some bears are so dumb they don't know when to get off, maybe they deserve to be removed from the gene pool.

In a future blog, I'll discuss a legitimate place for dogma.

A New Dark Age?

"In America today, each faction's "truths" are defined by the faction's dogma or ideology. Each faction bans factual analysis that it doesn't want to hear. This is as true within the universities as it is at political rallies. The old liberal notion that "we shall follow the truth wherever it may lead" has long departed from America. Think tanks reflect the views of the donors. Studies are no longer independent of their financing. In America, truth has become partisan."

Equally applicable to other Western democracies, Paul Craig Robert's complete column is linked below:

America Enters a New Dark Age of Dogma

Time's Person of the Year.

FROM DRUDGE REPORT:

**EXCLUSIVE** 7:38 PM ET... YOU were named TIME magazine 'Person of the Year' Saturday for the explosive growth and influence of user-generated Internet content such as 'blogs', video-file sharing site YouTube and social network MySpace... You -- YES, YOU -- beat out candidates including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China's President Hu Jintao, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi... YOU, YOU, YOU.... IT'S YOU!

Cool. I knew I'd be famous one day.

Ephemeral security.

I rent a basement suite where I live, and will be moving to a new one in a few days. My impending move has got me thinking that private property rights are meaningless if you can't own land.

Living in our consumer driven society, I have acquired much stuff over the past seven years. However, I found myself looking at the prospect of not being able to find comparable space at a price I could afford. Thus, I must divest myself of some of my possessions in order to fit into a new location. That's why the acquisition of wealth will not motivate a homeless person. What you can't fit on your back (or, if you're lucky, in your car), you can't possess. Of course property values and rent can change. Living in the city "on the grid" so to speak, you are at the mercy of a utility company to provide heat, power and water. So you work. You work to live, to hold onto that which you have.

In Canada, our Constitution does not contain any rights to private property. Some may say that those rights exist in practice anyway. However, even if you "own" property, the government has the right to tax it based on its value.

So the widowed grandmother must sell her property to pay the tax on it. Its not like there is a little spigot in her house she can turn to cash in on the speculative real estate market she's become a victim of. That why property tax is an oxymoron. It isn't your property if you have to keep paying somebody else for the right to keep it.

On voting.

I am frequently frustrated with how often we are required to make important decisions without all the facts. A prime example is in politics. When you vote for a candidate, frequently you know less about who they are than you know about an actor from the role they play in a movie. (I suppose that's how a guy like Arnold Schwartzenegger gets elected.) Information you are likely to get about "major" (i.e. media anointed) candidates is manufactured and packaged to fit polls and focus groups. Other candidates lucky enough to be mentioned by the media, are made to fit a two dimensional caricature that allows you to dismiss them as "not credible." The most credible and sincere politicians I've met prefer to sidestep the P.R. machine (often because they can't afford one), and will try to communicate with you as directly as possible. Blogs are good for that. If you must vote for someone you don't know, look beyond the image.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” -John Quincy Adams

Al-truism kickoff

Discernment of truth is one of the most coveted of spiritual gifts. The morally-relativistic mind is "driven with the wind and tossed", has no rudder, and no stars or compass to navigate by.

Rest assured, I am convinced absolute truths exist. The challenge is in their recognition. I dedicate this blog to the the discernment of truth from error.