Canada Day and Litter

It's Canada day, and while most people would write about Canada's ethnic diversity, or scenic beauty, my mind turns to thoughts of litter. Not because Canada has a lot of litter, which it really doesn't, but because of a road trip in the summer of 1972.

It was my first time driving across Canada, and I was going East, from B.C. to Quebec. I had been away from Canada for three three years, living in Sierra Leone, where they have even less litter than Canada. There were no Tim Horton's drive thru's in Sierra Leone, and little or no excess packaging. In fact almost no packaging of any kind. If you bought a watch, you bought only a watch, no case. There was nothing to throw away after any purchase, not even the price tag. Actually deciding on the price would have taken most of the effort in making the purchase. Almost nothing you would throw out in Sierra Leone would be considered litter. Little bottles, tin cans, and pieces of paper all had some use. Even the beer bottles were returned to the bottling plant for re-use. Yes, I know we do this in Canada, but in Sierra Leone, you could tell those bottles had been re-used hundreds of times from the scratched surface on the outside of the bottle.

So, back in Canada, and my first visit ever to British Columbia, and there was a sign I had never seen before. "No Littering. $2000 fine". That was quite amazing to me, as coming from Quebec I did not recall such a draconian law. Then we set off for the East, and as we crossed into Alberta, another sign greeted us. "$1000 fine for littering". It seemed to me you could save a lot of money by throwing your trash across the border from BC to Alberta. Then Saskatchewan seemed to be trying to outbid the other provinces by offering to let you litter for a mere $750. Next came Manitoba, and at that time they had a great littering campaign where they would put your trash in orbit for a mere $500. At every roadside stop, there were these litter containers in the shape of a sputnik satellite where you could put your trash, and then it would be supposedly sent into an orbit around the Earth, but of course these days we realize what a mistake that was. Now we have thousands of bits of trash orbiting the Earth, but back then it was kind of a novelty.

On to Ontario, where I was just waiting to see what they did with the litter, and was kind of disappointed that it was only a mere $100 fine, and boring trash cans. The slogan on the Ontario licence plates was "Keep it Beautiful" which I took as another reminder to not throw trash around.

Finally after three days of keeping it beautiful, we reached Quebec. There were no signs about trash. And sure enough before long, as we followed a car down the Trans Canada highway near Montreal, a whole garbage bag full of trash was flung out the car's window and bounced a couple of times on the shoulder before it broke up and a litter explosion filled the air.

Things have changed a lot since then. For one thing, Quebec now has its own litter Nazis like everyone else. Back in 1972, the worst litter was dog poop and cigarette butts. Today, there is a lot less smoking in public, and people generally pick after the dogs. But now we have a new form of litter that has taken the number one spot. Tim may argue with me, but I think it's his paper cups. And to make it worse, some people order double cups, and even if they get their coffee in a china mug, they get an empty cup to play "Roll up the rim".

Another phenomenon that we have today that was unthinkable in 1972. Now people pick up other people's litter!!! We have park cleanups on Earth day, and volunteers keep parks clean.

So let's enjoy Canada day, remember Canada looks better when it's litter free.

P.S. In case you are outraged by the picture, I will confess it is fake. After I hired the model I couldn't find any place on the beach with any litter, so I just had her pose as if she was picking up something and then photoshopped in the cups later.

Truth and Flat Tires

One of the first places I read about the philosophical importance of science was in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig

"...Two kinds of logic are used, inductive and deductive. Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long, smooth stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth bump and the engine misfires, one can logically conclude that the misfiring is caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular experiences to general truths.

Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer that if the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction.

Solutions of problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved by long strings of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back and forth between the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine found in the manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalised as scientific method.... "


I liked that book partly because Robert Pirsig used motorcycle maintenance problems to illustrate philosophy and science. So I am going to relate an event that happened to me yesterday to illustrate propaganda versus science.

Mary Ann had her first flat tire on her Burgman 400. I didn't have a tubeless tire repair kit, but I have used them before, so I called the motorcycle shop and was told "We don't stock tubeless tire repair kits because they don't work." Of course, the motorcycle shop would prefer for you to buy a new tire, so they have a motive to spread this story. And similar to propaganda, there is a fear factor. It is implied that if you use a repair kit, you may get another blowout at high speed and be killed. So now fear and propaganda are rearing their ugly heads in what should have been a simple repair. Finally, I did locate a kit at Canadian Tire, and it did the job in about 2 minutes, not including pumping up the tire. The nail hole was very small, and I have made many repairs like this that lasted the life of the tire - although once made a repair on a car tire that didn't hold up. But that was a much bigger hole, and since that experience, I have never used plugs when the hole is larger than the plug. With the patch in the Burgman's tire, I will check the air pressure more frequently, and very likely I will change the tire sooner rather than later.

I'm sure that many people would argue with me about whether patching a tire is unsafe. When I was younger I would not have believed that "tubeless tire repair kits don't work". But apparently the older and wiser you get, the more fearful you also get. Maybe that's why propaganda works so well on older people, and also explains that they are more likely to be conservative.

This is a bit of an aside, but I found a video that discusses skepticism and scientific method. I recently was on Richard Dawkin's web page and found a way to assess truthfulness, similar to my Bullshit Detector, except it is called "The Baloney Detection Kit". In this video, Michael Shermer has 10 ways to evaluate something for truth, with the key assumption being that you can determine the truth scientifically.

Fascism: Is it Left or Right?

Mark Steyn has come out with an article in MacLean's titled "The Return of Fascism", referring to recent European elections where parties that opposed unrestricted immigration made some gains.

Once again, I think Mark's overwrought prose somewhat gets in the way of enlightenment, but of course it's all about his freedom of speech. And of course I would defend to the death his right to speak, although I'm kind of jealous that he gets paid, and I do this for free. But I do have an advantage in that I don't have any financial incentive to pad out my writing.

But on reading through the responses to the article on the internet, I did notice several of Marks fans seem to confuse Fascism with Leftism. They assume that Obama would be pleased with what had happened in Europe. Well, actually no - the American Left is not in cahoots with the European Fascists.

I think the confusion comes down to the fact that the Far Right propaganda has been trying for several years to redefine the Left as Fascists. I would like to clear up this matter for the right wingers. I have just read a piece of right wing propaganda by John J. Ray [ M.A.; Ph .D. "Modern Leftism As Recycled Fascism"….. In this long argument, John Ray takes Mussolini's words and shows how they prove that Fascists are leftists. For example:

Mussolini “Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics”.

John J Ray.: "The “Liberalism” he refers to here would of course be called “Neo-liberalism” today — the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today."

Me: If you define Fascism to be "Leftist" then you will also need to define "Liberal" to be rightist. "Of course".

So how about if we just look up Fascism in Wikipedia? Unless, Wikipedia is suspected of liberal bias. Which it is, apparently. Along with the mainstream media, universities, public schools and scientists. So to eliminate the bias charge, let's check "Fascism" in Conservapedia instead.

"Fascism is at the extreme right of the political spectrum. [1]"

Hopefully, that is clear enough. Although I suspect that Conservapedia's conservative owner might come back to change this when he finds out. Because another entry in Conservapedia calls Hitler a leftist.

All the following quotes are from Conservapedia, and you can see that these selected comments also agree with the theory that Fascism is a right wing deal.

"an emphasis on nationalism and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship;"

No comment

"Fascist regimes have often concentrated on a "scapegoat" to push their agendas, such as Nazi attack on the Jews after 1920"

Assuming the scapegoat here is the Muslims or the gays or the illegal immigrants, I suppose.

"rigged elections and a general disdain for human rights.[2]"

Rigged elections are debatable, but disdain for human rights is an admitted right wing characteristic (the waterboarding issue, Guantanamo Bay etc.)

Of the Fascist movement, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote:
“ their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, after boggling and uncertainty, they were assigned positions on the far Right. [4]"

Propaganda: Fear Mining

Fear mining is the process of digging up the fear in a society, refining it, and converting it into something valuable.

One good way to dig up the fear is to start a radio station and get people to call in to express their fears where everyone can hear them. This helps to identify the best fears, and to concentrate them, because they are of little commercial value if they are too dilute.

Any society can come under stress, and during those times, people become afraid. Times of war, times of famine, times of plague. There are of course many more situations, and just picking from some of our recent events, 9/11, Asian tsunami, New Orleans flooding, the Israelis/Palestinian relations, or Rwandan holocaust.

During times of stress, there is a buildup of fear within the society. And this fear, to some people, is the mother lode. If that fear could be tapped, it would result in riches beyond our wildest dreams. And it can be tapped. That's why I call this blog the "Fear Miners".

Once a rich enough vein of fear has been tapped , (through radio, as one example), it is time to concentrate and convert it into hate. You do this by identifying a cause for the fear, and by finding some group to be blamed. Of course it is best to pick on a group with power, resources or wealth. With enough hate stirred up against them the fear miners stand to inherit this wealth or power in the ensuing struggle.

But even if the group to be blamed has nothing, you still stand to make some money if you are clever. An example would be Americans who fear losing their jobs, can then blame illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants have nothing, so you then simply blame those liberals who allowed the illegal immigrants to get into the country.

Although it is generally best to tap existing fear levels in a stressed out society, sometimes the fear can be planted where you would think none exists. An example of this is fear of wind turbines. If you are an oil company, you might see these wind turbines as a threat. Then you might want to start "seeding" the fear, spreading stories about people getting sick, birds getting killed, lovely vistas desecrated, your tax dollars being misspent, and property values plummeting.

And what about the opposite? What I mean is the environmentalists who are tapping the fear in society. You could call this mining fear out of "thin air". For example spreading stories of global warming/cooling, the threat of chemical pollutants in the air and water. Then this fear is concentrated and redirected at people driving SUV's and oil companies making obscene profits, and chemical companies dumping mercury and PCB's into the rivers.

Even when most of the fear has been processed already, an enterprising prospector can mine fear out of alternate and supernatural realities that are invisible and undetectable. For example: Spread the word that unless you belong to our religion, you are going to burn in hell forever. Once you establish that connection, you can explain that the cure is to join your religion, then ask for donations to support the cause of explaining the problem to other people who do not yet "get it".

Picture: The Baggertransport 2001 Because I'm sure you want to see a few more pictures of it.

Economics 101: A Slow Day in a Texas Town

There is a story being circulated on the Internet that seems like propaganda, because it is found mostly on libertarian or conservative websites, and because it mentions Texas. Here is the story followed by my take on it.


It is a slow day in the East Texas town of Madisonville. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through town. He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.


As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to offer her "services" on credit. The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought clients to that establishment. The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.


At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs, after inspecting the rooms. He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not satisfactory...... Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves town.

No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then I don't know what will.


Well, one thing is sure, after this, I will not be leaving any hundred dollar bill on any hotel desks in Texas!

This paradox actually does illustrate one point quite well, the usefulness of non gold based paper currency. Which I think is the opposite of what was intended, knowing that Ron Paul opposes any currency not backed by gold. In this example you may notice that everybody actually had zero net debt. A simple way to clear up their outstanding debts would be if the hotel manager had written an IOU "payable to bearer" for $100, handed it to the butcher and waited until it came back from the prostitute - then he could tear it up, and everybody starts over. No U.S. currency is even required, just a paper with some reputable signature. Although, having been to Texas I'm pretty sure that the equivalent in Canadian currency would not have worked at all!

One other thing, the statement "no one earned anything" is actually false, in that each person had provided some goods or services to earn $100, the only thing lacking was a "medium of exchange", similar to what happens when credit shrinks. In this case, the $100 bill did the trick. But another medium of exchange could have worked too.

This story is interesting to me because it actually resembles what used to go on in isolated fishing communities in north east Quebec during the winter when the supply boat could not get through. In the absence of a bank, or of any outside trade, people would simply write checks to each other, which would then be passed around almost like currency until the supply boat came back in the spring with its on board bank branch. Then the residents of the village who were holding the checks at the time could clear them.

Roger Ebert: From My Cousin Vinnie to Bill O'Reilly

Roger Ebert is my favourite movie critic. He may even be the main reason I still go out to movies with my wife. When Mary Ann and I were first dating, she liked going to movies and so did I. Just not the same movies. It took a few years before we could find the very first movie we both liked, "My Cousin Vinnie". That was a real breakthrough because at least it proved we had some common ground in movies, other than movies that were so bad we both hated them, but for different reasons. But Cousin Vinnie was a fluke, we needed some way to predict which movies we could both enjoy.

I started reading reviews before going to the movies, as my usual rating system was not working well. Actually my old rating system went kind of like this: I looked through the known facts about the movie and added or subtracted points.

Has a motorcycle in it +100
Has Sandra Bullock in it +20
Rated R or better +5
Has Mickey Rourke in it -100
Science Fiction theme +50
Involves death by disease -50
Involved death by explosives +10
Psychological drama - 20
Comedy +50

This system was simply not working for both of us, as every thing I awarded points for, Mary Ann subtracted the exact same number of points. There are many movie reviewers out there, but soon I noticed that Roger Ebert seemed to be the one most in sync with my tastes. The cool thing was, that if he ever awarded 3 and a half stars or better to a movie, we would both enjoy seeing it. Maybe not enjoy it the same amount, maybe not the for the same reasons, but we both started to look forward to going to movies together.

Now I have found an interesting journal entry written by Roger Ebert, and not surprisingly, I consider his opinion spot on about the propaganda found on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News Channel opinion show, called "The O'Reilly Factor".

Here is a link to the Chicago Sun-Times web page with this article from June 14, 2009. "The O'Reilly Procedure"

(Yes, I know My Cousin Vinnie only got 2 1/2 stars from Roger Ebert, that's because it's the exception that proves the rule.)

Update On Bombing Iran

First a confession about the duelling t-shirts pic, one of those shirts is NOT a conservative T-shirt, I photoshopped it. Now on with the blog.

I want to comment on John McCain, Obama's rival in the presidential election, who is criticising Obama for not speaking up more forcefully to support the Iranian protesters.

Although I disagree with John McCain, I don't think telling him to "Shut up" is the right response. I am happy to hear him say he is supportive of the protesters. Since McCain thinks that the protesters are a significant part of the Iranian population, he may think twice before making further comments about bombing Iran. This is a good thing for peace.

So getting back to John McCain saying that Obama must give "moral support" to the Iranian protesters. Now this is the part where not only do I think John McCain is wrong, but he is the "useful idiot" who happens to have outlasted his usefulness. I'm just making a reference to John McCain calling Joe Klein of Time magazine a "useful idiot". Joe Klein thought McCain's idea of American "moral support" was not what the protesters needed or wanted. I might also mention that many years ago, George H W Bush made a few "moral support" remarks about Iraqis rising up against Saddam that resulted in their slaughter. Obama, at least learns from mistakes, while McCain either through innate stupidity, or through political opportunism, does not learn. That may be the difference between graduating at the top of the class, or at the bottom.

By the way, the definition of moral support, is support that includes talk, but no actual help. The Iranians should say to John McCain "Thanks but no thanks"

But what is so frustrating in dealing with John McCain, is that he is wrong on so many levels that I often miss one or two. Well, here's one that I'd like to get to before I get sidetracked: It is a lie to say that Obama has not given any moral support to the Iranian protesters. He has basically given the right amount of support in a situation that demands for diplomatic finesse. So McCain's entire line of reasoning is based on ignorance. Also, Obama has made the protests thinkable, because if McCain was president, the Iranians would be less likely to rebel in the streets, especially with Mr. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran as president. We should also remember that it was the Republican "Axis of Evil" strategy that paved the way for the reactionary Iranians to come to power power four years ago.

This entire Iranian protest has validated Obama's "talk with the enemy" approach, while the right wing extremist approach is now irrelevant. Is it any wonder that despite the intense right wing anti-Obama campaign, most people are even more relieved that Obama won?