006 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 006

Air Date: May 24, 2007

Host: Bob Metz

Program Disclaimer

The views expressed in this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.

Audio Clip (Heroes TV Series)

This is what you’ve been waiting for. Be the one we need.

Wait! Save the cheerleader! Save the world!

Wait, hero! I don’t understand!

Bob Metz

Good morning London. It is Thursday, May 24th. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM, where we will be with you from now until noon. No, no, not right wing. Just right.

Audio Clip (Song/Music)

Fade into color, and color it to black and white, under the bedclothes. Everything will be alright.

Bob Metz

Welcome to CHRW 94.9 FM, where you can call in and join the show, 519-661-3600. Thanks for coming in, tuning in today. Today’s show we’re going to be discussing a number of subjects, including the ever-present gas prices again. We’re going to be talking a little bit about the war in Afghanistan, and today being May 24, we’re certainly going to talk a little bit about the monarchy. And of course, the ever-present global warming issue is still with us, and will remain with us, particularly with some of the events that have occurred this week.

But first of all, I would just like to pass along a bit of an apology to some of our listeners last week. We had as a guest on the show, live from Ottawa, Tom Harris, who was the Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, talking to us about global warming. He was one of those deniers. Well, apparently we had a little technical glitch, and some of the folks who were listening to the show online at chrwradio.com, where you can hear the show for a week following the broadcast. Apparently the telephone connection was not there, but the rest of the show was, so we really apologized for that. Nevertheless, the broadcast went fine, and it just gives you another reason why you should be tuning in at the right time. You can call in, and little glitches like that might not hold you up.

So, May 24, and what is the first thing everybody’s complaining about, of course, gas prices. I heard an interesting news report on one of the stations last week, and it sort of read like this, very simple. Prices are up, because demand is greater than supply. Well, now, that’s true, but it’s missing a critical part of the equation, I think. The rest of the sentence should say prices are up because demand is greater than supply at the previously current price. But when prices do go up, demand and supply are again at an equilibrium, and that’s why the prices went up. When they are up, then demand isn’t greater than supply. It is at an equilibrium, and that’s why the prices are where they are.

But nevertheless, you get your long weekend gas price conspiracy theorists out there, and I got a question for all you folks who think that they just keep raising the prices and raising the prices. I mean, if prices raised every single weekend without ever lowering on the basis of each price rise over the past two years alone, our gas prices right now would be about $30 to $40 a liter, wouldn’t they? I mean, if you count all just the price rises, you know what I’m saying? But of course, that’s not the case, and why not? Because prices do come down during those same periods of time. And you just can’t beat the law of supply and demand.

You know, I’m not here as an advocate saying, hey, I’m a capitalist, I’m in favor of the law of supply and demand as though I made it up or something. It’s like saying you’re in favor of gravity, I guess. But the law of supply and demand is not something you make up. It’s something we’ve only recently discovered, and it’s a fundamental of human behavior and of all nature in effect. It’s a natural thing. But when it comes to human beings, of course, we don’t deal with raw material all the time. We deal with money. And so we think in terms of economics, and then we get a little bit confused because it gets a little more complex. But what we have to remember is that prices are never related to costs, but rather always supply relative to demand. In fact, high prices conserve supplies.

Isn’t that what the left is always wanting to do? Because conserve supplies. Let’s be conservatives in that sense, in terms of the environment. And low prices are the result of supply relatively exceeding demand. So that’s the only thing that’s ever going to get our prices up. People always talk about, well, it’s the cost to the manufacturer. Why is he charging so much? Well, cost is only a factor to the producer. He’s got to ensure that his profits exceed his costs in order to survive. That’s the only equation he’s got to worry about there. For the consumer, the important thing, of course, is price. And if I’m getting a great deal at gas station A, I really don’t care whether that guy’s making money, losing money, breaking even, doing exorbitant profits. If he’s giving me a better price than the guy next door, who might only be breaking even, because I don’t know what his profit situation is, it shouldn’t make any difference to me, per se. And yet everybody wants to get involved in that because, of course, they want to control the market.

So we’ve got a tremendous confusion here. Now, the funny thing is, you hear so many politicians, and especially politicians on the left, when they see prices rise, which would cut consumption, which they’ve been trying to get us to do as well, reduce your consumption, reduce your consumption, we just get inundated with this. So what do they want to do as soon as the prices rise and consumption is actually reduced? They want to lower the prices so that we can increase consumption again. And so round and round, in circles we go. I mean, the result is going to be rationing. The hypocrisy of such a situation is just outrageous.

And with that in mind, I had to bring up a couple of people who, in different parties, who have the exact same point of view, the wrong one, on the whole gas pricing issue. One of them is Ontario PC leader John Tory, and the other one is Liberal MPP Dan McTeague, who is on his province-wide tour, I guess, or sort of country-wide tour, wanting to control gas prices in some way. Now, of course, that’s not what he says he’s doing. He says he wants to put more players in the business. But here’s a, I took some quotes from Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who is now wanting to introduce some kind of legislation to change the Competition Act with regards to the oil industry. But what he said at the beginning of the month, at the beginning of May, again, he says we need more players in the business, but get this, and I’m quoting here, quote, and I’m not suggesting to produce more energy, simply because we want to do something for the environment here, end quote.

So he wants to sell you 12 gallons of gasoline with 12 companies instead of selling you 12 gallons of gasoline with four companies. He’s going to keep the supply the same. How’s that going to improve anything? How can it possibly improve anything? And it’s interesting, he was again on another radio show just this past May 18th, and it was funny, and I knew he was going to be on the show, so, you know, being the person I am, I do call in on open-line shows, and I called in on that show that morning before Dan McTeague showed up on the show, and I predicted exactly what he said, what he was going to say, and he went right through, exactly, followed every point I made. And the interesting thing was my point of view was brought to his attention, and here’s what he said about me and a couple other callers who tend to disagree with this point of view, you know, those of us who are free marketers and who think the government shouldn’t be interfering in prices, and quote, this is Dan McTeague talking, with all due respect to the latter group, and that means I don’t respect them, they really don’t know what the wholesale price of gasoline is. No one does. I do. Yesterday I predicted the price of gas would hit up about four cents a liter at the pumps.

Now, I don’t know how anybody can be so… So, just to even say such a thing, it’s so outrageous to tell people that no one knows what the wholesale price of gasoline is, but he does know. Just amazing, some of the things that they’ll say. But he’s blaming part of the problem of gas pricing, get this, on people like me. People who believe that there shouldn’t be… that there should be a free market, that there shouldn’t be government controls on everything. So, you know, he said, Dan McTeague argues that there isn’t a real supply and demand situation out there, because we’ve only got four wholesalers, and he thinks there should be more. Well, that would be nice if you want more wholesalers, and make sure they’re allowed to produce a little bit more as well. But he says, quote, as long as there are people who tend to believe that the free market exists, and that supply and demand exists, the industry will continue to get away with a 25 cent per liter net profit for producing and refining gasoline.

Now, imagine that saying something about a company, you’re going to get away with it, you know, like you’re committing a crime of some sort. And if you stop to think about it, do we have the right as a society or as a government to force anybody to supply us with something? Let’s say they didn’t even want to sell. What if the oil company said, we’re not going to sell you any gas at any price? Never mind, you know, a buck a liter, two bucks a liter. We’re not going to sell it to you. Do we have the right to go to their door, bang it down, and say, you give me your gas, or I’ll shoot you, and you’re going to give me gas at the price I want? And once you’re at that point, you might as well just take it. What’s the difference between just taking it and giving them a fixed price? You know, they’ll worry about price gouging, this is a form of energy gouging.

But it’s just outrageous that you’d even think you could do that. And the other part is, of course, they believe that the oil companies have total control of prices. They can just make it whatever they want, and we have to pay it, and it just does not work that way. It might seem like that to you when you’re on the paying end, because that’s where the paying is felt, of course. But it’s the situation, we do not have enough refined gasoline to meet our needs. It’s pretty much as simple as that. Interestingly enough, McTeague goes on to explain, you know, about refinery capacity. Now, he blames it again on the Competition Act, and he says, quote, that it was written by representatives of Imperial Oil in 1986 to create a situation where you could merge companies and shut down excess supply. Well, what were these MPPs’ names? If they were representatives of Imperial Oil, how’d they get in the parliament to create a situation where they could change the laws and rewrite Competition Acts? Isn’t that what our politicians do? And he’s saying, oh, no, it’s oil companies that did it.

Well, I’m sure they had some influence, just as we do as consumers. But most telling is this statement from Dan McTeague. He says, we’ve gone from 44 refineries down to 17. There’s also a Nanticoke refinery fire, as well as the Sarnia fire. And he says, not only are we talking high prices, well above international prices, but we’re also talking about a lack of supply. Almost as if to imply the two things had absolutely nothing to do with each other, when in fact they’re part and parcel of the same coin.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, in Ontario we have a PC, yeah, Progressive Conservative MPP, Joe Tascona introduced Bill 228 on May 17 here in Ontario. And it would require gasoline companies to announce price increases three days in advance. Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever in a media release just this past Monday condemned this thing. I mean, it’s absolutely insane. You know, as McKeever says, if it were made law, it would sometimes force producers or sellers to sell fuel at or below cost. And worse than that, you know, the bill would force prices upward during periods of low or normal demand. Think about it.

Suppose you’re running a gas station. I just can’t believe that somebody hasn’t thought this through that they would even do stuff like this. And these, by the way, this is the John Tory Ontario PCs, you know, the Capitalists. Those guys are supposed to be free marketers and capitalists and they’re talking about this kind of nonsense. But can you imagine you’re running a gas station and you’ve got to give three days warning. So let’s say the gas is going to go up on Thursday. So you put your warning up Monday. What do you suppose is going to happen between Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday? You’re going to see that gas station just be inundated by cars wanting to fill up at the lower prices. The gas will run out, oh, Monday afternoon, let’s say. Or what they will be doing for those three days as they do even in Iran, believe it or not, where they have to import their refined gas, it’s back to, you know, getting you to stand in line. It’s all about doling it out. Oh, you can only take two gallons today, sir, until the prices go up on Thursday. Then you can come back and fill up at the regular price it will be then. It’s just outrageous and these are the people that are supposedly, you know, our free marketers. And haven’t they learned from the past? This kind of stuff just doesn’t work.

Another quick issue I want to get in before the break is this whole thing about Afghanistan. Harper, of course, has just been over in Afghanistan. He says it wasn’t because of the polls, but it’s because of the right thing to do, he said. Well, I disagree with him that I think it was because of the polls, but I agree with him that it was the right thing to do. I don’t think those two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. Why do they have to be? Why do you have to deny something? The polls are not showing a good picture. I got an article here from the May 6 London Free Press. Canadians drawing weary of war. Well, the media is, that’s for sure, they want you to get tired of the war because they want to get out and quit.

But this is an interesting statistic. Since Canada’s Afghanistan mission began in 2002, one diplomat and 54 soldiers, including six from Southwestern Ontario, have died. So that’s 54 soldiers plus one diplomat over five years. That’s about 10 a year in Afghanistan. Now consider this. How many people die in traffic deaths in Ontario? Do you know how many do? In one year alone, how many there were last year? Try 450. 450. That’s in one year in one province, let alone talking about our military in another country where they lose 50 people. I mean, every death is tragic. That’s not the point here. But over five years for heaven’s sakes, this is less than, you know, and some of them ironically were from misfortune, accident and friendly fire.

I mean, that’s outrageous. And so while Harper is over there, I think doing the right thing, even though he is addressing these polls, you know, the question remains, how long will Canada remain there? And I remember being on Jim Chapman’s show before we even went to Afghanistan, just as the plans were being made. And he asked me the very question. He says, how long do you think they’re going to be there? And my answer then was, and still is today, 100 years, at least. You don’t go into a country and take over a country and just walk out and expect to win anything, because if you walk out, you’re losing. The United States still has troops in Germany. It has troops all around the world of all, you know, World War II never really completely finished in the way a lot of people think it would.

Meanwhile, we have the President of Pakistan, who says the only way to bring peace to Afghanistan is to negotiate with the Taliban. Well, holy smokes, what’s to negotiate? Did they offer us some kind of terms before they brought down the Trade Center towers on 9-11? What would they have wanted? They don’t want anything. And I think this is to even talk like that, or for us to, you know, what do they want to do? Negotiate our deaths or our conversions to some version of Islam? Anyways, that’s an issue that we will be dealing with in much further detail next week. If everything goes well, I will be joined here live in the studio by John Thompson, who is one of Canada’s foremost experts on terrorism and situations abroad from the Mackenzie Institute. If you want to check him out, it’s www.mackenzieinstitute.com, and if you have anything you might want to say for our show next week, you can sort of prepare in advance.

Right now, we’re going to take a break for a couple seconds, and when we return, we will be talking about the Queen and the Monarchy.

Audio Clip (Comedy Routine)

What have we been doing for the last year? We are at war with the Flintstones. People are blowing themselves up. Think of the psychology of this. They think they’re going to end up in heaven. They’re going to end up all over the room. Can you imagine anybody in North America being a suicide bomber ever? No, you do it. I can. I’ve got car payments. How do you advertise for a job like this? It’s the last job you’ll ever need. This job will blow you away. Do you smoke? Would you like to? Do you like to travel? In several directions at once. Yes.

Looks like these people have a lot to learn about building a free society.

Bob Metz

Welcome back. It’s Bob Metz on Just Right, CHRW 94.9 FM. If you’d like to join the conversation, we’re going to be talking about the monarchy now. It’s 519-661-3600. This today is actually May 24. It would have been nice if the weather we’ve got today was the kind of weather we had on the weekend, on the quote official 24 weekend.

The issue of course always comes up is the monarchy really relevant to Canadians anymore. You always hear somebody somewhere wanting to change the system, changing the way we vote, maybe saying, oh, we should be a republic or something like that. I think at the root of all of these issues, republic versus monarchy, the issue of independence from England, I guess, is a major thing, is less an issue of governance than, well, with governance, yeah, but less an issue of, how would I like to put it, of import. Like for me, it doesn’t really matter whether we have a monarchy, and we don’t have a monarchy, by the way, what we have is called a constitutional monarchy, or whether we have a republic. But I think at the root of the desire to change, including another issue that’s related, but I won’t talk about it today, and that’s the whole issue of wanting to change the way we vote.

Just to give you a heads up, folks, if you live in Ontario this October 10th, for the first time, that I can recall in a provincial election, you’re going to be asked to vote on a referendum type of question, and it will be about whether you want to retain the current system of voting, whether you want to stick to first past the post or go to a multi-member plurality kind of system. But that’s a side issue, but it’s driven by the same thing. I think that we find a number of people who sense that there is something seriously wrong with government in this country. So a lot turned to the structure, or the mechanics of the many laws, traditions, and conventions that we have as being the source of the problem, whatever they might perceive them to be. You know, moves to make Canada independent. You hear talk about the monarchy being viewed as irrelevant and as a denial of Canada’s own identity.

Now, you know, I think personally, if you remove the monarchy such as it is, and I’ll talk a little more about that in a moment, I think Canada would have less of an identity. What would that identity be without the monarchy? Would we be in the United States? Would we be seen as just an extension of Quebec? Because English-speaking Canada, in that sense, that is the identity. I mean, it was the British and French situation. But history of the country proves that identity is one of the fundamental issues we constantly bicker and argue about, and it’s a political issue. And identity is, of course, important, and everybody wants their own identity, which is why I think all these massive world movements to create one movement and one identity and one people are all nonsensical. Everybody has their own identity. They’re entitled to it, and they should be able to live amongst each other in their respective groups. They don’t have to join the same club for heaven’s sakes.

But the thing to bear in mind is that we have in Canada what I’ve already called a constitutional monarchy, which is a very different thing. And we have to understand what a constitution is when we say constitution. This is something a republic has, and we kind of have one too. But a proper constitution in a free society essentially does one thing and one thing only. And that is to place authority and limits on the authority, rather, of government. Not to put limits on the authority and freedom of individual citizens. We have a criminal code for that, and everybody is equal under the criminal code. It doesn’t matter whether you’re in government or not. So the constitution is an extra document, if you will, even though it might precede it in the hierarchy of politics and philosophy. But it is specifically there to limit the power of government. And if it does not do that, if instead it says a citizen can’t do this, then it’s not even a proper constitution. It’s just another law. Toss it in the criminal code.

What does it say about limiting the power of government? And this is where Canada’s, you know, there’s always this debate about when Pierre Trudeau repatriated the constitution and had the notwithstanding clause, did that give Parliament the ultimate right to override all our rights? Well, yes and no, and you get different answers from different people. But fundamentally, I think it does not matter whether you have a republic or whether you have a constitutional monarchy. If the people are all going to behave like communists, you’re going to have communism. If they’re all going to behave like capitalists, you’re going to have capitalism. I think both the constitutional monarchy and the republic, and perhaps one or two other forms of government, can certainly be compatible with individual rights and freedoms, but are not necessarily a guarantee of that.

One of the things, I did a research project back in 1992, and this was during a period when the Bob Rae government was changing the Ontario Provincial Police’s oath. I guess the oath they take to the Queen at the time. And what they did was they dropped the allegiance to Her Majesty’s subject, and under the new oath they had to swear allegiance to the state. So it changed the whole premise of what that allegiance was. And one of the things you have to understand is that as a subject of the Queen, shall we say, you are due the protection of that Queen. And remember when we talk about the monarchy, and this is very important, we’re not talking about the royal family. They’re two different things. You’ve got the royal family, which is a symbol of the monarchy, and which you could have a great character in there, or a bunch of loony tunes. I mean, through history we’ve had both. No question.

I think the current Queen is a gem in every respect. I saw a special on her on PBS one time, and folks, you wouldn’t want her job for a million bucks, let me tell you. She works for her money. She works for her status. It’s amazing. I don’t know that she has to, but she does. And I think her role as a diplomat, and as that symbol of a monarchy, of that long, long, long standing of tradition, which by the way, since the Magna Carta, has meant that the British monarchy specifically has evolved into almost the opposite of what we think of as a monarchy. The absolute king and queen, etc., etc., is in fact a monarchy that protects individual rights. The king and queen, of course, have no real power, and Canada can make its own laws. None of these things are really real issues in that sense. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of monarchists out there. They don’t even understand their own tradition and what it is.

Now, of course, if I was going to start from scratch, would I come up with a monarchy? No, that would be the last institution you’d set up if you had the magical ability to begin from scratch and toss history and politics out the window, which is an impossibility. And if constitutional drafters had a full understanding and respect for the principles necessary to the preservation of a free society, I think that is what is so important. And we have to remember that the British-style monarchy has evolved into this admittedly awkwardly constructed, but nevertheless a people’s constitution of sorts. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And we’ll be back after, and it’ll be back to global warming some more interesting items on that issue. See you in a minute.

Audio Clip (Yes, Minister TV Series)

Ministers come and ministers go. The average minister lasts less than 11 months in any department. You see, Bernard, it is our duty to assist the minister to fight for the department’s money despite his own panic reaction.

You mean help him overcome his panic?

No, no, no, no, no. No, he’s letting him panic. Politicians like to panic. They need activity. It’s their substitute for achievement.

Program Disclaimer

The views expressed in this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.

Audio Clip (Comedy/News Parody)

This item, 1989, 20 years from now. Last it happened. There was peace in the world today. Not a shot fired, not a threat, not an unhappy sound. Today at last, there was peace in the world. Unfortunately, only lasted a few seconds, while everybody reloaded.

Bob Metz

Welcome back to Just Right. I’m Bob Metz, and you’re listening to CHRW 94.9 FM. 519-661-3600 is the number to call if you want to join us. That clip you just heard, I don’t know how many of you are old enough to know the source of that clip. Of course, that was from the Laugh-In show that ran, oh, when I was in high school, believe it or not, and that would have been the late 60s. And I think 1969, obviously, said 20 years from now, 1989. Well, it’s almost 20 years later than that again.

And I’ve been putting off doing this for a couple of weeks now, something I planned to do a while ago, because I don’t usually do this kind of thing. As a matter of fact, I’ve never done this kind of thing before. And that is to read something to you from another source. This actually may take four or five minutes, but I think it’s extremely important. It was written in 1969. I am not going to tell you who wrote it until I am finished. Some of you may guess right away, depending on how familiar you are either with myself or with the writer. But this is all about the environmental movement. And in many ways, if I had run into this article on the internet, like say, just yesterday, I would have said it was written just yesterday. So you have to take that into account. Now, this article is almost 40 years old. Think about that.

And so I’m going to quote this to you. It’s extremely important. I think it goes very deeply into an understanding of what the whole global warming thing and issue is about. I don’t know if you heard, of course, today, or not today, but this week Al Gore released his book, which amazingly is called The Assault on Reason. And for Al Gore to use that word, it’s almost blasphemy. But interestingly, if you’re interested, I’m sure he’s going to be discussing that on the David Letterman show tonight. I understand Al Gore will be the guest. And in fact, David Letterman already picked on Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason, and his top 10 reasons to do something. But they were all silly, of course.

Nevertheless, here is the article written some almost 40 years ago, 1969. And I’ll just read it to you. It’ll take a couple minutes, and I’ll let you know who wrote it. And then we’ll apply some evidence to it from today. And here we go, quote.

If someone proposed to reduce you to the state of a primitive pre-industrial society, you would probably scream in protest. So why don’t you? It is being proposed, loudly, clearly, and daily, all around you. What is worse, it is being proposed in the name of love for mankind. It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the new left activists after the war in Vietnam peters out. The perils the environmentalists keep stressing are not merely local, but global. The attack on technology is being put over on you by means of a package deal tied together by strings called the ecology.

Now there are three main reasons why you and most people do not protest. One, you take technology and its magnificent contributions to your life for granted, almost as if it were a fact of nature, which will always be there. But it is not, and it will not. Two, as a North American, you’re likely to be very benevolent and enormously innocent about the nature of evil. You are unable to believe that some people can actually advocate man’s destruction for the sake of man’s destruction. And when you hear them, you think that they don’t mean it. But they do. Three, your education by the same kind of people has hampered your ability to translate an abstract idea into its actual practical meaning and therefore has made you indifferent to and contemptuous of ideas. This is the real tragedy.

Today we see the spectacle of the left aiding and abetting young hoodlums who proclaim the superiority of feelings over reason, faith over knowledge, leisure over production, spiritual concerns over material comforts of primitive nature over technology. Now observe, then all the propaganda of the ecologists, amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for harmony with nature, there is no discussion of mankind’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that ecologists envision on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. In that sense, man is the weakest of animals. He is born naked and unarmed without fangs, claws, horns, or instinctual knowledge. Physically, he would fall in easy prey, not only to the higher animals, but also to the lowest bacteria. He is the most complex organism and in a contest of brute force, extremely fragile and vulnerable. His only weapon, his basic means of survival, is his mind.

And in order to survive, man has to alter his background to adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to a background in the same way as animals. The immediate goal of the ecologist is obvious. The destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred. Many speeches and books on a subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end. Instead of the left, you know, their old denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty, the left is now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. Instead of promising comfort and security for everyone, they are now denouncing people for being comfortable and secure. They are still struggling, however, to inculcate guilt and fear. These have always been their psychological tools. Only instead of exhorting you to feel guilty about exploiting the poor, they are now exhorting you to feel guilty about exploiting land, air, and water. Instead of threatening you with a bloody rebellion of the disinherited masses, they are now trying, like witch doctors addressing a tribe of savages, to scare you out of your wits with thunderously vague threats of an unknowable cosmic cataclysm, threats that cannot be checked, verified, or proved.

One element, however, has remained unchanged. The appeal for self-sacrifice, the denial of man’s right to exist. Today you are asked to sacrifice for the sake of seaweeds and inanimate matter. If concerned with poverty and human suffering were their motive, they would have become champions of capitalism long ago. They would have discovered it’s the only system capable of producing abundance. To the credit of most people, the majority do not take the ecology issue seriously. It is an artificial PR manufactured issue blown up by the bankrupt left who confine no other grounds for attacking capitalism. But the majority, as in so many other issues, remain silent. And this precisely is the danger. The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They are accepted by default.

What do environmentalists regard as a proper life for working people, a life of unrelieved drudgery, endless gray toil, no rest, no travel, no pleasure, above all no pleasure? What do they regard as luxury? Anything above the bare necessities of physical survival with the explanation that men would not have to labor so hard if it weren’t for the artificial needs created by commercialism and materialism. In reality, of course, the opposite is true. The less return on your labor, the harder the labor. Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible mind and body wrecking ordeal. In nature, the struggle for food, clothing, and shelter consumes all of a person’s energy and spirit, and it is a losing struggle. To work only for the bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.

Now, that was written in 1969 by philosopher novelist, Ayn Rand, of course, in a book called, and I recommend this to everyone, The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, published in January 71, and it will tell you everything about what’s going on today. Of course, that one, that was written. Environmentalists were screaming at the top of their lungs that the earth was cooling and wanted to do all kinds of things to warm us up, including dropping black soot on Greenland and to help it melt the ice caps. Anyways, this was reported in Newsweek, and you can see the same situations going on today.

Now, I understand I have a caller out there. You’re listening to CHRW 94.9 FM, and the number here is 661-3600 if you want to call in.

Now, Ayn Rand did one other thing too, in that same article. Of course, she dealt with the issue of actual pollution. What do you do about that? What’s the real situation? Here’s what she said. She said the actual instances of local pollution and dirt, which do exist, is a scientific technological problem, not a political one. It can only be solved by technology. There is no such thing as a restrained progress. A restricted technology is a contradiction in terms, and here’s why. Technology is applied science. The progress of theoretical science and of technology of human knowledge is moved by such a complex and interconnected sum of work, of individual minds that no computer or committee could predict or prescribe its course. The discoveries in one branch of knowledge lead to unexpected discoveries in another, the achievements in one field open countless roads and all the others. The space exploration program, for instance, has led to invaluable advances in medicine. Who can predict when, where, or how, a bit of given information will strike an active mind and what it will produce? To restrict technology would require omniscience, a total knowledge of all the possible effects and consequences of a given development for all the potential innovators of the future. Short of such omniscience, restrictions mean the attempt to regulate the unknown, to limit the unborn, to set rules for the undiscovered, and more, an active mind will not function by permission. An inventor will not spend years of struggle dedicated to an excruciating work if the fate of his work depends not on the criterion of demonstrable truth, but on the arbitrary decision of some authorities. End quote.

Well, what do you know? I finally got that whole thing out of my meaning to say that for weeks and weeks, because it certainly is a blueprint for everything that you’re seeing happening today. You know, the furor has not yet died down over what had happened with Elizabeth May and some of the comments she made in a church at the beginning of this month. And of course, the apologists came out in full force and started saying all kinds of things about, oh, she didn’t really mean it, and she didn’t, you know, she was really referring the Chamberlain and not the Hitler and not the evil. Well, I beg to differ a bit with that, and I want to demonstrate that for you in a few moments. And, but basically, there’s been a lot of people defending May, and the interesting thing is that the people who are defending her are all from sort of the religious side of the equation, have been collecting all kinds of articles who’s this Bob Ripley spirituality and ethics, you know, and he sort of comes to her defense. We see other people in the same category, although there are some others who are also quote, spiritual of a sort. For example, Michael Coren in his May 5th column, but he just sees Elizabeth May as almost his opposite in a sense, she’s the left wing, so-called religious extremist.

Anyways, when we get back after this commercial break, we’ll be talking more about this issue, and we’ll be back right after this.

Audio Clip (Environmental/Earth Day Segment)

Let’s hear it for our planet, our mother, our mother earth. Let’s teach our children how to care for the earth. Save the earth!

This is a holy day! The holy day is Earth Day, as they say we should celebrate every day, and who could object to celebrating nature, planting trees, singing songs?

I’m here for you, my mother. I’m here for you, my mother. I’m celebrating my planet. I celebrate my planet’s birth.

But there is another face of this environmentalism. The kids are taught someone’s harming mother earth.

May the hands of man not harm you. This is our dream. May the hands of man not harm you.

The activists say man is the destroyer of the planet. We have met the enemy, and they is us.

We’re the enemy because we dig into the earth for coal and oil, which we then burn. Just look at the pollution and the spills that kill birds, the pavement, the cars, the tons of garbage. Shame on us humans. Save the earth! Save the earth!

Did you know this is now part of the curriculum in some schools? We have, we have, we have. Is this education or environmental boot camp? Earth, day, every day.

Kids at this school are brought into an auditorium and told, repeat what teacher says. We will support groups that are kind to the earth. We will support the earth.

Is America getting more polluted? Yes! Is the water and air getting more polluted? Yes!

Why don’t they know the facts? The EPA says over the past 30 years, the air has been getting cleaner. Smog days, even in Los Angeles, are now rare. How many of you even know that? Nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead. Every major pollutant that’s been used in the past is decreasing. And the EPA says our lakes and rivers are cleaner now too. But the kids don’t believe it.

The government says over the past 30 years, it’s been getting cleaner. They are so lying!

Yeah, they’re all lying aren’t they?

Bob Metz

Welcome back, it’s Just Right with Bob Metz here. It’s 94.9 FM and if you want to join us, you can call 661-3600. And that’s exactly what our caller Marcel did. Welcome to the show, Marcel.

Caller (Marcel)

Thanks a lot Bob. I’ve just been listening to your show today and I just want to tie one loose end from when last we spoke. Yeah, that was a couple of weeks ago. In the 1950s, a very young Jimmy Carter, who worked for the American military of course, was instrumental in stopping the meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Great Slave Lake in the 1950s. And you said you had not heard that news reel? You probably thought it was more recent. But before he went to the political office, he’s the one who put on the space suit, walked into a nuclear reactor in Great Slave Lake and turned off the nuclear reactor. And that’s what I meant by Jimmy Carter saving our butt.

Bob Metz

Look, at the time when you brought that up, I thought you might have been talking, I think we were talking about Three Mile Island at that time too.

Caller (Marcel)

Yes, we were talking about that. And he did a similar thing there, if you recall.

Bob Metz

Right, well it came out in 1950. Well, 1950, that’s before my time too, so maybe I wasn’t aware of that one. But it’s not sound familiar.

Caller (Marcel)

It’s in the record books.

Bob Metz

I believe you. Okay, now the thing about Three Mile Island, I just wanted to note that actually about 20 years later, it came out that it was much more serious than when we were led to believe that we were getting ready to evacuate three states. Now, the guest you had on last week.

Caller (Marcel)

Yes. Obviously, a person who shares your scientific perspective on the environment?

Bob Metz

Well, I’m not a scientist, so I can’t say that.

Caller (Marcel)

Right. A perspective on the environment, if it’s scientific, is objective. I have a political perspective on the environment.

Bob Metz

Well, you can do something. Whether Tom shares that with me or not, I can’t say.

Caller (Marcel)

Well, sometimes you can make science do funny things because a lot of scientists work for corporations and governments who are paid to feed, not bite the hand that feeds.

Bob Metz

Well, now listen. But anyway, but I can’t get into it. Can’t you also, I wanted to get a lot of science, hang on a second. Can’t you argue that a lot of scientists work for governments too?

Caller (Marcel)

That’s what I said. That’s what I said.

Bob Metz

Well, no, you said corporations and governments. Okay. Okay. So then where are you leading that to?

Caller (Marcel)

Well, where I’m leading to is the guest you had on last week. You spoke of, you know, you seem to have a very, I think your main gripe is global warming. When I called in the last time, global warming was not my specific agenda. I stated that there could be other factors associated with it. And I said, by constantly lambasting, I guess, the environmental movement over global warming, does not mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater an expression you use today. Because there are a lot of other concerns that are genuine. And your guest last week spoke about some of them, which I meant to discuss with you, such as deforestation.

Bob Metz

Sure. He said that it was dangerous.

Caller (Marcel)

Yeah. And so did I. I mean, I went to great lengths talking about deforestation. And in fact, it was the one area that I said that we do have some control over because we can’t control the sun. And so I said, well, I’m not a spokesman for the environmental movement. I have a very simple spirituality and it’s not like a sermon. And by the way, that thing you read today sounded like something out of the Bible, your conviction. It sounded like a revivalist meeting. But the thing is, is that…

Bob Metz

What part of it would you disagree with? What you didn’t think anything that was said there?

Caller (Marcel)

Well, you read it like you were reading the piece of the Bible. Like people… One thing I learned long ago, there, Bob, is that if people were honest with themselves, they would realize from a psychological perspective that they believe in something before they gather up the science. And you can gather up science with what you want.

Bob Metz

Oh, you’re absolutely correct. And that’s… Everyone has a prejudice going into something. It’s just like what I was talking about when I was talking about the monarchy. I wrote that article with a prejudice, the one I started writing, against the monarchy. And I came out of it the other side because I remained objective in the way that I looked at the issue. So I’d like to think that I’m looking objectively at this. I don’t know how one reads any particular passage out of any book and says, it sounds like it’s out of the Bible. What would I have done differently to read it so it wouldn’t sound like it was out of the Bible?

Caller (Marcel)

Well, it was so obvious that your perspective leaned toward that very much, and you spoke it with… like you had great faith in it, and great conviction. Reminded me of a lot of revivalists meeting myself.

Bob Metz

Well, you think I don’t understand it then. You think I just believe in it out of hand, and I don’t understand how the free market works, and I don’t understand the law of supply and demand, and I don’t understand why prices go up and down. I just have a belief in all that. Is that your argument?

Caller (Marcel)

Well, the thing is I was going to get to a more important argument, but I was just saying the conviction that you spoke it in was no different than the conviction of some of the environmentalists.

Bob Metz

Well, could you do the honor of answering my question then? Because I can’t argue.

Caller (Marcel)

Well, I believe that you believe it.

Bob Metz

Okay. Well, where does that leave you? Listen, it’s two people only…

Caller (Marcel)

I want to make one important point before I go. The reason is I’m using the same psychology I use against the environmental movement when you say there are, you know, sound like there are revivalist meetings and stuff like that. But the point I want to share with you before I leave is this, that you do tend to call the environmentalist movement as a sort of a spiritual movement. It is. And it’s not based on science. That’s exactly what it is today. I’m not a spokesman for the environmental movement, but a lot of people in the environmental movement have a simple, very simple idea, and I share this idea with them, and that is this, that we live on one planet, all the peoples of the world, and some of these people have different cultural and different ideological perspectives. And we share this planet with not only humans, but animals as well, whales and seals. And every time we… There’s deforestation, we destroy the natural habitat of a lot of creatures that we live with. And my spirituality is based on trying to find, as best we know how, a perfect balance between us and our earth, our earth, the environment, knowing that we live with other people and other animals. And for instance, the environmental movement is about not killing whales. It’s not about bashing seals over the head, three-week-old seals over the head with a club. I’m sensitive to that. That’s my particular thing I’m passionate about. But the thing is we have to find a balance to live in peace with our environment and other peoples of the world, because nuclear war is not good for the environment. We destroy ourselves.

Bob Metz

Well, you know, these are such non-sequitur issues to the main point. Again, I don’t see… If you just heard that John Stossel clip that we just came out of, where he’s saying, why don’t people know the facts, that the air is getting cleaner, that Los Angeles no longer has smog days, or very rarely does. I mean, the efforts are being made. You don’t need…

Caller (Marcel)

Yeah, but I’m not talking about that. Well, of course you’re never talking about anywhere… Environmental movements have children, and they want the best for their children. And what do you think about killing whales and bashing a million baby seals over the head with a club for fashion? The environmental movement has more to do than just humans. It has to do with the creatures we share this world with. You know, every time you see fur, take the woods, you’ve taken a lot of homes from them.

Bob Metz

Killing animals and things like that didn’t start for fashionable reasons. They started for reasons of survival. And as we expanded our knowledge, we didn’t have to use every single material, but that still doesn’t change the nature of it. I don’t hear you complaining about what we’re doing to chickens and cows, and all kinds of animals on the farm.

Caller (Marcel)

Well, I am a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian. I don’t relish in killing any animal. I haven’t eaten meat in 40 years. Obviously, I don’t need it to live. And I just don’t believe in killing animals. I want animals to live in peace too. I want them to be happy in their environment. I’m not into factory farming. I’m not into giving animals hormones. And steroids and things like that.

Bob Metz

Okay, that’s very fine that you believe all that. The issue on a planet where people live together is, what do you think about guys like me? Would you restrict my freedom and say, I can’t eat meat? Would you normally… I can’t wear a fur coat?

Caller (Marcel)

Just because there’s some environmental people who think that way, I’m not one of them.

Bob Metz

Well, then that’s fine. But the environmental people who think that way that you just mentioned are the problem. And they do object to people like me being able to exercise our judgment on what we think is right.

Caller (Marcel)

Well, you know, the European community has banned the import of seal fur. And great. I love it.

Bob Metz

Well, you know, it might sound very environmental, but I’ll bet you when you look at the bottom of it, somebody’s doing some kind of a trade barrier of some sort. But listen, Marcel, we have to wind up. Our time is running out rapidly, but we welcome your calls. And please call back again sometime in the future, because I guarantee you, I know this is one of your favorite issues. It’s not going to go away.

Caller (Marcel)

Taxi later. Okay, thanks, Marcel.

Bob Metz

Fine. And that was Marcel. I think it was the second time he’s called on this issue. He’s obviously very passionate about it. And I think his points are to be taken. But sometimes I think they’re a little out of context and a little off of the subject of where we want to go.

Anyways, let’s leave it there for now. I just wanted to let you know that next week we are going to have an in studio guest. It will be John Thompson from the Mackenzie Institute in Toronto. He’ll be joining us here live in the studio. And we will be talking about the war in Afghanistan and the world situation. So until next week, on Thursday next week, we will continue our journey in the right direction. So until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, and think right. See you next week. Take care.

Audio Clip (Comedy Routine)

I do ethnic humor. I make no apologies about it. I’m Latino, I’m Mexican, and Hispanics come in all colors. Whereas black as Sammy Sosa, whereas blonde-haired blue-eyed as Cameron Diaz. The president of Peru is Japanese. His name is Fujimori. How that happened, I don’t know. There are French Hispanics, there are Jewish Hispanics, Sephardics, there are Irish Hispanics like Anthony Quinn. I was in Miami, believe it or not, they’re a Chinese Cuban people. You know why? Because we’ll sleep with anybody.