010 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 010
Air Date: June 21, 2007
Host: Bob Metz

Station Disclaimer:

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

Clip (Lost in Space S01E03 “Island in the Sky”)
Dr. Zachary Smith: We landed. Where are the others? Others in party. Are they alive?
Robot: Affirmative.
Dr. Zachary Smith: Are they on ship?
Robot: Negative.
Dr. Zachary Smith: Excellent. I think it’s safe to say that the two of us now constitute a voting majority.
Robot: I do not vote. I am not programmed for free choice.
Dr. Zachary Smith: Don’t worry about it. It’s vastly overrated.

Bob Metz: Good morning London. It’s Thursday June 21st. I’m Bob Metz and this is Just Right. On CHRW 94.9 FM where we will be with you from now till noon. Not right wing. Just right.

Welcome to the show. Glad you joined us today on the first day of summer. June 21, 2007. I guess the sun is going to be hitting the Tropic of Cancer in a couple of hours and then it will start its long journey back down south.

Just to prove that global warming is a real phenomenon and occurs every year in half of the globe. But that’s not what we’re talking about today. Today we’ll be talking about a number of issues including school board creative accounting. A little bit about the promises being made during this Ontario election. We’re going to have a guest later on too talking about anti-war protesters and anti-war workshops dealing with the regional social forum. Where I will be joined by Anthony Verberckmoes of Indy Media Independent News. So that should be an interesting section to stay tuned for. But first I want to hit an issue that I really haven’t talked about much lately.

It started at the beginning of the week. I was just listening to some of the news stories that were occupying people’s minds and it was kind of depressing in a way. I think I’m getting to the belief that a lot of people are just like Dr. Smith in that opening clip where they think free choice is just something that’s overrated. And how easily we are willing to give it up if somebody can convince us that what we’re getting in return is some kind of security. Or better feeling of some sort.

One of the main things, they might seem totally unrelated but I’m leading to a major issue on something else that I want to lead to. And that’s about risk and what is the nature of risk and how it relates to freedom. But one of the things that we’re coming up there’s more of a national story and a local story that I sort of want to tie together here. The local one is about, now they’ve already put it to rest so to speak. It’s going back to City Hall but they were talking about tougher idling bylaws earlier this week. And no one’s been charged with these idling bylaws.

We apparently have had them since 1998 or so. No charges made in the London area yet but apparently some environmentalists and other people are rather interested that there should be more people punished under this law because what they’re doing with this law is trying to educate us. In particular we’ve heard from local environmentalist Steve Turner, Sam Trosco, who are determined to punish anyone as part of this education program through the City’s Environmental and Transportation Committee. What they wanted to do was make sure that if you sat in, say in a Tim Horton’s drive-thru waiting line going into the drive-in that if you idled for more than three minutes that they could fine you $125 and apparently that would educate you in some way.

Now what the law actually says is that the proposed bylaw would prohibit more than three minutes of idling during any hour period. The minutes need not be consecutive. Now who is going to follow you around? You’d have to have an absolute police state to have some guy follow you around and with a little stopwatch, okay stop for five seconds. When’s the hour going to be up? Okay next five seconds click click. Oh he’s adding up to three minutes pretty soon. It’s getting around to 11 o’clock. We’re going to get him. Oh it’s 27 degrees. Well we can’t touch him because when the temperature hits 27 magically you’re exempt from this law which seems kind of weird doesn’t it?

Since all the heat and the inversion and the pollution and all that stuff occurs above 27 degrees generally speaking but that’s when it’s exempt. So they only want you not to idle when it’s cool and comfortable outside. Now it’s not that I’m opposed to doing things good for the environment and stuff like that. When I know I’m waiting for a long period of time I’ll turn my car off but I’m not doing it because of environmental concerns. I’m doing it because it’s the sensible thing to do. I’m saving gas I don’t need to waste it because it’s in everyone’s self interest isn’t it? To save gas.

So what I see in this is not so much somebody wanting to tell you no you can’t do that you can’t do that they’re kind of slapping you on the wrist like they’re your parents or something. And it’s just not an attitude that I can accept. Why is it okay for me to drive my car at half a mile an hour and nobody would touch me but I can’t sit in the car with the car running. It’s not the issue of the environment it’s the issue of now somebody’s telling you exactly what you can use your car for minute by minute and that’s almost what they want to tell you. It’s so ludicrous too that the whole concept of trying to make things better in this way.

For example I drive a 92 Crown Vic and I haven’t had a problem with it yet in terms of passing any emission standards and I’m told by people that these cars just pass emission standards without even blinking twice. The car is old by today’s standards but it drives quietly it’s clean and it uses a lot less fuel than the previous cars I used that had smaller engines. So this whole nonsense and they say themselves that it’s all about educating we want to educate you we want to educate you because you got to keep aware of the environment keep aware of this as though we aren’t getting inundated enough. I almost see it as something motivating this just doesn’t seem right to me.

There is another issue involved in this as well and that’s a more important issue I think and that’s the issue of the whole no fly list and the discomfort caused by people traveling and going from place to place. Now we started in Canada apparently on Monday the no fly list here that we have in Canada has apparently less than a thousand names on it which means that anyone getting on a plane within Canada you don’t have to leave the country. You can be denied a boarding pass just because your name is similar to a name that happens to be on that list. A lot of people have the same names there’s no question about that and I can see that that’s going to be a major issue for people.

But think of all the innocent people getting caught in all of this I mean didn’t the Taliban basically win the war on 9/11 right off the bat because we’re doing all the rest of the work for them. We’re restricting our freedoms to the point where security is being compromised I get a kick out of the mentality here and I think it all has to do with risk in general. You see people now we’re waiting for passports the backlogs are incredible thousands of people have had to cancel their vacations their family plans and that inconvenience in and of itself is something that if I was the enemy I’d be going you guys are really silly. Oh man what are you doing we have these no fly list bans on liquids and plastics and basically terrorizing a lot of innocent people in the hope that we’ll catch that one guy who just might be the big disaster.

Well I remember discussing this issue just a week or two after 9/11 on Jim Chapman’s show and everyone was worried about when another airline would be used the same way it was on 9/11 and my argument goes this way. I think the threat from airlines as a weapon of mass destruction is over those days are over and it ended with the fourth plane on 9/11 when the passengers realizing that this was not a typical hostage hijacking event up until 9/11 you got hijacked you figured well somebody’s going to hold me for ransom I’m probably going to get out my odds are pretty good I’m not going to resist. But the minute you realize that you are doomed you’re not just going to sit there every person on that plane is a weapon against any potential hijacker and of course it hasn’t happened since then as well.

And I think that with all the attention that we’re giving to airlines and areas like that where’s a lot of people I think while we’re looking one way if terrorists could be looking in quite another place very quiet places where there are a few people and yet they can disrupt things like power. And issues of that nature. The people that were on that fourth plane that prevented it from crashing into any major structures or anything they took matters into their own hands weaponless defenseless and yet still willing to risk their lives. So I think the next hijacker of a plane would have to kill all the passengers first if he wanted to carry out any threat of violence because I don’t think that’s going to get him anywhere.

But what concerns me is that this restricted environment that we are creating for ourselves is exactly what terrorists thrive on. They know how to move through restrictions they come from countries that are so restricted even see what happens in jails when people are in jails they still get their drugs they still get whatever they want there’s power being traded there it’s just amazing what can get through the barriers that we think we can prevent.

Now I’ve heard the argument from people saying well I’ve got nothing to hide people who say I don’t mind being inconvenienced. If they don’t search and something happens it’s 2007 the world’s a different place well no it’s not really the same place it was before 9/11. But what is different is we’re turning it into a different place and we’re turning it into the very place we fear.

This brings me to my next issue and that’s the issue of risk and it’s just like people want to reduce all risks down to zero but the truth of the matter is that risk the things that we concern about are not the high risk items. Just looking at a quick article in Time Magazine here where we see that if you’re going to die of something it’s going to be a disease heart disease cancer stroke diabetes chronic lower respiratory disease out of 2.5 million people in the states that takes up half of them right there. Other diseases that you don’t even know about you’re talking about 681,000 per 2.5 million and believe it or not homicide is a low 17,000 out of 2.5 million dwarfed by suicide 31,000 drug overdose only 11,000.

You think out of 2.5 million people how many people have had snake bites or been attacked by marine animals. One, two, and these are things that people worry about incredibly. So before we leave I just wanted to conclude then people are terrified of death in all sorts of ways but as they note in the Time magazine article all death is created pretty much equal for most creatures. Whether you’re eaten by a lion or drowned in a river your time on the savannah is over. That’s not the way human beings see things though the more pain or suffering something causes the more we tend to fear it. The cleaner or at least quicker the death the less it troubles us and that is why people worry too much about the wrong things and too little about the right things. We truly do misjudge risk. I’ll be talking about that in more detail sometime in the future but right now we’re going to take a break. If you want to join the conversation 519-661-3600 join us and we’ll be back right after these messages.

Clip (Just for Laughs – Mike Macdonald):

I’ve never understood that whole thing about all these thrill seekers like skydiving. A little while ago my friends tried to make me go skydiving there’s no way I’m going to go. If your chute screws up you have approximately two minutes before you hit the ground. Two whole minutes. If I have to die I want it to be quick and painless.

I think most people would agree. Quick and painless. Top two answers quick and painless. And if you had to pick one I’d go with a quick little pain. Okay but quick. It’s got to be quick. You want the shark to bite your head off not start on the feet and work up. Man I’m swimming I see a shark I swim towards the shark.

Clip (Caroline Aherne):

Hello I’m Sister Mary Immaculate. There are many Catholics in here tonight. Nearly everyone. People say to me does God only love Catholics. Well that’s not true. God loves Protestants and Jews and Anglicans. He loves them all. He prefers the Catholics. Who doesn’t?

Bob Metz: Yeah well John Tory apparently does not anymore. If you’re going by what the Tories are promising in the Ontario provincial election and they want to now have the taxpayer pay for all religious schooling. Welcome back. This is Just Right with Bob Metz. You’re listening to CHRW 94.9 FM. You can call 519-661-3600 to join in the conversation. Where right now we’re going to be talking a little bit about the Ontario election and all the promises and promises that are being made because they’re all yours to keep. Let’s hope that some of these promises are not kept because I don’t know if we can afford them all.

Now there’s a big debate of course building about the whole issue of education and education tax funding with the election coming up. And the Tories have of course, and by Tories I mean the provincial progressive conservatives, under John Tory which is just coincidentally the name of the party leader happens to match what we call the party as well. Doesn’t that work out well for marketing purposes? But here he is saying now that he avoided an issue here in terms of people directing their own money to the schools of their choice and that is that he is tax funding religious schools. Which might on the surface sound great, especially if you want your kids to go to religious school and you think you’re the beneficiary of this, but that’s one of the big mistakes we always make in politics. While the government’s busy robbing Peter to pay Paul, all of us think our name is Paul.

The problem is our name is Peter and we find out that we’re only named Paul 2% of the time and our name is Peter 98% of the time. And until we latch onto that, public funding of anything will not really make sense. It’s merely a vote getting tool and that’s, they’re each fighting over two wrongs. Two wrongs don’t make a right. As Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever said in a news release on this very issue, and he points out that John Tory’s proposal is nothing less than a call for tax-funded assault on science and rationality because guess what, he’s not extending this kind of funding to schools that only teach science and knowledge of the universe and knowledge in particular, not only religious issues.

And of course, if you look at history, as Paul points out, the happiness found among individuals in the Western world can be attributed solely to the results of logical, independent thought about the scientifically provable facts of nature. It is not founded upon unquestioning belief. And how true, but that doesn’t seem to make any difference to the Tory.

Listen to some of the promises that have been made so far. I just summarized some headlines in the news over the provincial election here and I’m just sampling some over the past week or so, okay? I’ve got here, well, McGuinty, pouring a half a billion dollars, or literally 650 million, of your tax dollars into the auto sector towards energy efficient big cars. Get it, big cars, not small cars, but big cars. And of course, the unions are celebrating this because, in this case, their name is Paul. And so they’re getting money and they want more of your money. And it kind of tells me that if the industry needs our money to stay afloat, it’s sinking. And when will we stop having to put money in to keep it afloat? And it’s not the first issue of this nature. 650 million dollars, and that’s just in one area. There have been many others as union representatives have said, 100 million here, 200 million there, and that’s just in the auto sector.

Then you’ve got other headlines like McGuinty ducking the nuclear issue. This is in the June 17th Free Press, with which regards elevated levels of radioactive tritium that was found in the Great Lakes. McGuinty says they pose no threat, but by gosh, it’s going to ban light bulbs. It’s going to ban those light bulbs, but that radioactive stuff in the lakes, that’s okay. That’s okay.

Oh boy, Liberals promised to pour billions into transit, June 16, 2007, Free Press. Premier Dalton McGuinty unveiled his sweeping 17.5 billion transit vision for the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, comprising some 52 projects, which will create 175,000 jobs. Oh, well that’s how they’re going to get back the 200,000 jobs they lost with raising the minimum wage. Maybe that’s what the plan was. And of course McGuinty expects the federal government to come up with one-third of the cost. Huh, well, now we know what the argument’s going to be for the next 20 or 30 years. Toronto Mayor David Miller, of course, loves the great news, because his name’s Paul in this case, too. It’s funny, you only hear from the Pauls, when talking about politics. Everyone who’s getting the money is smiling and happy, but the Peters, the rest of us sitting at home, are watching our money Peter away. And I think the analogy’s just so apt.

PCs delay on vote changes, June 14 Free Press, and this is regarding Tory leader John Tory saying, he has no opinion on the change to the electoral system that we’re going to have on the referendum on October 10th. I don’t know, he says, but instead he says he’s going to create jobs, show leadership, cut taxes, and that’s amazing because I saw him on TVO where he specifically avoided saying he would cut taxes, and increased spending on health and education. That’s interesting. He doesn’t even know where he stands on the referendum question.

Well, the good news is I just found out before I got on the show, I got a phone call from Toronto that we were very concerned, and by we, I mean I and other people within Freedom Party, as many of you know we’re involved with, and we addressed the government on this. But amazingly, the question that will be worded in the October 10th election is the one that we proposed, and only we proposed. We wanted to make sure that it was not a yes or no question, because when you get a yes or no question to a convoluted sentence, people go, am I saying yes to the one side, or am I actually saying yes to the other one, which we had with the Charlottetown Accord, because it was like a double negative if you read it very carefully. So the question now will be more along the line of are you in favour of first past the post, or are you in favour of MMP multi-member proportionality? And of course, you’ll have to explain that, but that’s a much more honest question in terms of the issue. And that’s something you’re going to have to deal with on October 10th. That’ll be a new one for us all.

Here’s another one. Liberals tie climate plan to reelection June 7th. And of course, they’re not going to reveal all of the plan, but it’ll all depend upon their reelection. So we’ll hear all about those plans when they get reelected. And of course, just the money piles up. Tory’s health care budget would top $46 billion out of the National Post. He’s going to hike spending by 5%. He will phase out the Liberal Employer Health Care Premium. Get that. And he says that we can save millions of dollars by eliminating unnecessary x-rays prescribed for back patients. So there you go. Even less medical care for all that more money is going to…just on it goes. Of course, he says he’s not going to raise taxes because he blames the last hike on the deficit left by the Harris Tories. And he says he means it this time by gosh.

And then Ontario gives $5 million for gun crackdown. Just unbelievable. Liberals promised $200 million green plan out of the National Post. Now what this $200 million green plan is. They’re going to reduce greenhouse gases by lending money to 445 municipalities across the province. So they can borrow up to $200 million to improve insulation, replace windows, and make other infrastructure improvements. Hello? Greenhouse gases? What’s that got to do with greenhouse gases? Nothing. It’s absolutely total nut disconnect right there.

Then of course there’s the Green Party themselves. And boy, they’re getting more popular. Here’s their big stands of eight of them. Ontario must achieve 80% of Kyoto targets by 2050. They want to encourage voters to support proportional representation on that referendum we were talking about. They want to fund only non-religious education. In fact, they want one school system for all. And they want to abolish the Ontario Municipal Board and leave financial municipal decisions to local elected councils, which might sound good on the surface unless you’re a local guy who is being stepped upon, as we see with the developers here. Ban hand guns and rely on all new renewable electricity. Just amazing.

But I just see no hope there. I just see that we as taxpayers are being milked and not really going to be getting anything more for it than the same stories we’ve had forever. Reminds me of the Thames Valley District School Board. Remember last week I did some estimates. I said, well, it’d have to…with rough figures I have, they’d have to lay off about 50 people and save so much money. Well, turns out the actual figure was 65 jobs and they said they avoided cutting them because through creative accounting they turned their $7.5 million deficit into a $200,000 surplus overnight since last week. Can you imagine?

And get this. Instead of cutting 65 jobs, even though, remember, enrollments going down by over 1,500, and oh, they’re going to create another job. They’re going to add a records management person. And they said, well, we’ll have to deal with declining enrollment and reduced revenues. Just unbelievable. And the head of board said on the radio the other day, I wish I could apply that kind of magic to my own budget. Anyways, that’s it for this break. When we get back, we’ll be back with our guest and we’ll be talking about war protesting.

Clip (Joey Elias):

Montreal. Nice to be home. Thank you for getting it. Hey, how are you? It’s nice to be home. I still don’t speak French, though. That makes it tough. Sorry. Because it’s such an easy language to pick up. How many verbs do they have? Passé, passe composé, frites juste, frites jessé, pépadatif, sur joffé, ple de pépaphe, screw off! English, one verb. Shut up. We don’t need a little green book to tell us how to conjugate them.

Clip (Star Trek: The Next Generation):

Senseless killing is immoral. But killing for a purpose can be quite often ingenious. Well said, Mr. Redlock. What is our purpose? We are on a quest for knowledge, Mr. Leitch.

Bob Metz: And we too are on a quest for knowledge here on CHRW 94.9, where you are listening to Just Right. I’m Bob Metz. And the phone number to call if you want to get through to us is 519-661-3600. Right now, I am joined in studio by Anthony Verberckmoes. Did I say that right, Anthony?

Anthony Verberckmoes: That was good. Pretty good.

Bob Metz: And you are with? Tell us.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, today I’m here to promote the regional social forum that’s going on this weekend.

Bob Metz: And that is being held, I understand. Let me see here. It says it’s at the Scouts Canada grounds. Is that right? 531 Windermere Road?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Yeah, Windermere, just off of Richmond.

Bob Metz: And tell us a bit about it. It says here, it’s a hugely popular free event. It’s free then, right? Anybody can go or they have to be from the university campus?

Anthony Verberckmoes: No, it’s open to everyone. And it says the slogan is, a better world is possible. And tell us a little bit about what kind of activities are whirling around that slogan and what kind of better world. Is there a common vision there? Is there many visions?

Anthony Verberckmoes: A little bit of both. It’s sort of based on the world social forum that’s become really popular and other places in the world started down in Brazil and it’s been held in Africa. It’s sort of modeled on that. This one’s in the London area. And it really is a collection of visions, all sort of progressive, all sort of hoping to improve things and push social causes. Yeah, there’s quite a variety of groups and people taking part in this.

Bob Metz: Now, I did notice when I went online, I was quite impressed by the size of the website and the connections around the world because I hadn’t heard of… Now, I went to Indymedia.org and that’s I-N-D-Y-M-E-D-I-A .org, right? There are good people down there. And I was astounded at the size of the thing and the connections I had to look down and go down the left-hand column, look one in Ontario up. So there’s a lot of activities going on, what, all the same weekend, same time kind of thing?

Anthony Verberckmoes: No. What you might have saw on the Indymedia site are other members of our network. That’s a local alternative news site and London’s one local chapter. There are social forums that go on all over the place. We’re the only one in Canada to go on three years in a row now here in London. So we’re sort of a success story here, I guess you might say.

Bob Metz: Okay. And so this is… How many times has this been done now here locally?

Anthony Verberckmoes: In London, this is our third annual.

Bob Metz: This is the third. And it’s always on the first day of summer or is it just…

Anthony Verberckmoes: Happen to be that today? Yeah, they pushed it back a little this year. Last year it was a little earlier in the month.

Bob Metz: So what kind of issues would be brought up at a work… I understand there’s workshops, I guess there’s speeches, there’s… What other kind of activities?

Anthony Verberckmoes: It’s ongoing. There’s people will be camping out there the whole weekend. Camping? Yeah, because it’s at the campgrounds. There’s a lot of open space. There’s going to be vegan food available. There’s tables set up by different groups to distribute information and talk to people. I don’t have my speaker list with me, but as you said, there’s a list of interesting speakers set up. And then there’s a bunch of workshops going on every day, twice a day at 10 o’clock. And two o’clock there’s a lineup of workshops where people can take part.

Bob Metz: Is that a list of them there?

Anthony Verberckmoes: This is the current list. And people are… That’s where there’ll be people bringing up a certain subject. And the people attending can take part in the discussion.

Bob Metz: Well, now, as I look at some of these subjects, the secret society, secret trials in Canada, and deportation to torture with Matthew Behrens, reduce the incidence of sexual exploitation with Jesse Roger, food security using El Salvador as an example. Integrated mines and machine, the disabled body as cyborg resistance. What would that be about?

Anthony Verberckmoes: I can’t wait to find out. The poverty draft, a perspective of a war resistor. The human rights situation in Burma. And that’s just in the morning. That’s all at 10 a.m. That’s all tomorrow morning. So you can’t go to all of them at the same time. That’s one drawback as I see it. There’s always something you’re missing.

Bob Metz: And then you’re talking 2 p.m. You’ve got Canadian mining companies around the world. Unschooling, a radical approach to learning. Buy less crap. Consuming suffering. Dealing with the police. That’s an interesting one. Counter-striker, opposing military research on campus. That’s an interesting issue.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Yeah, that’s a group here at UWO.

Bob Metz: And why would they oppose military research on campus?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, double purpose. Many feel that it sort of tarnishes the image of UWO. Once they find out there’s military research taking place. And another issue for a lot of people has been the…

Bob Metz: How would that tarnish the image? Isn’t our military a force for good?

Anthony Verberckmoes: How much time do we have? I personally don’t think so at all. And to me it is a tarnish.

Bob Metz: So even having a military is not a good thing?

Anthony Verberckmoes: I wouldn’t necessarily say that. But I think aggressive military operations and UWO lending its resources towards that whole effort. And the wars going on, I don’t think that that’s a connection that should be really there.

Bob Metz: Well, did we start those wars? Did we start… Yeah, the wars that you’re talking about. I mean, strikes me the reason we’re over in Afghanistan is because of 9-11. Is that not the reason we’re there?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Really? Is that what we’re there for? To punish them for 9-11?

Bob Metz: Well, okay, it might be bad tactics. I could give you a lot of reasons. But why would we be there?

Anthony Verberckmoes: I would agree on that. I think that’s a good question. I mean, the way I see it, we’re sort of filling a role for the American adventures so that they had more resources to pour into Iraq.

Bob Metz: And why would they be doing that? I mean, what’s in their interest to do that?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, geez, I could give you a whole reading list on those reasons. A lot of them were brought out before they went over there. I mean, it happens to be the second largest oil reserves.

Bob Metz: Well, yeah, but they went to countries…

Anthony Verberckmoes: Have you ever heard of a project for a new American Century? They basically laid out what they wanted to do before they got into office.

Bob Metz: Well, I wouldn’t be surprised. I often see Iraq simply as a tactical move to move closer to Iran. I think that’s a part of it as well. And if that is, Iran… If you don’t regard Iran as a threat, despite what the president of Iran has been saying, and the nuclear arms build up, and the mere irrationality of that part of the world and the commitment to wanting to get rid of a country like Israel, what would you do about those things without a…

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, first off, I would think Iran, with what’s facing them, would be insane if they didn’t try and acquire some sort of protection. I mean, everything in the region is pointing towards them. And another thing is, I think I would… Well, who’s us?

Bob Metz: Well, certainly the Americans have been slowly circling them.

Anthony Verberckmoes: And I think if you’re listening to what’s being said about Iran, the Grand Ayatollah is the one we really should be listening to. That’s where the real power is, but they keep taking these quotes to use to make them look insane. The Americans were selling them nuclear information in the 70s, setting them up, and now suddenly it’s a big problem when they want to use nuclear power, when they’ve got all the weapons in the region pointed at them. I mean, it would seem odd to me if they didn’t want to protect themselves.

Bob Metz: Did you ever hear anybody there say that we’re creating this nuclear power for self-defense because we’re afraid of the other countries attacking us? That’s not what the country is saying. And it seems that you’re not even listening to what they themselves are saying. They are saying, we will destroy Israel.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, that’s what one person has said.

Bob Metz: Well, he’s in control of the country.

Anthony Verberckmoes: No, he’s not. Actually, the Grand Ayatollah is in control of the country, and he hasn’t actually said things like that.

Bob Metz: Well, if that would make it even worse, because then you’d have a very religious country, again, with that religious division wanting to destroy another country that has a different religion. Isn’t that worrisome at all?

Anthony Verberckmoes: I don’t know. The world’s most worrisome actions in the Middle East to me have come out of Israel more than anywhere. I mean, for all the rhetoric that comes out of Iran, Israel’s made a lot of military moves in recent times.

Bob Metz: Well, yes. Every time they’re attacked, they respond.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Every time they’re attacked?

Bob Metz: Yeah. Or… You don’t see it that way?

Anthony Verberckmoes: You know, Israel has had, just by means of terrorists, I mean, I forget, I used to collect newspaper clippings, and it was like you could almost count two a day some rocket lobbed into Israel, from some place.

Bob Metz: Well, if we’re counting, do we count the other way, too? I mean, the casualty figures are almost ten to one in the occupied territories, and in the war last year, they were even worse.

Anthony Verberckmoes: And that’s the point. If we were to strike back, we’d probably create a lot more damage than was caused to us, but does that mean that we don’t have the right to strike back? You think it has to be equivalent? If they kill 100 Canadians, we can only…

Bob Metz: Strike back against what? I mean, they’ve been occupying that territory for 40 years. They’ve invaded Lebanon numerous times. There’s always a military presence at the borders.

Anthony Verberckmoes: I mean, I’m not sure who’s the one striking back.

Bob Metz: Well, you have to look. Can you tell who the good guy is and the bad guy is? Are there any bad guys in the mid-east or in that whole oil situation, or is it all just competing interest as far as you’re concerned?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, it’s always competing interest, but I mean, whoever has the most power usually has the most influence.

Bob Metz: Well, we have to take a break right now, Anthony. You want to carry this on on the other side?

Anthony Verberckmoes: I’m good to go.

Bob Metz: Okay, we’ll be good to go. We’ll come back right after these messages. Stick with us.

Clip (Yes Minister S03E06 “The Whisky Priest”)
Jim Hacker: It’s nobody about to take this lightly, Humphrey, but we cannot close our eyes to something that is as morally wrong as this.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Very well, Minister. If you insist on making me discuss moral issues, may I point out to you that something is either morally wrong or it isn’t. It can’t be slightly morally wrong.
Jim Hacker: No, don’t quibble, Humphrey. Government isn’t about morality.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really? What is it about then?
Jim Hacker: Stability. Keeping things going, preventing anarchy, stopping society falling to bits, still being here tomorrow.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: What for?
Jim Hacker: What is the ultimate purpose of government if it isn’t for doing good?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, government isn’t about good and evil. It’s only about order or chaos.
Jim Hacker: And it’s in order for Italian terrorists to get British bombs. And you don’t care.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: It’s not my job to care. That’s what politicians are for. My job is to carry out government policy.
Jim Hacker: Even if you think it’s wrong?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but… frightfully well carried out.

Clip (Men in Trees):

I’ve got an ethical question for you. We’re taught early on to be a good person, to be kind, to follow the rules, to say our prayers and take our vitamins. But what if we do the right thing and bad things happen? What then? Is it ever wrong to do the right thing?

Bob Metz: Welcome back to Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM, where you can join the conversation if you like at 519-661-3600. And I’m in the studio here with Anthony Verberckmoes, that’s good, yep. And we were just talking before the break about some of the events that are being held going on. Is that starting now already?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Tonight it kicks off with the critical mass bike rally from Victoria Park to the campgrounds.

Bob Metz: So today, be it Thursday, tomorrow it starts on Friday, that’s when everything gets going. And just before the break we were talking about… In fact, that question we just came out of the break with, is it ever wrong to do right? I often wonder if that’s how some people maybe feel about the war, that maybe we went in there with the right intentions and turned out to be an error. And even if it was, would that make the people acting wrong in their original intentions? It’s a tremendous philosophical question, because before the war, or before the invasion of Iraq, let us say, Democrats and Republicans and everyone alike, all the UN, all agreed that the country had weapons of mass destruction, which indeed it did have in the past with American price tags on them. Does it really matter where they buy their weapons? If I sold you a car and then you decided to go crazy one day and kill somebody, am I responsible for that?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, I just think it shows the hypocrisy of the American intentions that they set this country up, fill it full of weapons, and then turn around and use that as an excuse to invade them.

Bob Metz: Well, that’s what happens when you align yourself, when two differing, let’s say, ideologies have a common enemy, and they tend to help each other. Just the same way the West sort of helped or aligned with Russia during World War II, even though we had totally different perspectives on government and on people’s relationship to that government. But wouldn’t… isn’t protesting the war in general backing the bullies, isn’t… I don’t see the West as being, by the West I mean England, Canada, the United States, as being the bullies in this. All that we want to do is have a peaceful world where people can trade, buy their oil and gas and their Kellogg’s cereal, whatever, and people don’t shoot. We’re not the ones taking the first shots as I see it.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. I mean, I think those countries are soaked in blood, their histories. I mean, it’s… especially since World War II, it’s been a constant, ongoing state of war, one country after another after another. In Spain, Iraq, they lost… they were losing a hundred of their own citizens a day. That was at the height of American support as well.

Bob Metz: Well, but that’s not the point.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, it is the point. I mean, if they had nothing to say about it then, except keeping the checks going, then why would it be a problem now?

Bob Metz: You’re opposed to America supporting the country, you’re opposed to America invading the country. It seems to me that every time we see the protesters out there, it’s only when America is involved in a war, but if it’s two other factions, we never hear from you. If it’s one totalitarian against another one, and they’re killing people and slaughtering people, I don’t see all the protesters lining up there going, whoa, the war is evil. Because all the anti-war protests, I saw in New York City after 9-11 were organized by socialist international, and they carried the signs. That was their mantra, they’re opposed to the war because basically they’re bullies themselves as far as I see it.

Anthony Verberckmoes: I see that as we’re most responsible for our own actions, so what Canada does interests me the most, and our sudden position of total support for American and Israeli actions, that’s why those countries’ actions take on more meaning to me.

Bob Metz: Well, first of all, we didn’t give them total support, we gave them partial support. We wouldn’t go into Iraq, we went into Afghanistan.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Okay, we didn’t commit our meager resources towards their Iraqi adventure, but we did lend them to Afghanistan to enable them to go into Iraq politically.

Bob Metz: So to you, the UN doesn’t exist here at all, it’s just the US and the UN is not even there.

Anthony Verberckmoes: I don’t know what you mean by that. Americans seem to disregard the UN more than anyone.

Bob Metz: Well, when it’s not in their interest, and we would too. Anyone would.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Anyone would, of course. And then what would happen when they do that?

Bob Metz: Well, then the alliance falls apart. That’s what usually happens, and that’s inevitable what’s going to happen with the UN.

Anthony Verberckmoes: I think those that are more powerful enough to ignore the UN usually do.

Bob Metz: Do you not see a difference in the philosophies between the United States? I’m not saying that the states in Canada are perfect, I complain about them all the time. You hear me in here every week complaining about both countries. But when I step back and I look at the bigger picture, I think we have to be very thankful for the freedoms we have here, which the countries that we’re fighting do not allow for their own citizens. And to me, that’s the beginning and the end point. Once you live in a country, one thing I learned when I studied history is that the number of people killed in any war is dwarfed. It’s almost insignificant compared to the number of people killed by their own leaders and their own nations and their own totalitarian regimes. It just boggles the mind. We’ll sit here and million slaughtered by Russia, and we all sit here. It’s in Africa, the same thing, but as soon as America intervenes and tries to do something about it, it’s evil. I don’t understand that. Could you explain it for me?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, I can explain all of that, but my take would be that any atrocity like that is something to be avoided. And again, I’d go back to what we’re responsible for is our own actions, the predictable outcome of our own actions. So for us to take part and support these dictators that commit these crimes, then that’s the real sin for us. And I mean, if you do look at American history, especially since World War II, they’ve had a constant habit of supporting these regimes until it’s not in their interest any longer.

Bob Metz: So then you’d have to suggest that, okay, we don’t support the dictator, we’ll just go over there, take over the country and put our own guy in place?

Anthony Verberckmoes: That seems to be what they do most of the time. Well, that’s just another dictator, isn’t it? If they can get their way, they usually do. In fact, the internal documents showed the Americans wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with a like strong man so that they could continue on most of what was happening to begin with.

Bob Metz: And there’s probably some truth to that, because it’s the same reason that you vote for the lesser of a given number of evils. If that’s all you’re given is a certain number of evils, you have to choose among them. And since over there, all you have is one dictator, one criminal regime after another, you’ve got to pick the lesser one for the time being. That’s a tactical issue.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Since one of our supposed goals is to spread democracy, it’d be nice if we’d support some of this democracy when it does rear its head. We have a habit of squashing it when it does come up, like we did in Palestine. As soon as there’s a government elected, we do everything we can to sabotage them.

Bob Metz: Well, you think that elections have something to do with democracy?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Democracy is not part of it.

Bob Metz: Well, actually it’s not, because many non-democratic countries have elections. Elections are part of almost every corporation, every country. A democracy is a country in which the leaders have no more rights or fewer rights than the citizens. And that’s definitely not the situation in those countries. I agree with you. We shouldn’t be over there imposing democracy. We’re only over there as far as I’m concerned to defend ourselves. And that’s it. That’s the only justified reason to ever use force, is in self-defense. And that’s why I see us as being there, because if we’re not there, they’re going to be here. They’ve already told us that. They made that very clear on 9-11. So to me, the question is, who made it clear on 9-11?

Anthony Verberckmoes: The Palestinians? Could be the Saudis. Everybody thinks it’s the Saudis. Does that make any difference, really? Should we be in Saudi Arabia then? Does it make a difference? Who threatened to attack us?

Bob Metz: Well, here’s my question. What would you have done on 9-12?

Anthony Verberckmoes: What would I have done? Probably launched a criminal investigation.

Bob Metz: Okay, they did something similar to that, didn’t they? And they found out that…

Anthony Verberckmoes: I’m not sure that I ever saw that.

Bob Metz: Well, okay, you’re completely skeptical and understandably so, because there’s not much history during the war. Okay, because it works on both sides.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, they hanged people at the end of World War II for outright aggression. It was called the Supreme Crime. And I think that’s exactly what’s happened here. Aggression. With almost no excuse at all. I mean, one excuse after another has fallen.

Bob Metz: Aggression on whose part?

Anthony Verberckmoes: On all the Americans and everyone who followed them.

Bob Metz: So there was no aggression on the other side at all?

Anthony Verberckmoes: 9-11 was perfect. Which other side? Who cares? Whoever was responsible for the twin towers? Well, that didn’t seem to be the American attitude. Whoever was responsible. So where are these connections? And the Afghans offered up Osama if there was any proof shown and they weren’t showing anything.

Bob Metz: I have never seen any proof of any of these leaders myself. Okay, but I have to operate on a basis of, okay, here’s two countries. What does this country do to its citizens? What does this country do to its citizens? How does this country treat its neighbors? I thought we were defending ourselves. Well, but first you have to determine who the good and the bad guy is. And as far as Afghanistan goes, that’s where everyone, all sides, Britain, everyone decided that’s where they were training all these terrorists. That’s where we got a goal.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Well, that’s where the Americans and British set up the camps to train them originally.

Bob Metz: That was in Russia was there too, and that’s a whole history.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Yeah, that was who they were fighting at the time. That doesn’t mean just because you armed your enemy in the past doesn’t mean you don’t defend yourself against them today.

Bob Metz: Listen, this debate could go on probably forever, but we have to end it now because Ira is over there in the studio. It’s been waving at me. I mean, I got to thank you, Ira, for all your help throughout all this. By the way, Ira reminds me that today is also Native Solidarity Day. Is that an annual event like every June 21?

Anthony Verberckmoes: Yes, it is. So it’s always the first of summer. It’s just not a statutory day yet, hopefully.

Bob Metz: Okay. Anyways, that’s it for this week, folks. I want to thank my guest, Anthony. Thank you very much for coming by. Please don’t be afraid to come by again. I love arguing. I love to discuss these issues. And I think that’s a little bit of, hopefully, what you might be getting at the event over the next couple of days. Hopefully. And certainly, if you want to show up to these events here, let me see. Where are they again? Where was that held again? I just put my notes aside now.

Anthony Verberckmoes: Oh, the Scout grounds on Windermere. 531 Windermere Road, and it’s free.

Bob Metz: Correct. So if you want to take part in that, it’s over the weekend. So that’s it for this week, folks. We will be back next week. And we hope you’ll enjoy or join us again when we will continue our journey in the right direction. Until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, and think right. See you then.

Clip (Wendy Liebman):

I was married for two years. They say the secret to a successful marriage is leave. And then they say, no, they say the secret is just don’t go to bed angry. So I was awake for two years. He didn’t have trouble committing adultery. He was very unfaithful. Yeah, he was cheating on me with his secretary, and I figured it out because they had lipstick on his collar, covered with white out. And… But I got married young. I fell in love at first sight of his house. And I’m not like… I’m not saying I married him for money. I’m implying it, but I’m not… Don’t marry for money, right? Divorce for money. And that’s really… My advice. I don’t care about money. I want a sensitive man, right? I want a man who will cry when I hit him. I want very…