030 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 030

Air Date: November 8, 2007

Host: Bob Metz

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

Clip (The Day the Earth Stood Still, 1951):

Bobby Benson: That’s my father. He was killed at Anzio.

Klaatu: Did all those people die in wars?

Bobby: Most of ‘em. Didn’t you ever hear of the Arlington Cemetery?

Klaatu: No, I’m afraid not.

Bobby: You don’t seem to know much about anything, do you Mr. Carpenter?

Klaatu: Well, I’ll tell you, Bobby, I’ve been away a long time, very far away.

Bobby Benson: Is it different with them? Don’t they have places like this?

Klaatu: Well, they have cemeteries, but not like this one. You see, they don’t have any wars.

Bobby: Gee, that’s a good idea.

Bob Metz: Good morning London. It is Thursday, November 8. 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.

And welcome to the show today on Just Right, where you can call in 519-661-3600 to join in the conversation or offer your insights. You can email us at justright@chrw.com. And today on the show, it’s deja vu all over again. We’re going to have some follow-ups and addendums on topics and items that we’ve covered on past shows, including a little more information on Marc Emery, money and the Canadian exchange system, stress on the job, Afghanistan, robotics, and even gun control, if I can get all those issues in by the end of the day. But of course, to begin with, this is the week, this show only being on Thursday, of course.

It’s the only chance I generally would get to address this issue. And that is the upcoming Remembrance Day that’s going to occur here in Canada on the 11th of November, which happens to fall on a Sunday this year. So it’s that time of year again when Canadians consciously take the time out to reflect upon Canada’s war dead and the reasons for which they died. And I’m going to sort of title my presentation on this subject today, maybe Remembrance Day Forgetfulness, some of the things we forget to remember about Remembrance Day and the nature of war and the reasons that we have to send people to die on the battlefields. I heard one radio commentator on another station earlier this week saying that Remembrance Day isn’t such a big thing for most Canadians anymore. War is far too remote for them to relate to. A lot of the oldest veterans are in their 90s. And generally, the message they took away from the veterans was that war is hell and that we should do everything possible to try to avoid armed conflict now and in the future.

And of course, that’s reasonable advice. And yet, despite the fact that we know this to be true, many parts of the world are far from being peaceful places and the threat of international violence shows every sign of possibility. Things are pretty tense in some places of the world today. And we will be affected.

We can’t just sit out. Generally speaking, though, I notice the media gives us a lot of the first type of coverage of the war and veterans is generally who, what, where and how they might have died or fought for the country. But very little do you get on the second point of that, why they died. Because of the 5 W’s, who, what, when, where and why, it’s why that always drives the other four. And if there’s no why, there is no who, what, where and when, if you think about it. And of course, the why is really the only thing that separates those who suffer loss in life in wars from those who routinely suffer loss in life during day-to-day routine peacetime. And of course, they outnumber people who die in wars.

That’s just a given. So there’s something very different, isn’t there, about the people who die on a battlefield. And there can be no question that there is and should be a time to honour those courageous Canadians who fought for freedom and peace.

And that’s part of what we do on November 11th. But of course, what distinguishes the war dead and injured from the civilian dead and injured is a specific reason. And the conscious, willful act that caused most of their deaths and injuries.

Yet one that is entirely impersonal at the same time. And that’s an act of war. Strangely enough, in many ways, war is an inevitable result. I think of the beliefs and practices upon which we act during peacetime. Wars are not the result, I think, of philosophies we fail to practice, but of those that we do practice. And I think that’s what I want to take a look at today and how some of the things we practice and believe in may cause worse problems. And whether you like it or not, it takes two or more to tango.

It only takes one rotten apple to spoil all the rest of his neighbors. That’s true. To cooperate requires literally that. Cooperation requires the working together of independent minds for a common purpose. But when someone doesn’t want to cooperate, especially on an international level, and not just cooperate, but be offensive, that’s all it takes to start a war. The other people or the other countries may be totally innocent in every respect. And yet they will be forced to fight a war for their own self-defense. So I hear so many people today just having that wishful malaise, wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world without war?

Can’t we all just get along, goes that naive refrain. But the answer is, of course, no. Some can’t and some won’t.

And ignoring that fact in the light of many irrational philosophies that motivate some nations is pretty well tantamount to suicide. And I think that’s one of the things we always have to be on guard for. It is force that is governed. And a military is one of the proper functions of government.

It is the force. And I would argue, and I’m going to make this statement clearly, that without a properly functioning military, you really don’t have a properly functioning nation. You can hardly claim to be a nation if you don’t have a military to defend yourself. And we live amongst this myth, I think, that Canada is this peacekeeping country. And yet we once ranked in the top five military forces on Earth.

And today Canada’s defense system has largely been left to others, at least certainly in perception, primarily the Americans. But that just speaks to the secondary issue. Talking every year, I get a little frustrated when I hear basically some of the things we focus on during Remembrance Day.

And that goes beyond the issue of the actual war dead and the individuals that are honored for some of their actions in war. But basically, I saw the definition almost put this way, and I think it was the Londoner, actually. And it said Remembrance Day, a day to honor the sacrifices that Canadian men and women have made in maintaining our freedom.

It was actually in November 4, Londoner. And I tend to want to contest this concept of sacrifice in the name of your country. Often we’re told that we’re honoring the sacrifice made by those who died in battle. But I don’t think it’s sacrifice, per se, that we should be honoring, because sacrifice is not in and of itself something to be honored, or regarded as a higher moral value, and yet most people I think wouldn’t think twice about doing so.

And that’s one of the dangers of celebrating a Remembrance Day. I think it’s focused on the concept of sacrifice. And if that sounds a little offensive to you, I’m going to explain precisely what I mean by that. I take kind of offense when we say we’re going to sacrifice our soldiers by sending them abroad for some kind of a mission. Soldiers don’t go to war to purposely die. They go to war to fight and kill the enemy if there’s a war, and to live to tell that tale.

But their risk of loss of life itself, or to serious injuries, is really great. So what we should be remembering on Remembrance Day, I think, are those who are willing to take such a risk, to resist having their life, liberty, and property taken from them by force, by an invading enemy. And ironically, I think it’s their refusal to sacrifice, that is really the thing we should be remembering. I mean, it’s that very refusal to sacrifice that allowed them to win in the end.

Countries whose soldiers merely sacrificed themselves to the state generally found themselves on the losing side of a conflict. And if you will recall, back on my August 30th show, right here on the show, we talked a bit about that. And I pointed out how even who admires sacrifice, per se? And if we look at some of the great leaders, among them was Adolf Hitler, who thought sacrifice was the thing that made the Aryan nation great, so to speak. This is from Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

But in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community, the basic attitude from which such fulfillment of duty arises, we call to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness, idealism, as Hitler called sacrifice, the ideal. And of course, I guess in his case, that might have been correct. And it’s also interesting to note that he did not regard the Aryan race as a superior race mentally or physically. It was this very thing that he thought was the thing that distinguished the Aryans, which I think is nonsense to begin with anyway. But the concept of sacrifice, I think, is grossly misunderstood and leads to a host of unnecessary moral dilemmas.

And here’s the distinction. To sacrifice means essentially giving up a greater value for a lesser value. So I always think it’s a little morally dishonest, for example, when you often hear parents say, for example, they sacrificed their new car or appliance for the education of their children. Well, no, they didn’t make a sacrifice. What they actually did was they chose a higher value, and they made no sacrifice at all, because we only have limited resources. We only each have so much money, so much time, so we have to make choices all the time. As long as there are choices, there are choices, and we can’t say that we sacrifice one thing simply because we chose another.

That’s an imprecise use of the word. In fact, if it’s true that they actually made sacrifices for their kids, then what they would be really saying is that they chose a lower value, that they actually do value the car or appliance more than the education of their children, and therefore that’s why they actually made a sacrifice. He sacrificed his life to save his family, you might hear expressed, and I would argue no, he didn’t, but he would have made a sacrifice if he gave his life for total strangers or even worse for people who were hostile to him. So to sacrifice one’s life for totalitarianism is a true sacrifice because you’re giving up a greater value for a lesser one. And the enemy, their soldiers were sacrificed too if you want to look at it that way.

And so if you look at it that way, you see that it’s really not, that’s not the value in and of itself. We must honor their objective and the face of risk, and I think that that’s really the most honorable thing we can do on Remembrance Day. There are so many reasons for war, we must never forget why wars are cause and what causes wars. By the way, it’s interesting how some people honor sacrifice so much.

I was just thinking about this on the way down today. They honor it so much that when their own military is overwhelmingly powerful, and the sacrifice of the military is very minimized, they express a certain contempt for the military. You see that towards basically towards the Canadian and US military to some degree. We do have superior forces despite the problems you might hear. And they are very professional and very restricted in what they can do. And so, and their casualties are very low compared to the enemy, and there’s almost a resentment about that very fact.

And that kind of flips me out sometime when I see people react that way. We should have almost zero casualties, and there shouldn’t be a sacrifice involved, because the only reason we should be going to war is to protect life, liberty, and property. Ayn Rand always argued that the war was basically caused by the belief that it is appropriate to obtain material goods by the means of government force.

And don’t we all still believe that today? Or as Frederick Bastiat once said too, when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. And interesting, there’s a book called the Lucifer Principle, and I forget the author’s name right now, but in that book he points out how it’s not things like poverty and poor conditions. It’s not conditions that cause war, but actually prosperity and the difference between the poor and the rich. And of course, you can almost blame prosperity for many of the world’s wars in past history. And of course, Isabel Paterson argues that when you have a great military, that’s not what makes you powerful.

But really, it works the other way around really. Rome was not great, she argued, because it had a powerful military. Rome had a powerful military because it operated on the proper principles of governance basically.

And certainly in comparison to the other groups around it at the time. And the greatest struggle of the world’s democracies has been to subordinate might to right, as we say. And I think the Western nations were the first to reasonably succeed in this regard.

And that’s really what separates the armed forces of countries like Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, and some others from those nations whose philosophies explicitly proclaimed that might is right the other way around. And I think that’s something that we have to keep in mind. Also, I think it’s very important just as a footnote to note that it is a sacrifice. I think if you’re working with an army that’s operating under a conscription, because the people that go there aren’t volunteers. Whereas if they were volunteers, there’d be no sacrifice involved, although they may have paid a price. And that might be the proper word to use instead of sacrifice.

There’s that saying, what price freedom, well, what cost, the lack of it. And that is really what we should be remembering on Remembrance Day. I know also just following some of the debate locally here. Not about Remembrance Day per se, but our current troops being over in Afghanistan. And we had the recent City Hall debate about supporting our troops, putting ribbons on municipal vehicles and things like that. But I once heard both Susan Eagle and Bud Polhill on opposite sides of that ribbons issue with Eagle on the no side and Polhill on the yes side.

Yeah, let’s put the ribbons on. But interestingly, they were both no’s with regard to Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. And they tried to distance themselves from it. They said, it’s not about the war. We just honor the troops themselves.

And of course, I think that’s a little bit hypocritical. I don’t know if we weren’t in Afghanistan, would we even be talking about ribbons? What are we supporting if we’re not supporting what the troops are doing? Can you support them and be against what they’re doing at the same time? I just see a hypocrisy in that. And of course, the NDP wants to pull out and focus on aid and reconstruction, which by the way, folks, is what we are doing there.

I’ll get to that a little later. And they argue Afghanistan has a history of repelling foreigners. That may certainly be how it’s perceived, but if you look into the background of it, it’s a little more complex than that. But nevertheless, it’s funny, we have to remember to learn from history.

But if we don’t remember the proper fundamentals or remember even the wrong ones, then really, we don’t learn from history, do we? I ran into an article in the London Free Press and written by Peter Worthington on September 14th. And the headline just read seriously, folks. And the subheading was, thanks to our military success, Canada is gaining the world’s respect.

And I thought he brought up some interesting insights into the positive role of the military and the kind of roles it can take. After 9-11, Canada began to have an impact in international matters, thanks almost entirely to our revitalized military in Afghanistan, doing both fighting and reconstruction. Sadly, for purely political purposes, Prime Minister Harper now seems eager to pull back from the thankless task of imposing peace because there’s a political perception, and this is interesting, this is his theory, that Quebecers will not vote for a government that’s resolved to stay in Afghanistan for as long as fighting soldiers are needed. So says Worthington, we now have the unprecedented situation where Germany of all people is begging, according to a global male headline, Canada to continue in Afghanistan beyond 2009 with NATO echoing the same theme.

And why is this? Simple, it’s because the Canadian Army has been so damn good at its job that its continued presence is seen as essential if the volatile Kandahar region is to have a chance at achieving peace and security. If Canada cuts and runs, then others won’t be far behind.

Pulling out too soon means every casualty and death incurred will be meaningless. Canada will again retreat into military torpor where few take us seriously and our word is no longer our bond. In Afghanistan for the first time since Suez in 1956, Canada is being taken seriously by those who matter, thanks to our military.

That was Peter Worthington from the London Free Press on September 14th. Which brings us back to the main point, that without an effective military, you aren’t even a country. And it’s through your military that you can certainly gain a lot of respect through the world, depending on how well restrained and trained the military is. Because like it or not, force is at the backing of everything, but it has to be the justified use of force.

And of course without an effective military, not only won’t you have a country, you certainly will not have freedom. And that’s all I’m going to be saying on that subject today. And when we come back after this, it’s deja vu all over again. And we’ll begin with a little bit of a follow up on last week’s show to have to do with Marc Emery, and I’ll be back right after this.

Clip (Stand-up Comedy):

Speaker 1: What is this urge for the country to be uniformly fit? You know, the last time I remember that happening was Germany in the mid to late 30s. And that didn’t really work out too well, did it? Come on, to me fat guys are the chirping canary in the mine shaft of freedom.

Marc Emery: So you can see that progress is being made. It’s just sometimes you want results that day, and sometimes results take decades. And so as you get older, you realize that, hey, things are happening. And even if I go to jail in America, Canadians will be aware that I’m being held against my will in the United States for something that I was never charged with and cannot that no one ever objected to. I to this day have never met anybody who objected to all the seeds I sold and all the money I gave away. I certainly never met anybody who turned down any of the money I gave away. No charities ever said, no, we don’t want that money.

No political party ever said we don’t want that money. Political leaders of every stripe came to my organization and events, and everybody knew it was from seed sales. And I had a lovely time here. I loved my bookshop.

It was the greatest job you could ever have. And everybody who ever came into my store was always really nice to me, even though I was occasionally pretty hectoring and pretty proselytizing to them. And there were a few customers that would go, whoa, you have to get the speech with every book. So they realized there was a price to pay for those bargains.

Bob Metz: Yeah, there’s a price to pay for everything, isn’t there? Welcome back. Just Right, I’m Bob Metz, and you’re listening to CHRW 94.9 FM, where 519-661-3600 is a number to call us. Interesting, last week if you were tuned into the show, you will know that I did the whole hour on Marc Emery, owing entirely and mainly because of his case before the Canadian courts, and he’s being indicted by the DEA in the United States, and they want to have him over there and put him away for life, whereas up here we would just be allowing him to walk the streets.

And my case last week, basically, was to point out that Marc is less motivated by the pot issue than by freedom itself and all the other various issues that he gets into. And just in that regard, I just noticed that, I know this morning on the front page of the London Free Press, you may notice that there’s a picture of Steve Garrison’s mom over at C.J.B.K. Fanny Goose, who has apparently released a book called Rising from the Holocaust, her accounting of some of her experiences during that period.

Well, you might say, what’s that got to do with Marc Emery? Well, back in 1983, Marc Emery all wrote and published an account of her experiences in the Holocaust in his newspaper called The London Metro Bulletin. So he was there 20 years ahead of the game, and I remember him writing it. I edited the article and he published it. So I’m somewhat aware of what’s probably in that book, and maybe some of you might want to go out and get that book. But also, last week on November 1st, when we discussed Emery, since then a couple other items have come up. One that caught my attention was London Free Press, November 3rd, Herman Goodden’s article. I don’t know if you caught that.

Emery’s bravado may end up costing him dearly. And Herman expressed some points of view that I think are shared by a number of people. I go through them here. This is just my going into the main meat of what his article says, and I quote here. Oh, and when you hear him referring here, he’s talking about a CBC documentary that aired on Marc Emery the week before, which of course we played a clip or two of last week on the show. Nick Wilson’s long anticipated documentary on Marc Emery, The Prince of Pot, aired on CBC News World, The Lens, last week, painting a very bleak picture of Emery’s chances of being extradited to America to face charges, brought two years ago by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Much of Wilson’s documentary fuels the viewer’s outrage at the supposed breach of sovereignty that has allowed an American police agency to prosecute a Canadian on Canadian soil. It seems Wilson indulges in a little too much America bashing and gives short shrift to the idea sovereignty cuts both ways. Sure, you can declare the U.S. war on drugs an appallingly ham-fisted way to deal with a complex social problem, but at the end of the day, their laws are their laws and Emery’s activities as a self-proclaimed major supplier of seeds to grow operations in virtually every state of the Union ran flagrantly afoul of those laws.

Another major theme of the documentary is Emery’s big mouth, which was an interesting way of phrasing it. There are other Canadian suppliers of pot seeds to American consumers, perhaps not operating on so large a scale and certainly not making so much noise about it, who are not being pursued in this way. Emery has not only championed legalizing pot, he has ridiculed and slandered anyone who opposed him.

Such tactics will be all too familiar to Londoners who watched the budding anarchist decades ago as he originally tilted at windmills as quaint as beautification levies imposed on downtown business association and Ontario’s inconsistent Sunday shopping laws. Goodden goes on to express his gratefulness that he was spared Emery’s nattering on incessantly about his political and libertarian causes du jour, when he used to work for Marc at City Lights Bookshop, and then then Emery set his sights on bigger ponds where the media would and perhaps did give him enough headlines to hang himself, and that’s the note on which he ended that editorial. But when I look at the general context of it and the content of Herman’s comments, I just have to think that Herman just doesn’t get it. Emery’s trying to change the law. He’s not trying to get away with a crime. And maybe part of Herman’s amazement is that, hey, he could be laying low, selling his seeds, making his millions. That’s not what Marc is about.

And yeah, he could be doing that. He could avoid this whole mess. He does not have to be there. He’s like one of those people that we’re honoring on the weekend, who’s willing to pay the price that some of us aren’t.

But that’s what he’s trying to do. And moreover, as I pointed out on the show last week, Emery beat Ontario’s Sunday shopping laws, and he beat dozens of BIAs across Ontario, which are all documented, by the way. I did the documentation. And Emery defeated the London 1991 Pan Am bid. And I don’t know if that’s what Goodden calls tilting at windmills. And I don’t think Marc would ever have regarded being forced by law to pay for beautification as being something quaint. I don’t think Marc looked at it that way. And over the years, I have to admit, there’s been a somewhat mean spiritedness that I’ve observed being expressed by Goodden towards Emery that I find a little difficult to understand. You’ll see it expressed as well in Chris Doty’s documentary, Messing Up the System, where Goodden expresses something between, I would say, disdain or disgust with Emery, even to the point of criticizing Emery’s ability to properly price a book at his bookstore. I mean, over the years, Marc has always expressed, from what I’ve seen, a certain kindness and support for Herman.

He not only employed him at City Lights, but published his regular column, Fireside Chats, in the London Tribune, which he published in the early 80s, and gave him a lot of good deals on books, on used books. So, but I certainly have no trouble understanding why Marc may rub some people the wrong way. Does that to me sometimes, too? And I certainly agree with Herman that Marc is somewhat between a rock and a hard place, but I don’t think that we should just leave it there and let it sit at that. Nevertheless, an interesting commentary by Herman, and perhaps one that is shared by a lot of Londoners, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Now, deja vu three weeks ago, October 18th, we talked about money and the US Canadian exchange rate. I talked about more than just exchange issues at that time. In fact, at that time I was talking about the nature of money and talking about why it’s valuable and when it’s not, why it has to be real, what’s representative credit and things of that nature.

And we did the whole show on it. And at that time, when I did that not long ago, the dollar was basically at par. Now we’re way up. In fact, we’re already past this point, but I’m quoting from the November 3rd front page London Free Press.

It just said, 107 US, that was it. That was the headline. And because every time we hit a new high, it seems to be that’s the next headline, the next unprecedented thing, and we’ve already passed that, of course. As the loonie enters uncharted territory, reaching an all-time high, prices of stores across the region are dropping, says a subheading. Consumers have been complaining that retailers in Canada aren’t lowering prices, leading them to pay more for the same goods that can be purchased cheaper in the US. That’s driving Canadians across the border in record numbers and putting pressure on retailers to slash their own prices. Then they say at LA Mood on Richmond Street in London, the comic book store honors US pricing, says owner Gordon Mood.

Holding a Wolverine Evolution graphic novel in his hand, it lists for 1999 US and $32 Canadian, meaning the shoppers can buy it for $20 Canadian at his store. We started US pricing a while back, says Mood. I think people really appreciate it. And that sort of speaks to part of the point that I was talking about during the show on money. A lot of people were expecting sudden instant savings. But retailers who sell American-made or supplied goods are in a better position to offer price discounts on the dollar imbalance. But those who’ve always been buying Canadian are unable to do the same, and that’s part of the problem. So if your suppliers are Canadian, if your workers are Canadian, you’re not going to really see any difference in price, and things aren’t going to change.

But if what you’re buying comes from the United States, you will see a difference in price. As a consumer, this is a terrific thing for everybody. For some producers who export, it might not be the greatest news. Also, I think it’s a little unfair, as I heard a lot of people complaining, to expect retailers to go, either in Canada or the US, by the way, to expect retailers to handle the whole exchange facilitation. A lot of Canadians are complaining that US retailers won’t take their cash at par or better at the store. And I’m thinking, well, no, I wouldn’t. They don’t want to handle that stuff.

That’s work and complexity to them. Just exchange your money before you go. Go down there with US dollars, exchange it up here. You’ve already made your exchange.

And I can’t see any shopper having any problem if they went in Rome, do as the Romans. If you’re in the States, use American money. If you’re in Canada, use Canadian money, and you won’t have any problems. Apparently, Sears Canada has become the latest retailer on a growing list to lower its prices, as the loonie continues to soar. And of course, another reason that larger companies couldn’t offer deals right away, we see the dollar going up and down on a day-to-day basis. But inventories don’t. And what they might have had for sale in their inventory may have been bought at the earlier price when the loonie was lower relative to the US dollar.

And of course, it’s not so much the loonie going up as it is the dollar going down. And just in retrospect, I heard an interesting argument from another radio station being argued here back in October, earlier in October. And one of the DJs said, you’re stealing from the rest of us when you go shopping south of the border, which is based on a single argument.

The purchaser’s avoiding Canadian taxes, but will still use tax-paid services when they come back to Canada. And I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Consider the implications of the statement. It implies immorality in a mutually consensual trade based on the mere fact that one of the traders is outside the jurisdiction of his or her own government. Had the trade occurred via the internet or by phone or by mail, you could really make the same argument, couldn’t you? You don’t have to leave the country to get deals outside the country. Or what about if you just buy American-made or any foreign-made product at your local store?

Like we just gave the example of it, LA Mood. Except for the sales tax, all other taxes included in the price of the foreign-made goods went to the government of origin. And number two, I think it blames the victim for the crime of stealing, if you say that the reason that you’re stealing when you go shopping in Canada is because of taxes. Because in fact, it’s the government that’s doing the stealing for heaven’s sakes through taxation. And worse, the government prohibits, restricts, and prevents its own citizens from paying directly for their own health care and education, even if they’re fully willing and able to do so. So if you can’t spend your money where and when you want with mutually consenting traders, then basically you don’t own your own money or even your life for that matter. And the third point, of course, is that your money belongs to governments first and to you last. Is that how we look at money? How much is enough? Should there not be a limit on the amount of taxes a government coerces from its citizens?

If it’s not 50% like now, is it 60%, is it 70%, 80%, 90% or 100%? Oh man, I gotta tell ya, you can really get out of hand with that argument and it’s just a totally invalid one. One other real side issue on the issue of money that I never got around to the last time we discussed the issue was you hear a lot of talk lately. They want to phase out pennies. Have you heard that one? People don’t like handling pennies anymore.

And I don’t think you can phase. I guess you could get rid of pennies as cash, the cash representative. But I don’t think you can get rid of the cent since it represents the basic decimal unit of our dollar, which is 100 of such units. And if that’s all you’re doing is basically debasing the currency in a way, what’s the point? We already don’t have any paper money under the $5 denomination in Canada. And I remember way back when I took business law in the 70s and paper was considered the standard for consideration, which at the time we had a dollar bill, that meant you could sign a contract and it would be valid if you exchanged a dollar, because that could be represented in paper. Now I wonder if that’s still true or if they’ve changed it or if it has to go up to $5 now. That’s the official standard for consideration.

Or if they even don’t care about that anymore. Paper was supposed to make the carrying of cash. And I’m not talking about credit here, easier than carrying around precious metal or the good or the property itself. But that’s what happens when you see a currency being debased.

It should be getting worth more money, not less. Now deja vu again. Four weeks ago we were talking about stress on the job and talking a little bit about postal workers. And there was a comparison that seemed surprising to a lot of the researchers that some of the people I thought would be more stressed were in fact the least stressed people, or less stressed, and the ones I thought would be the least stressed or end up to be the more stressed people. And they found that generally, and my conclusion at the time was that if the more routine your work is, the more stress you have.

If there isn’t a lot of thinking or choice making involved in that line of work. And that was confirmed again on October 14th, just shortly after I did that show, in the London Free Press, where the strange headline that said caregivers report more depression. And it said people who tend the elderly, change diapers or serve food, have the highest rates of depression. This was in a study done in the US, among US workers. Almost 11% of personal care workers, which includes childcare and helping the elderly and severely disabled with their daily needs, reported depression lasting two weeks or longer. And apparently during such episodes there’s a loss of interest and pleasure.

And at least four other symptoms, they say, which include problems with sleep, appetite, energy, concentration, and self-image. And workers who prepare and serve food, cooks, bartenders, servers, had the second highest rate of depression, around 10.3%. And in a tie for third were healthcare workers and social workers. And the lowest rate of depression at 4.3%, which is still relatively high, occurred in the job category that covers engineers, architects, and surveyors.

And of course that’s fairly consistent with what we covered on the show the last time we discussed this issue. So interesting though, however, working full-time appears to help prevent depression right across the board. The overall rate of depression for full-time workers, 7%, compares with 12.7% of the unemployed. So I think boredom has so much to do with basic depression. And that’s enough on that one. We’re going to do some more deja vu when we come back right after this short break.

Clip (Stand-up Comedy):

Speaker 1: I was visiting with him once and a friend of his called him, a little old man. He said, I’m just so disgusted with life. My family left me. I don’t have anybody. I don’t work. I don’t have any place to go. I don’t have anything to do. I don’t feel good.

I’m always sick. I’m just so depressed. I’m just thinking about buying a gun and shooting myself. And my grandfather, God bless him, he said, can I give you some advice? Why don’t you rent one?

I’m just so sick of this. Well, we do have to mend fences. Let’s face it, right? Canada was very mad at the United States. You didn’t want to be part of the coalition of the willing in the Iraq war. You didn’t want to be part of it. You didn’t want to jump on board with every other country. Everybody was with the United States, folks.

Everybody. Bulgaria. They sent a couple dudes.

Spain. They put together a little good luck pinata that they sent over. Which I thought was very supportive. And Canada didn’t go. Canada didn’t go. Canada always goes to war with the United States.

I don’t think you guys don’t even really have a military. You’re just too polite to say no. You’re like, all right, sure, we’ll go. You’re not a warmongering country. Let’s face it. You’re the only country in the world. You got your independence by asking nicely. It was crazy.

Bob Metz: Certainly is a popular impression of Canada’s military and Canada’s role in the world. Deja vu, eight weeks ago, September 13th, we were discussing Canada in Afghanistan. And its role in Afghanistan with our guest here on the show, Arthur Majoor, who was just back from Afghanistan a week or two before that and painted a very different picture of the Afghanistan that we read about in the papers. In fact, I remember him saying at the time that since the media has emphasized the combat aspects of the mission so much, I don’t see much of a need to go over and over that again, he said.

And he wanted to concentrate on the very things that you hear a lot of people advocating is reconstruction and the rest of it. When I was thinking about that, I ran into this article again. This was in the London Free Press, October 24th by Alicia Corbella. And the headline reads, Truth Surprises CBC. And subheading the corporations reporting from Afghanistan has distorted reality. It’s interesting too because I was just involved in a debate here on the campus with another group that I think was aired here on CHRW or will be shortly. And a lot of them in that group seemed to think that what was happening over there was entirely based on what’s reported on the CBC.

And we had a little tiff about that issue. But in this article by Corbella, she writes and apparently she went over to Afghanistan and this is her experience. In the two weeks I spent as a non-embedded reporter in Afghanistan, I spoke to at least 10 Afghan adults a day and sometimes as many as 30.

I asked all a variety of questions, but always one question remained the same. What do you think about having foreign troops in your country? Of the about 200 Afghan adults I spoke with, they all told me they appreciated our troops being there that they didn’t want them to leave and that their lives were vastly improved. My writings about how the Afghan people view our troops being in their country has recently been proven correct by a CBC environics poll released last week. The poll which interviewed 1600 Afghan men and women found that 60% of those questioned said the presence of foreign troops in the country was a good thing with only 16% saying it was bad. Which means there’s a lot of people that don’t seem to care one way or the other. CBC commentators told viewers last week that they would be surprised by the poll results and that’s not surprising. After all, if those viewers get most of their news from the CBC, they would have been hearing the polar opposite. I also asked virtually every adult what they thought about the Taliban.

They used words like, I hate them, they are demons, they should be killed, that kind of thing. Some 73% have a very negative opinion of the Taliban. So there you have it. It’s an issue where, again, perceptions are what people read in the newspapers and it depends on what papers you read and who you hear from.

When you look at the numbers, though, the numbers tend to paint a slightly different picture that coincides with more rational views on the subject, I think. Just another follow up on one of the shows. Deja vu, 12 weeks ago on August 9th, had a really interesting show, a different subject entirely. We talked about robots. And as being the big technological leap, I predicted of the 21st century, just as computers and the internet and some of the huge leaps we’ve had in technology just in the past 10 years of this century, let alone TV, cars and all the rest of it. But we’re talking about robots and in the show that I did, we were talking about robots that were more in the line of what you might see in science fiction or on Star Trek, more intelligent looking robots. Now, of course, robots have already been with us for some time. Again, dictionary definition of a robot just refers to a mechanical man constructed to perform work in the place of human beings. And one who works mechanically, an automaton, any mechanism or device that operates automatically or is remotely controlled.

And I always thought it was interesting. I just brought this up because in Czechoslovakia, where the word originated, Robota refers to forced labor. And that certainly has a negative connotation about it, because if you’re talking about people being automotons, then of course, that’s literally what you’d be talking about. So anyways, get ready for the 21st century quantum leaps. And I think we’re already approaching a point where you can predict with some reliability that robotics is going to be one of the big things coming up in the future. September 14th, again, a month or two later, social robots envisioned as learning companions as the London Free Press headline by the Associated Press. And they’re referring to a fellow named David Hanson of Richardson Texas who’s developed a robotic companion named Zeno.

And it can’t speak or walk yet, but it has blinking eyes that can track people in a face that captivates people with a whole range of expressions. At 43 centimeters tall and about 3 kilograms, the artificial Zeno is the culmination of five years of work by Hanson and a group of engineers, designers and programmers at Hanson Robotics. They believe there’s an emerging business in the design and sale of life-like robotic companions or social robots. And unlike clearly artificial robotic toys, Hanson says he envisions Zeno as an interactive learning companion, a synthetic pal who can engage in conversation and convey human emotion through a face made of a skin-like patented material that Hanson calls, maybe from the movie Flubber, or wasn’t that a Walt Disney movie where they had Flubber, but he calls it Flubber. It’s a representation of robotics as a character animation medium, one that’s intelligent, Hanson says.

It is no coincidence if the whole concept sounds a little like science fiction, Hanson said he was inspired by and is aiming for the sort of realism found in Steven Spielberg’s film Artificial Intelligence, otherwise known as AI. And Hanson plans to make little Zenos available to consumers within the next three years for about $200 to $300 US. And hey, that might work out to like $50 Canadian now, we could get a real deal. Hanson concedes it’s going to be though at least 15 years before robot builders can approach anything that seems to be possible like we do in the movies. And as we said on the last show on this subject when we’re talking about what’s in store for the future with robots, it’s real interesting that there’s some divergence on that point of view. The idea that general purpose robots capable of learning will become widespread is wrong suggests one expert, named Mr.

Angle of all things. It’s most likely he believes that robots will be relatively dumb machines designed for particular tasks and rather than a humanoid robot made, it’s going to be a heterogeneous swarm of robots that take care of the house in different ways. And I’m sure that’s going to be one of the types of developments that are going on. But if you see some of the things that Sony has been doing and some of the other large Southeast Asian companies, they’ve got these robots walking around that are doing, look like people in suits.

I’m not kidding you. And of course, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s World Robotics Survey, which you can believe there’s already such a thing, which I also discussed on the previous show, I found this amazing that in 2002, the number of domestic and service robots more than tripled, nearly outstripping their industrial counterparts. By the end of 03, they believe it or not, there were more than 600,000 robot vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers. Japanese industrial firms are racing to build humanoid robots to act as domestic helpers for the elderly. And this I found amazing was that South Korea has set a goal that 100% of households should have domestic robots by 2020. Wow. That’s living in the future. You’re expecting George Jetsons made to come in and deliver lunch at any moment.

And then one last item before this next break, deja vu, 17 weeks ago on July 12th. We were talking about the whole issue of gun control and the right to self-defense with guest Jim Montag, who was in the studio at that time. And of course, we played a number of clips pointing out how gun control is really counterproductive, that the whole concept of the registry for guns has been a tremendously expensive undertaking, one that should never have been done and is kind of documented to be so. But also we played some clips I remember at the time, John Stossel and others who were documenting the fact that a number of United States states have made it possible for people to carry concealed handguns. And in fact, they’re increasing all the time and they’re finding that the rates of crime and robbery and murder, etc., are going down correspondingly, which is amazing. So from the National Post October 6th article here by George Jonas, the protection racket we call government, it was titled. And he says the following, one of the constitutional guarantees Canadians enjoy is security of the person. It sounds too good to be true and it is. A constitution obviously can’t guarantee that no harm will come to us.

That would be impossible. All it can guarantee is our right to protect ourselves. It kind of comes back to our opening message. And so, Canada’s constitution does do this on paper. In reality, though, the state limits our right to security by putting restrictions and conditions on self-defense.

Monopoly on force is the name of the game in both the cops and the robbers wanted. But south of the border, notes Jonas, between 1988 and 96, and this is what we pointed out on our show, the number of U.S. states where ordinary citizens could legally carry concealed handguns rose from 9 to 31. In 1996, the University of Chicago released a nationwide study that found that in states where carrying concealed weapons became legal for people with no criminal record or mental illness, homicide has been reduced by 8.5%, rape down by 5% and aggravated assault by 7.

And what was interesting, you went on to further note that this didn’t mean that there were altercations all the time or anything like that. They found the rates went down just because people tended to know that people could carry guns. That was one of the things that, in one of the clips we played where John Stossel was actually in a prison talking to the prisoners who were in there for gun offenses and for crimes of violence. And to a T, each one of them said they’d rather be doing their crime in a state that has gun control than one that doesn’t, because that’s where they take the big risk. They know that if they walk into a home and the owner has a chance of defending themselves in a very effective way, they’re going to be less likely to do so. So there you go. A lot of issues on self-defense and gun control and war and a number of issues. So after we come back from this break, I think it’s time to just lighten up a bit for the last couple minutes and we’ll leave you with this.

Clip (Stand-up Comedy):

Speaker 1: I think the biggest difference between the U.S. and Canada is the attitude to weapons. Weapons. You know, a woman was just going down to Washington, D.C. for a conference. She got to the border. The immigration man said, are you going to be speaking at this conference? She said, yes, I am. He said, then you’re going to have to prove to me that you’re an American citizen. So she shot him. And he accepted that. The U.S. is a very armed place.

A couple of things are dispensed with very briefly. Firstly, my accent, which I hope won’t cause too much trouble this evening. I don’t flatter myself that any of you will genuinely find it sexy.

But if you’re struggling to place it precisely, it is in fact educated. One or two boos, but nothing flying through the air. That’s good. I did use that line once in Edinburgh, in Scotland. And they were fine about it at first. One of them got it, passed it around, things turned a bit ugly. So… Also, I hear I was back in the hotel by then, to be honest.

Bob Metz: Welcome back, Bob Metz here on Just Right, CHRW 94.9 FM. Just have a few minutes to wrap up today. And what I… I was going to get into a whole other subject, but I think we’ll be saving that for a future show. And just thought I’d do the second installment that we’ve done so far on what I call the jokes on us. Sort of a humorous dictionary of the words and phrases that shape politics. And I did this a few weeks ago, too.

Maybe a couple of months ago by now. And just some of the words that we often accept in day-to-day contexts, and just a different way of looking at them. For example, bureaucracy.

Definition, a perpetual inertia machine. And I like this one. We just came out of an election candidate. What’s a candidate? A candidate is someone who stands for what he thinks voters will fall for.

And that pretty well wraps up our elections. Cannibal. Now there’s an interesting word to find in a dictionary like this. One who loves his fellow man with gravy. There you go.

What do you call a censor? Well, of course, that’s one who enlightens the world by burning books. And definition of civilization.

The question is not where civilization began, but when will it? And that’s one of the interesting… oh, I could go on a whole other area on that, but I just don’t have time to get into it. Commitment. A politician’s solemn pledge that someone else will do something and that you will pay dearly for it. Common knowledge. Something generally known among the ignorant. Proof that what we know can hurt us. This is an interesting definition because I often say that in politics, people often know less than we know. It’s that old statement, it ain’t so much what people don’t know that gets them into trouble.

It’s what they do know, but just ain’t so. Definition of communism. Rugged collectivism.

Dog eat dog. Socialism. Confession. An admission of wrongdoing. Often obtained by wrongdoing. You hear a lot of that today talking about the war.

And here’s one that certainly applies to a lot of today’s subjects. Conscript. One forced to fight for freedom.

And that is almost a contradiction in terms if you think about it. Here’s one for you. Conservative. Someone who doesn’t belong to any organized political movement.

You sure get that impression, wouldn’t you? Considerate. What is the definition of considerate? Well, that’s being thoughtful of others and what they can do for you.

That’s generally what we actually mean by it in practice, don’t we? Consult. And this is definitely the way governments look at consultations.

But to consult means to seek another’s approval for something already decided upon. Isn’t that true? I remember addressing so many committees and all sorts of government bodies. And when you get there, whatever it is they’re discussing, they’ve already practically passed the legislation that they’re talking about.

They haven’t even got around to giving anyone some real serious input on that issue. And of course, last one I’m going to give you is called the court fool. And that’s otherwise known as the plaintiff. Because as you know, once you’re in the court, you’ve already lost that case.

And let’s hope we don’t lose this case anymore. That’s it for this week, folks. So I hope you will join us again next week when we return. And we’ll continue our journey in the right direction. So until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, and think right.

Clip (Stand-up Comedy):

Speaker 1: My buddy carries a Swiss army knife because he says it’s better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. So now everywhere I go, I take a Chinese interpreter.