005 – Natural Resources Stewardship Project: Global warming myths | Tom Harris

 Comments Off on 005 – Natural Resources Stewardship Project: Global warming myths | Tom Harris
May 172007
 

Tom Harris 

As we reflect on our latest broadcast here at Just Right, we find ourselves once again challenging the prevailing narratives that dominate public discourse, from the so-called consensus on global warming to the insidious creep of racial quotas in municipal hiring. In our conversation, we welcomed Tom Harris from the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, whose insights underscored the complexity of climate science and the dangers of politicizing it. We delved into the notion that much of what passes for environmental urgency is not rooted in objective facts but in a self-referential system of alarmism, where dissenters are branded as deniers while evidence like solar activity influencing planetary temperatures—including the melting polar ice caps on Mars—goes unaddressed.

We also revisited our primer on the Left-Right political spectrum, emphasizing that true consistency demands accountability to principles, and we invite our listeners to hold us to that standard. Turning to local matters, we applauded City Councilor Paul Van Meerbergen for his stand against policies that prioritize skin color over merit in job applications, a practice we see as a backward step toward racism disguised as equity. Disappointingly, figures like Harold Usher dismissed these concerns, ignoring the inherent quotas that such initiatives imply. We addressed a follow-up from caller Marcel on pollution and the environment, affirming that no political faction favors environmental degradation; rather, solutions lie in technological advancement and a robust economy, not in fear-mongering.

Our discussion extended to critiques of Al Gore‘s An Inconvenient Truth, highlighting its flawed equation on technology and old ideas, and we explored how carbon dioxide—far from a pollutant—is essential to life, enhancing plant growth and oxygen production. Bans on technologies like incandescent bulbs or used oil disposal reveal a deeper agenda: government control over energy, paving the way for globalism and wealth redistribution under the guise of climate action. We proposed that conservatives convene unbiased hearings to air both sides of the debate, ensuring decisions are grounded in reason.
In wrapping up, we shared a fascinating tidbit on turtles exhibiting negligible senescence, a reminder that nature holds mysteries worth exploring. Ultimately, navigating these issues requires rejecting hysteria in favor of rational inquiry that is just right.

Note: Guest’s voice did not record on archive file, though was broadcast on-air. The silence on the audio file has been removed.

Transcript Clips & Credits Donate

004 – Left-Right Clash Ignites Eco Fury

 Comments Off on 004 – Left-Right Clash Ignites Eco Fury
May 102007
 

Smokestacks 

We find ourselves increasingly frustrated with the state of television programming, where promising shows like Drive vanish abruptly, and erratic scheduling leaves viewers disoriented. As we noted on the show, networks’ avoidance of reruns in favor of long hiatuses only exacerbates the confusion, a sentiment echoed by columnist Bill Harris. Even Lost, with its meandering plot and ratings woes, prompts us to question whether creators risk alienating audiences by shifting genres midstream—much like our anecdote about a family member rejecting Star Trek upon realizing its sci-fi essence.

We also touched on the ongoing saga of Marc Emery, whose advocacy for marijuana legalization drew thousands to Toronto, reminding us that true liberty often demands personal sacrifice against unjust laws. Turning to gas prices, we dismantled the left-wing think tank’s claims of consumer rip-offs, emphasizing that prices reflect supply and demand, not arbitrary “justifications.” Their call for regulatory regimes ignores basic economics: the market is us—producers, consumers, and retailers alike—safeguarding resources through voluntary exchange, not government fiat.

At the heart of our discussion was a reorientation of left and right ideologies, tracing back to Plato’s totalitarian mysticism versus Aristotle’s rational objectivity. We contrasted left-wing tendencies toward force, group rights, and statism with right-wing values of voluntary choice, individual justice, and freedom. This framework illuminates current debates, including a lively exchange with caller Marcel on environmental concerns. While we acknowledge pollution as a valid issue, we challenged the hysteria over CO2 and global warming, pointing out that industrialization, not its demonization, drives cleaner solutions. Caller Justin’s support reinforced our view that rationality must prevail over emotional deflection.

In the face of symbolic absurdities like bans on light bulbs and plastic bags—mere distractions from real progress—we urge a return to principled thinking. There is an enduring need for balance. Ultimately, navigating these chaos requires perspectives that are Just Right.

Transcript Clips & Credits Donate

001 – Left and Right: An Orientation

 Comments Off on 001 – Left and Right: An Orientation
Apr 192007
 

School of Athens

Here we are with the very first broadcast of Just Right. I’m Bob Metz, stepping up to the microphone after the retirement of Jim Chapman and the end of Left, Right, and Center. I make it clear right from the start: this isn’t about being right-wing, it’s about being just right – that philosophy of freedom, reason, individual rights, voluntary choice, and tolerance that stands in stark contrast to the left’s statism, force, collectivism, whim, and intolerance, whether it comes wrapped in conservative or liberal packaging.

I lay out the real meaning of left versus right, drawing from Plato and Aristotle all the way to today’s issues like abortion (neither ban nor subsidize), Sunday shopping (treat it like any other day), and pornography (freedom of speech, not bans from the religious right or the feminist left). All Canadian parties? They’re all on the left in my book.

Then I dive into that campus controversy over the Western Gazette‘s April Fool’s spoof – a satirical piece that had the usual suspects screaming for apologies, sensitivity training, ethics codes, and even removing editors by vote. I defend it as legitimate humor and free speech, exposing the intolerance behind calls to censor “offensive” content, the myth of a “rape culture” in the West, and the feminist agenda that confuses sexuality with sexism while demanding force and funding to silence dissent. Throw in some history on pornography laws, the Fraser Committee, and the real story behind Linda Lovelace. I Even touch on a few TV shows like Drive, Lost, and that brilliant Firefly.

In the end, defending freedom of speech, individual justice, and reason against the forces of censorship and collectivism is what being on the side of freedom is all about – and that’s Just Right.

Transcript Donate