{"id":16661,"date":"2008-03-06T16:39:17","date_gmt":"2008-03-06T20:39:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/?page_id=16661"},"modified":"2026-04-17T16:40:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T19:40:03","slug":"044-transcript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/044-transcript","title":{"rendered":"044 – Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 044<\/strong>
\nAir Date: March 6, 2008<\/strong>
\nHost: Bob Metz<\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/strong>
\nThe views expressed in this program are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.<\/p>\n

Clip (Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Copper Beeches – Granada Television adaptation):<\/strong>
\nSherlock Holmes:<\/strong> It is pleasant to me to observe, Watson, that you have so far grasped this truth, that in these little records of our cases which you have been good enough to draw up, and I am bound to say, occasionally embellished, that you have given prominence not so much to the many causes c\u00e9l\u00e8bres and sensational trials in which I have figured, but rather to those incidents which have given room for those faculties of deduction and logical synthesis which I have made my special province. You intend to put colour and life into each of your statements, instead of confining yourself to placing upon a record that severe reasoning from cause to effect which is really the only notable feature about the thing.<\/p>\n

Dr. Watson:<\/strong> You are always in a disputatious mood when you choose that pipe. It seems to me that I have done you full justice in the matter.<\/p>\n

Sherlock Holmes:<\/strong> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is not selfishness nor conceit. If I claim full justice for my art, it is because crime is common, logic is rare, therefore it is upon logic, rather than upon crime that you should dwell. You have degraded what should have been in a course of lectures into a series of tales.<\/p>\n

Dr. Watson:<\/strong> Really Holmes I hardly think my poor scribblings deserve that. They have, after all, made your name a household word.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Welcome to the show today, our first show in March of 2008. 519-661-3600 is the open line number you can call to join in on the conversation, if you like.<\/p>\n

Today on the show, some of the subjects we will be talking about. Again, a little bit more on human rights commissions and the argument that hatred kills, and therefore we need human rights commissions. Paying for healthcare, not really a Canadian trend, but maybe it is something that may come up soon in the future. Perhaps a little more on John Tory, and of course we also have an interesting announcement to make in a few moments about the show. But first I want to start off with something quite perhaps esoteric.<\/p>\n

Basically, elementary symbolic and representative. I was actually inspired to do this subject because of an article that appeared in the London Free Press on March 1st written by Ian Gillespie, which caught my attention perhaps for reasons different than Mr. Gillespie wrote them, but nevertheless the article is interesting in and of its own accord. And the headline read, Real Facts Are Elementary Really. And here is what Gillespie writes, quote, according to a recent poll commissioned by the British cable channel UKTVGold, 58% of UK respondents believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real person. The survey also found that 65% of Britons believe that King Arthur actually existed.<\/p>\n

And of course he didn’t. 51% think that Robin Hood was real, and again that is not true. And this is one that I thought was interesting. 47% believe Eleanor Rigby, the one from the Beatles song, actually existed. And then on the other hand, let’s get the reverse of this, nearly a quarter of those polled said that Winston Churchill, arguably Britain’s most famous prime minister, was make believe. Gillespie offers the following conclusions to these findings.<\/p>\n

Although this was a British poll he says, I think it’s safe to assume the results would be similar in Canada. And we can safely conclude three things. First, history teachers are very depressed. Second, people are idiots. And third, we pay closer attention to pop culture than we do to history. End quote. Now it’s Gillespie’s third conclusion that really caught my attention because it was sort of another way of expressing one of the many themes that this very show, Just Right, is sort of based on.<\/p>\n

But before I elaborate, let’s hear where Ian Gillespie goes with his own spin and how he has some fun with it. And here’s what he says, quote, let’s face it, the main reason, sorry, a lot of people think Sherlock Holmes was real is because there have been so many movies about him. And maybe since a lot of those great old movies, especially the one starring Basil Rathbone, are black and white, people assume they’re real because everyone knows nothing was in color until about 1950.<\/p>\n

Not sure I follow the logic on that, but okay. Tarzan, for instance, isn’t real, writes Gillespie. He was played by actor and Olympic swimmer, Johnny Weissmuller. His chimpanzee, Cheetah, however, was portrayed by an actual chimpanzee named Cheetah.<\/p>\n

Take the three Stooges. They were fake, right? Except for the fact Mo was played by Mo, short for Moses Howard.<\/p>\n

Larry was played by Larry Fine, and Curly was played by Jerome Curly Howard. And for the record, Sir Walter Raleigh, Cleopatra, Mahatma Gandhi, and Charles Dickens were all real, although they were all among the top ten historical figures that the survey respondents thought were fictional. Of course, he concludes all this might be explained by the fact that 77% of the survey respondents said they don’t read history books. Really, end quote.<\/p>\n

And of course, one other author he left out was Arthur Conan Doyle himself, who wrote Sherlock Holmes, and also known for the Lost World books that spawn so many television series and movies that are still being put out over and over again. I must have about three or four different versions of the Lost World.<\/p>\n

But, personally, the only actor who could ever convince me that Sherlock Holmes was real was the late Jeremy Brett, who portrayed the character in the BBC’s adaptation, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.<\/p>\n

That was the clip you heard at the opening of the show. But, you have to ask yourself how many people, believe in some sense that Captain Kirk or the Starship Enterprise is real? Or how many people really relate, even though they’re very unreal, to the Simpsons, who probably represent the cultural thinking of more people than we might care to admit, whether, funny or not.<\/p>\n

I think this leads me to my point about, reality versus fantasy and mythology. The Age of Myths and Legends didn’t end with the Greeks and the Spartans or the Romans. They continue to be created to this very day. And they serve the same function today as they did, I think, in civilisation’s past.<\/p>\n

Some myths and legends were created just out of thin air, purely fictional in every factual respect, but very real in their symbolism. And therefore they express some sort of cultural value or moral lesson, that might, that would be contained in them. And that’s what people take with them. Those are the things that they carry with them. It’s those ideas that survive. It’s more not so much the people in the events, but the ideas.<\/p>\n

And, many legends were actually based on real characters, people who actually existed, though even in the retelling of their stories, the myth surrounding the fact often gets taken as the fact itself. And this certainly applies to a lot of religious stories and customs, especially when you add, mystical beliefs and toss them into the mix. And you can be talking about anything from Santa Claus to the Tooth Fairy, the kids, and even interpretations. It’s interesting if you compare, for example, the historical interpretation versus the religion one of, you’ve heard the story about Christ spending 40 days and 40 nights in the desert.<\/p>\n

Well, the religious story takes that rather literally. If you look at what historians write about it, I learned from some of the references I checked that, for example, the term 40 days and 40 nights, was sort of like saying a month of Sundays. It was an expression of the time. And it just basically meant you went out in the desert for a while. You didn’t literally go out there for 40 days and 40 nights, but so many people literally take it literally again, and that’s how they interpret it. But historians look at it a little bit differently.<\/p>\n

It’s not, surprising therefore that we should find biblical references. The use of mythology, Greek, Roman, Shakespeare. In fact, some of the references I’ve had will tell me that Shakespeare was one of six or seven contributors to the rewriting of the King James Version of the Bible, which may, in fact, account for all the phrases that come from it, why they are so almost Shakespearean.<\/p>\n

And of course, the importance of theater and spectacle, from, you could get these out of all kinds of shows. Star Trek is a classic that probably employs every one of these techniques. When Gene Roddenberry put together Andromeda and Star Trek and the next generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager Enterprise, they’re all basically based on a Star Trek mythos, which has a real meaning to a lot of people, even if you do see some of those kooky people who you will see at the Star Trek conventions.<\/p>\n

But I guess the main point to be made here with respect to the whole thing of confusing fact with reality is that, yeah, let’s hope that somebody keeps track of what the reality is because sometimes we need to be pulled back to it. But really what survives in the long term are the ideas and the philosophies behind them, whether you’re talking about Jason and the Argonauts or what the ancient gods represented. They all represented very real forces in the world.<\/p>\n

And I think that’s why really when, when Gillespie says we pay closer attention to pop culture than to history, I think it’s a little bit of a mix of both because history is always reinterpreted and it’s very symbolic. And often many of the new shows we see and the new books you might read are merely the same story told over and over again. Didn’t somebody once say there’s only like about a dozen stories out there? You can tell them a hundred different ways.<\/p>\n

So that’s all I really wanted to say on that subject. Now, when we return I’ve got an announcement to make after this. I think regular listeners of Just Right will find interesting. We’ll be back right after this.<\/p>\n

Clip (Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Copper Beeches – Granada Television adaptation):<\/strong>
\nDr. Watson<\/b>:<\/b><\/strong> Mr. Fowler and Ms. Rucastle were married by special license and he now holds a government position on the island of Mauritius. Ms. Hunter is now head of a private school in Walsall where I gather she has met with considerable success. There, Watson, your verdict.<\/p>\n

Sherlock Holmes:<\/strong> An admirable account, Watson.<\/p>\n

Dr. Watson:<\/strong> Oh, you don’t think I put too much color and life into it?<\/p>\n

Sherlock Holmes:<\/strong> Oh, my dear friend, I humbly defer such considerations to your excellent literary judgment.<\/p>\n

Clip (Unidentified stand-up comedy routine):<\/strong>
\nHe said, live every day as if it were the last day of your life and sooner or later you’ll be right.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> And that’s what we are here, Just Right, and we figure sooner or later you’ll be right. Welcome back, 519-661-3600 to call in if you’d like to comment on anything. But we now interrupt our regular programming to bring you the following unpaid non-commercial telecast about Just Right on CHRW Radio 94.9 FM.<\/p>\n

Now, of course, I’ve been doing this show now since about April of last year and we’ve been broadcasting live weekly between 11 and noon here from the studios of CHRW Radio. And located on the campus of the University of Western Ontario. This is sort of Thursday’s segment of CHRW’s feedback series. It’s called Just Right. It’s also streamed live on the web at www.chrwradio.com<\/a><\/u><\/span> and archived there for one week following the original broadcast.<\/p>\n

And now I’d like to announce, available in retrospect, online, you can now, I set up a page, www.justrightmedia.org<\/a><\/u><\/span> where you can still catch up on some of the shows that you might have missed. And I have to tell you about what’s on this page because right now there’s really nothing on the website except some programming itself. This is a very bare skeleton website as of today’s broadcast. Now, here’s what you’d find today if you were to visit the site. There’s only one page, okay, just a single page, just white background with some links on it. And at the top of the page, you’ll see Just Right hosted by Robert Metz and right below it is a purple bar on which will appear the phone number that you can call and the hours during which to call that you can reach our live broadcast and to participate in the show. That’s the number I had just called out earlier here, 661-3600.<\/p>\n

Under that, you’ll find three links under the heading 2008 current CHRW programming. Now, the first link will take you to CHRW live 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So it includes the station’s entire programming. So it’s not just a Just Right link, that first one.<\/p>\n

It depends on, except on Thursday’s Eastern Standard, which will be Eastern Daylight next week, I understand. On Thursdays between 11 and 12, that’s the only time that link will be just right.<\/p>\n

But the second link will activate CHRW’s archived copy of Just Right’s latest show, which is kept there for one week following the original broadcast and after which it’s replaced by the next broadcast and so on. And the third link you’ll see there will let you email us directly at JustRightCHRW@gmail.com<\/a><\/u><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Now, please don’t expect any instant responses, but I can guarantee you all emails will be read. And unless you specifically state otherwise, we’ll read them and respond to them on the air. Unless you tell us, please don’t do that or you just want to make a comment, that won’t get to the air.<\/p>\n

And if you’re commenting on a particular show or topic, if it’s possible, please refer to the particular show or the date or the number if you can, because that you can find on the site. Now, following those three links, you’ll see two headings. Just Right, a 2008 archive and Just Right, a 2007 archive, where all you’ll see is just links for the broadcast and the original broadcast date. So basically, all you see there is these links with the date, a number, and that’s it. Nothing fancy, not even any indexes or program descriptions available as yet.<\/p>\n

This is a Strictly a Sculpting website, but fully functional and has every show available on it, amazingly.<\/p>\n

Now, of course, as time progresses, we’ll add indexes and subject headings, evolve a more identifiable look, and add little features and extras that, maybe I might put on some photos, believe it or not, there’s actually on YouTube, one of the shows is there. When I had guest Paul McKeever on there, you can check that out and they actually film the whole show, the interview that I did with him.<\/p>\n

And of course, all of the archive shows I checked, they run very well, even on a slow dial-up. I tested it out on one of my computers, it is on a slow dial-up and they start running beautifully, so don’t think you have to have high speed to access them. We’re talking, of course, audio files. So it’s just like listening to the radio.<\/p>\n

Now, I had no idea of, just to give you an idea of what you might be getting into, I know there’s a lot of you just discovered the show very recently, as did Caller Dave last week on the show who called in. And to be honest, I had no idea of what the show might be about when we started it back in April of last year.<\/p>\n

And now, after looking at what I’ve done for a year, generally I can sort of identify what it’s about now. Generally, the show has evolved into, I guess, a news magazine format featuring other media, news and opinions, and of course contrasted against my own personal views on areas of, and this is generally the broadest areas, philosophy, science and technology, current events, history, world affairs, economics, politics, some comedy, drama, and some television entertainment.<\/p>\n

Which I hadn’t done for a little while, especially in light of the writer’s strike, but we’ll get back to that later. Now occasionally I’ll go off on a complete tangent where I might, feature a single theme, personality or a subject, or yes, even have a guest on the show from time to time.<\/p>\n

And although I, only produce one show a week, I’m quite surprised by the number and quality of guests who’ve already appeared on the show. And I’ve got to confess, interviewing is not particularly my forte, so it’s something I know I’ve still got to work on, but some of the guinea pigs, I mean, guests who’ve had the nerve to appear on the show have included Tom Harris of the National Resources Stewardship Project on Global Warming. He was my first guest way back, oh, must have been just in the first four or five shows. Again, I don’t have all these indexed.<\/p>\n

By the way, I do know that the online version of that particular show had a technical problem, unfortunately, and Tom Harris’ voice was missing from a portion of it. It started coming back near the end. I know the on-air broadcast was fine, but the archived copy had a technical problem, although parts of that show are there. It’s the only one we’ve ever had problems with that I’m aware of, since we started the show.<\/p>\n

I’ve had on the show John Thompson of the McKenzie Institute who talked about international terrorism and what was going on in the mid-east. Add on Jim Montag from Great Lakes Guns and Knives and to pass candidate for London Mayor, who was here for an hour on the subject of gun control and gun registration.<\/p>\n

Had a friend of mine named Paul Lambert, a former Londoner now living in Sweden, who came in on the show while he was here on a week or two vacation on the subject of what life in Sweden, how it really differs from what most people think and their expectations, especially from a Canadian perspective.<\/p>\n

Add, of course, on the show Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario on the subject of how governments really should rationally approach issues.<\/p>\n

Also had guest Arthur Mayure, also a past candidate for London Mayor, but in addition to that is also Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces who had just returned from Afghanistan the week before appearing on the show, on the subject of Canada in Afghanistan. And again offered a viewpoint quite in contrast to what most of us are being told, in so much of the media.<\/p>\n

Anthony Verbrekmos of Indy Media Independent News here at the campus on protesting wars. That was a bit of fun there.<\/p>\n

And during the Ontario election we had on Steve Holmes, NDP candidate for London North Centre during that election on the subject of why we should vote NDP. And thinking back, boy, I sure gave that poor guy a hard time, but good for him, he stuck it out and, well, he lost the election anyway, but that doesn’t matter.<\/p>\n

And just recently, my first guest this year was Karen Selick, the outspoken Belleville lawyer whose editorials appear regularly in the National Post on the subject of Marc Emery’s pending extradition to the U.S. on charges of selling pot seeds on the internet, which I’m not really sure what the status of that is as of today. So it’s something I still have to follow up on.<\/p>\n

But interestingly, here’s just a, this is like a list of some of the subjects that we have covered on the show so far. Basically, remember starting off the show with a description of what I mean by left and right. Did that a couple of times because I don’t mean what a lot of people think traditionally right means. I talked about feminism versus freedom of speech. We talked about pornography, gas prices, taxes, good and bad, global warming.<\/p>\n

That comes up fairly, fairly frequently. Environmental activism, of course. Racism and prejudice. The monarchy. Global terrorism and the wars abroad. Healthcare rationing.<\/p>\n

Socialism and fascism. Even gave my theories on what I thought the show lost is all about. Some of my friends are challenging me and telling me that my theory might be breaking down with this latest season, but I haven’t seen it yet so I can’t comment on that yet. I’m sticking by it. We’ll tell you about what I think after I get a chance to see that.<\/p>\n

I do have them on my DVD collection. Talked about general things about human behavior and we talked about television technology and TV programming and TV shows. We talked about junk science and we talked about real science and technology as well. Gave quite a bit of time to robotics which is a theme you’ll see sort of repeated a couple of times throughout the show because I think that’s the coming trend and we’re hearing more and more about the part robots are going to play in our lives in this century.<\/p>\n

I think that’s going to be the quantum technological leap of the 21st century where computers and the like were of the 20th. We talked about gun control. We talked about the right to self-defense. Of course drug laws, marijuana laws, photo radar, speed limits. Even talked about World War III. You haven’t heard about that one. Faith versus reason.<\/p>\n

Government arts funding. I did a whole segment on why it’s important to understand that Hitler was a socialist. We talked about again TV shows, Star Trek. We talked about the new voyages where no man has gone before. We asked the question why study war and faith funding, education, creationism. Who would talk about sex politics and religion but maybe me on my show. We talked about God, religion, morality, the state and religion. We’ve talked about Ontario politics of course including the election. Municipal politics in London for the most part because that’s where the show originates.<\/p>\n

We’ve talked about stress on the job. Did a whole show on the subject of money. Money the root of all evil. In that show we also discussed inflation and we’ve discussed themes of justice, crime and punishment. Did a special show and I happen to know this one’s November 1st show if you want to check that one out. That’s the one that I dedicated the whole show to the situation with Mark Emery. Mark Emery is going, I called it, Citizen Mark Goes to Washington where I basically reviewed Mark’s history here in the city as well and the kind of issues he was into before he decided to sell marijuana seeds.<\/p>\n

We talked about Remembrance Day and what people usually forget about it. And of course I asked the question philosophy. Who needs it and why we need it.<\/p>\n

Emphasize the difference between freedom and anarchy which is so often confused. Did a lot of TV show reviews. Hollywood writer’s strike we talked about. Talked about tasers and use. Car safety fascism and airbags.<\/p>\n

There’s something I still haven’t got a response on just how safe or unsafe airbags can be. Talked about Christmas as the icon of commercialism. And of course then we got into some things on news editorials that I just think are just wrong and featured some of them. Talking about religion and virtue. The fiction of public ownership. Even talked about light bulbs. part of the environmental movement and what the whole issue of light bulbs in.<\/p>\n

That one’s going to come back on us a few more times. Did a show on abortion and abortion law is still a big issue. Human rights commissions of course. Freedom of speech. Afro-centered schools.<\/p>\n

Bright ideas from City Hall. We talked about the Lord’s Prayer. We talked about apocalyptic thinking and the end of the world, Malthusians. We talked about making downtown London pedestrian last week.<\/p>\n

Even gave a whole philosophic history and perspective on the subject of love which was done on the Valentine’s Day show. And we talked about official bilingualism and the criminalization of language. That’s just touching the tip of the iceberg some of the things that we hit. Just in, not even the past year or so on our weekly show. Now if you add to that well over 300 audio clips featuring, various comics, outtakes from various TV shows. And excerpts from original interviews and talk shows and news broadcasts that are sprinkled throughout the show. And you’ve got just right.<\/p>\n

And that’s basically this show. Available live right here on CHRW every and each Thursday from 11 a.m. to noon. So, if you’ve been listening to the show, just gotten, just found out we’re here and you’re going, wait a minute, I don’t remember hearing you talk about all those areas.<\/p>\n

Well, you just might have missed them. And now you have a place to go where you can catch up. Often on the show too, I’ll make a reference to some subject that I’ve already discussed without, again, going into the details.<\/p>\n

And I realize that leaves some people wondering what my larger argument might be or what context it would, properly apply to. So now we’ve got a place to go. And that, again, is www.justrightmedia.org<\/a><\/u><\/span>. So check it out. Bookmark it.<\/p>\n

I think you’ll find it a fun place to go. So that’s it for this. This has been an unpaid non-commercial telecast. And we now return you to our regular programming when we return right after this non-commercial break.<\/p>\n

Clip (Unidentified comedy routine):<\/strong>
\nThis is better than the first job I had. I actually did go to college. Thanks again. Yeah. I went to college and studied radio and television broadcasting. Anybody here do that? Welcome to your future.<\/p>\n

Clip (Tracker S01E05):<\/strong>
\nDoctor:<\/b> Just to be safe, I think we\u2019ll get it x-rayed.<\/p>\n

Cole:<\/b> For the x-ray.<\/p>\n

Marlene<\/b>: He’s from Canada. This whole paying for healthcare thing is new to him. Why don’t you go get a couple sodas? Eh?<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Healthcare is kind of new to Canadians, isn’t it? I saw an article in the London Free Press on March 1st by George Clark. And it was entitled, Sure We Wait, but the MRI cost me $3. And I just, I have to tell you folks, this article kind of outraged me. I had to understand, I had to ask myself, why does this article bug me so much? What is it, that is about this article that I just feel is wrong?<\/p>\n

And I really think it has something to do with, I think, Canadians, we always criticize Americans for their attitudes, but I think we have a bit of a smug attitude, especially when it comes to our free healthcare system. And I don’t know that it’s all that earned or all that, valid of one. But here’s what George Clark said in, in his article. And I think, Clark basically dismisses the seriousness of the wait times that some people face, and especially for people who can’t afford to wait. But nevertheless, he writes that, the wait was worth it. For several months, I have been waiting for an MRI, writes Clark.<\/p>\n

Figure is released by the McGinty government last April showed wait times in London had dropped from 156 days on average to 154. Now, is that something to brag about? I consider that standing still. You could have changed that by just changing the criteria of the whole way to collect statistics, but hardly significant. But writes Clark, I waited longer, around seven months, but then again, my need was less. Now, the first question comes into my mind is less than whose? And why should one’s need have to be relative to other people’s needs?<\/p>\n

What’s that got to do with your right to access, timely healthcare? Clark goes on to discuss the physical experience of having an MRI, in his case for a disc problem. And he sort of described it as a pleasant experience that lasted about a half hour and ended with a cheerful MRI technician and wishing him a good evening. But then he writes, and I quote, the total cost to me for the treatment was a $3 parking fee. Less than 15 minutes later, I was home. Some of my American friends, here we come bringing up America again, ask how we put up with the wait times. Again, my problem wasn’t critical and the total bill was $3. The care and treatment were excellent.<\/p>\n

The Victoria campus of LHSC is a modern, reassuring complex. And as you walk out the door to the covered walkway, you want to say, thank you to somebody, says Clark, and quote. Now, I don’t know, I think the fact that Clark could have had the exact same experience without having to have any wait time, doesn’t seem to cross his mind, doesn’t even appear to cross his mind. He seems to be a satisfied customer with only a seven month waiting list. But clearly, what Clark is celebrating in his article is not a healthcare system that ensures against catastrophic loss in the event of serious injury or serious illness, but instead a healthcare system that offers totally free services, even for non-life threatening or serious injuries. And which would not produce the catastrophic loss for the patient if they paid directly themselves. But, there is a price being paid. Somewhere in the system, some poor victim is unjustly and unnecessarily experiencing the pain and suffering caused by the resources being directed to his comfortable and painless experience in obtaining of all things. Even, jeez, I couldn’t believe it.<\/p>\n

An MRI, it sounds a bit third worldish, if you ask me, not to be able to walk in off the street, so to speak, just for an X-ray or an MRI. It’s kind of an example of why government likes to meddle in the marketplace. They want you to see their visible hand, but they totally ignore the invisible hand of the marketplace. Now, remember, we’re not talking about treating any possible disease or complications that might be diagnosed or revealed by the MRI. The waiting list for the actual treatment might be another story entirely if such treatment is needed. And, of course, at the bottom of this is the whole silly thing of the single payer concept of government-provided healthcare. And I think it’s flawed both in theory and practice. The idea of having free healthcare for all conditions, regardless of urgency or regardless of need, is not what any viable, actually sound insurance system is capable of offering, or even of sustaining. It’s just not possible.<\/p>\n

So, I don’t know that this is something to be proud of or to brag about. It’s just amazing. Now, I thought I reacted rather strongly, and sure enough, I just clipped this morning out of the free press a March 4th letter to the editor by writer Robert McDonald from AIR, who, boy, he said it a lot stronger than I did. And he writes, and the headline reads, that Clark’s MRI column, a bunch of drivel.<\/p>\n

And he writes, quote, I cannot believe a rational person can write such drivel. The fascist system that characterizes the Canadian medical system is a travesty. So George Clark thinks that waiting seven months for an MRI is okay because his problem wasn’t necessarily severe.<\/p>\n

Give me a break. If a doctor had decided an MRI is required, then you must have a significant problem because MRIs are rationed in our system. Also, this statement that the MRI, quote, only costs $3, a parking fee, is foolish beyond belief.<\/p>\n

No wonder Canadians keep getting subjected to first-class medical treatment with third-world wait times, when so-called intelligent people think like this. And, quote, that’s from Robert McDonald in the free press. I got to tell you, he’s one of a few writers I’ve seen who even understands the problem. He understands that we’re talking about a rationing system, and that that’s what healthcare is once you let the state run it, and a state that insists that you can’t have any other options of payment. Now, you get into, of course, the problems that are inherent in a healthcare system, and people are always looking for solutions, but they don’t want to do the real solution, which means, pay your own way as much as you can, because that’s the one thing everybody’s trying to avoid. That’s why we run to politics.<\/p>\n

We always run to politics for solutions that would be unethical and unrealistic in the real world, and I hate to say that, but that’s true of all social spending. And to give you an idea how silly it can get, another letter to the editor of Free Press, February 21st. I kept this one for a while. Mark Forte, prevention best cure for healthcare costs. Now, we hear this a lot. He’s not the only guy saying this. But, and here’s the argument.<\/p>\n

You hear it like this, and he’s pretty well encapsulated. Quote, the healthcare system in Ontario is a reactive system that practices secondary prevention. The bulk of the healthcare budget is invested in hospital costs to help people after they get sick.<\/p>\n

Gee, that’s a big mission there, eh? If the government offered broader coverage, people would not have to be hospitalized, thereby incurring large costs. If we practiced prevention in the first place rather than waiting until an individual required hospitalization, we could save big hospital dollars and a plethora of lives in the process. It’s not rocket science. And quote, writes Mark Forte. Well, it seems to me, I don’t think this writer’s thought the whole thing through. Although, he thinks he knows what the government, what the government would spend preventative healthcare money on, and that’s something you could never value, objectively value or measure in any sort of way. But he’s thinking like prescription drugs and life-saving medications. But, I’ve watched in reality when governments spend money on prevention, it means government paid propaganda advertising.<\/p>\n

That’s generally what you get. Don’t smoke. Don’t eat. Don’t eat fatty foods. Don’t go in the sun. Be sure to get enough sunlight. Eat your vegetables.<\/p>\n

Don’t do drugs, etc., etc., etc., etc. Because, of course, that’s what they, that’s all they can do. And as to the contention that preventative medicine will save hospitalization dollars, I don’t think any amount of prevention will stop us from eventually aging, our bodies breaking down, communicable diseases, overcoming people. Ironically, which is a condition prevalent in our hospitals, having accidents or becoming a victim of a crime, or otherwise eventually needing a reactive system capable of dealing with true pain, suffering, and chronic need for medical attention. To me, that’s what it’s all about. That’s the thing we’re all really terrified of, isn’t it? That’s what our social safety net was supposed to be all about. The rest is an individual responsibility, and it is to that responsibility that government prevention advertising is always directed.<\/p>\n

So, it just goes to show you that even if they’re going to spend this money, how are they going to prevent anything? They have to talk you into doing the right things for your health to eat right, etc. And in fact, we’ve dealt with this issue again, which you can now check on our website in the past, and we had some clips by Dr. Dorman who talked a lot about what preventative healthcare is really all about, and it is an individual responsibility. So, I want to say on that subject, but another thing that came up last week, Tory, John Tory, I talked about the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leadership Convention held here in London the weekend before, and I challenged some of the prevailing commentary on John Tory’s electoral future, or failure, rather, during the last provincial election. And my argument basically was that Tory’s no Tory, and that that, more than anything else, including the faith funding issue, was really the cause of his problems. Now, Paul Nesbitt-Larking, chair of the political science department here in University College, apparently disagrees with me, found his March 1st London Free Press editorial kind of interesting, and it was headed Ontario Tory’s Reject Tory Syndrome. And Nezbitt Larking argued that, quote, John Tory remains the right person to lead the provincial conservatives. Quote, in selecting Tory in 2004, the conservatives opted for a party leader with a wealth of political, business, and volunteer sector experience. Tory’s political style was both urbane and humane, marking a sharp and necessary departure from the Harris era.<\/p>\n

There’s that bad word for Tory’s today, Harris. In the current Ontario political climate of active citizen engagement, Tory remains an outstanding leader. While reaffirming his conviction in core conservative principles of law and order, traditional values, lower taxes, and smaller government, John Tory also described how he hopes to welcome new and urban Canadians into the conservative community by supporting multicultural Ontario and through encouragement for women in the political process. On the basis of demonstrable skills and resolve to be a more effective leader, John Tory now needs to take some positive steps by offering the voters irrelevant and credible official opposition, concludes Nezbitt Larking. Well, what can I say to that? Each and every one of his above mentioned statements, which basically are the meat of his article, contains, I think, a fundamental contradiction.<\/p>\n

John Tory is everything to all people and nothing to no one. Wow, I mean, is that what we want in our leaders these days? And I think it is.<\/p>\n

I actually do. Here’s how I interpret the four points that he just made. first, that basically Tory’s political style is the opposite of Mike Harris. Okay?<\/p>\n

And here’s how I think it out. Harris won his elections, Tory lost his. But on the basis of Tory’s demonstrable skills, conservatives should, of course, continue to follow Tory. The second point he makes is that Tory is a leader in a system where his job is to follow.<\/p>\n

Isn’t that interesting? that’s what he’s really saying in the current Ontario political climate of active citizen engagement. Tory remains an outstanding leader. This means, I’m going to listen to what my constituents say. If you hear that, that’s bull.<\/p>\n

Okay? They can’t. There’s no way they could possibly act on the wishes of their constituents. They can act on the wishes on some of their constituents against others.<\/p>\n

But they cannot possibly act upon all of them. The abortion issue is a classic. Which way is it going to go? The vote’s always been 50-50 on that. So how are you going to say you can represent your constituents when they’re split right down the middle? And even if it’s not a 50-50 deal, if it’s 60-40, 70-30, 90-10, it doesn’t matter, you’re still not representing everyone.<\/p>\n

And you can’t pretend that you are. I think that’s so often why our politicians earn our disrespect. Because they almost don’t respect their own opinion. If you can’t, if you’re going to be a leader, act like a leader, if the public disagrees with you and you think they’re wrong, you should be working on changing their mind, not feeding in to something that you regard as their ignorance.<\/p>\n

It’s just shameful, I think. And the third point is that Tory’s going to talk conservative but act liberal. So what else is there? He’s going to reaffirm his conviction to core conservative principles. Which I think is funny, because, didn’t I just say, it was a necessary departure to get away from the values that Harris has disposed? Those were far closer to traditional conservative principles. So how can you do both?<\/p>\n

You can’t. It just means talk conservative, act liberal. So what else is new? And of course, Tory has demonstrated his great leadership and therefore had to resolve to be a more effective leader. Does that make sense to you? Is that a contradiction or what?<\/p>\n

on the basis of demonstrable skills and resolve to be a more effective leader, why would you have to make that resolution to anybody if you already had these demonstrable skills and were an effective leader? Well, the contradictions are just amazing. But so much for official analysis. Here’s another analysis.<\/p>\n

One that I regard, I think, is a little far more realistic and substantive than the one offered by Nesbitt Larkin. And it just comes from a letter. Writer to the editor, letter to the editor, March 1st, London Free Press. Same day, in fact, that his article appeared.<\/p>\n

And it’s written by Bill Sanderson. And the headline says, John Tory’s history, that of perennial loser. Quote, John Tory’s track record is one of failure and his legacy lives on at the expense of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. This by a man who does not have a seat in the Ontario legislature.<\/p>\n

A quick glance at his past reveals what might be considered a perennial loser. In 1993, Tory managed federal PC leader Kim Campbell’s ill-fated election campaign. The federal Tories were almost wiped out, being reduced to two seats. In 2007, as leader of the Ontario PC party, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with his faith-based education brainchild, leaving Dalton McGinty with a massive majority win. The PCs won a measly 26 seats. If Tory still at the helm in 2011, the Ontario PC party could lose official party status.<\/p>\n

That would secure Tory status in the annals of Canadian political history. And quote, oh boy. And just as I observed last week, regarding the sad faces of the winners at the PC leadership convention, the caption in the London Free Press under the photo of John Tory and his wife Barbara Hackett read this.<\/p>\n

It says, quote, why so glum? Ontario PC leader John Tory and his wife faced the media Sunday in London. The day after the party delegates gave him a lukewarm support. And London political scientist Paul Nesbitt Larking says, Tory has all the qualities of an outstanding leader, end quote. Boy, I don’t know. I would venture to say maybe a lukewarm outstanding leader or an outstanding lukewarm leader or a leader outstanding with lukewarm support.<\/p>\n

I don’t know. There are so many ways you can describe John Tory that no wonder he’s so popular. And if you don’t know sarcasm when you hear it, Ayn Rand wrote an obituary for conservatism way back in the 1960s. Conservative parties now, of course, may continue to win some elections from time to time, but today’s conservatives are really no different from their liberal counterparts. And even when they are conservatives, I think they’re incapable of winning freedom, prosperity, lower taxes, or a better life. They just keep doing the same things over and over and over again.<\/p>\n

And when something doesn’t work, well, they just advocate doing more of it, and that seems to be the conservative way. Well, that’s it for those two subjects for now, and when we return, we’ll be back with yet another talking about… I don’t even know what the next subject is, I’ll have to check it, and we’ll be back right after this.<\/p>\n

Clip (Unidentified stand-up comedy routine):<\/strong>
\nSo I’m feeling quite good. I was just at the doctor having my annual checkup, and I have that every five or six years. And I was in the doctor’s office, I was reading this article on obsessive compulsive. Behavior, and I must have read that thing a hundred times. I still don’t get it.<\/p>\n

Clip (Dennis Miller):<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, I haven’t quite worked out the math on this one yet, but somewhere along the line, the oppressed minority in this country has become the majority. Well, if life is a gamble, it’s time for the squares to take back the deal. That should be our vig for playing by the rules. Every jerk-off fringe-dweller with an axe to grind now has his own star out on the dirty boulevard, and that’s fine. Go ahead, knock yourself out, just don’t bust my rice bowl, because I’ve chosen to lead a relatively normal life. We don’t have to love one another, folks. We don’t even have to like one another. But we do have to respect each other, at least as much as we would seem to respect the caribou. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Welcome back to the show. We’re going to be getting into the issue of how hate kills and human rights commissions. But first, I understand we have a caller on the phone. Marcel, are you there? How you doing there, Bob? Not too bad, Marcel. How you doing? Good.<\/p>\n

I didn’t want to interrupt your show for this segment, but I found your first topic very interesting. Oh, the first one? Yes, both. Yes? And all that. And sounds like you’ve been reading from Joseph Campbell.<\/p>\n

No, I don’t even know of Joseph Campbell. Is he saying the basic same kind of things? Oh, definitely.<\/p>\n

I’ll miss the archetype of all. historical, archeological, science, and all. Oh, interesting. Hello. Thank you. Sorry, I got interrupted there. Okay. You had that question about whether King Arthur was real or Robin Hood not being answered.<\/p>\n

Yeah, that was an Ian Gillespie’s article, correct.<\/p>\n

Right. I just got to ask you a question. Sure. Did King Midas exist? Gee, I couldn’t tell you. Well, apparently he’s been part of every, fairy tale and that children. Right. But they did find his grave in Turkey about 25 years ago. King Midas.<\/p>\n

But the inscription was not the man with the golden touch, but it was to do with the golden king. So I was just trying to show how some things we take as myth can actually be real. Well, certainly. And some things that we, we think is true are actually bogus.<\/p>\n

Of course. But you have to be careful to, of course, distinguish between the fact and I guess what you would say is the significance of the event as well. Absolutely.<\/p>\n

But I just have two comments for you. I’d like to get your reaction on them. And the first thing is that one man’s religion is another man’s science and vice versa. And much of science today did come spring from myth, ancient myth, ancient knowledge. And I know science was an attempt to dispute all the old myths, but still a lot of the ideas came from ancient myths.<\/p>\n

And I can give you many examples of that. But the striking thing right now is that we think people that have a religious view as opposed to science view are, science view are fanatical. But I find that in the scientific community<\/p>\n

too, because it’s quite fanatical as well. You will actually, I’m telling you, there’s junk science, there’s mysticism in science as well. But to speak to your key point, it’s true that many scientific discoveries were made because somebody started off with the wrong idea.<\/p>\n

You have to start somewhere and you start with your observations. And sometimes the basic observation is incorrect because you don’t understand exactly what you’re looking at. One of the hardest things for people to understand if you want to look at it in a scientific basis is, are the laws of gravity, really? We see it as a force between two objects, but we know now that that’s not what it is.<\/p>\n

That’s absolutely right, and that’s the point I was going to bring up, because you’re talking about junk science versus real science, right? Correct. Well, Einstein’s been one of the greatest minds of the century, and everybody got on board behind his theories. Now it seems that gravity is not the strongest force in the universe. They’re finding now that electricity and plasma is connecting all the solar systems and galaxies, and there’s nothing saying it’s empty space, but it’s all dark matter.<\/p>\n

True, that’s been known for quite a while.<\/p>\n

Okay, and Einstein was talking about black holes, and because of these newest discoveries of electricity and plasma, they’re questioning black holes, and all of a sudden Stephen Hawking is saying, well, they must, because black hole models don’t fit anymore, he’s saying, well, maybe there’s different kinds of black holes, maybe. And science seems to play that game as well.<\/p>\n

Well, no, science is always open to investigation and reinterpretation. Unlike, if you’re really talking about religion, religion is unchangeable. It’s frozen. It does not accept new ideas. That’s what basically makes it religious.<\/p>\n

But the point is, the sciences are like a boys’ club, and you have to, if you want to get funding, you’ve got to get on board, and if you find some skeletons in North America of white people that are 50,000 years old, you’re completely, and which they have, by the way, you’re completely discredited, and you won’t get funding, the university, you’re like the bad boy. Science has not been fair in that regard.<\/p>\n

Okay, Marcel, I’m going to have to leave this subject for now, but thanks for calling. I’m going to speak to that last issue that Marcel just raised. The whole idea, I was actually looking into a lot of this, and I know there’s a lot of controversy even in science, and when you get back into history and the artifacts that they’ve dug up, and it’s almost like getting into the subject of UFOs when you hear some of the interests that are involved.<\/p>\n

But one thing you’ll find is politics exists in every discipline, and I think that’s really the problem, whether you’re in science and business and anything, you’re going to get political interest, which means people wanting to, pull their weight or get power that is not exactly earned based on something objective. But thanks for calling, Marcel, and I hope we’re going to make that a topic in a future show. And we’ve discussed, in fact, a number of the issues you raised on some of the past shows, so be sure to check out JustRightMedia.org.<\/p>\n

Now, just quickly, before the show ends, I had one thing I wanted to get at here. Editorial, it appeared in the National Post on February 19th. Hatred killed Pamela Waechter, say Bernie Farber, and Len Rudner in their editorial.<\/p>\n

Both are representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and both are opposed to reducing, opposed to it, reducing the power of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, let alone abolishing them, which is my personal point of view on the subject. And citing hate and bias crime statistics compiled by StatsCan, the writers note that 928 incidents targeting specific groups took place in 2001 and 2002, including mischief, assault, and threats. Quote, these are incidents where people feel hate crime charges are legitimate because of the high likelihood the act was motivated by hate, bias, or prejudice.<\/p>\n

It’s not thought crime. There is no opportunity to rally the troops around the banner of free speech, just broken windows, racist graffiti, desecrated cemeteries, and firebomb schools. It can’t be ignored, nor should it be. It’s fair to debate the extent to which racist speech can lead to racist action, but that link can neither be positively affirmed nor denied.<\/p>\n

Free speech is not and was never intended to be an absolute. Now that’s what they write. Now, and to support their poorly stated argument, they appeal to this case of Pamela Waechter. Apparently she went to her office and, sorry, got a call her? Okay, couple minutes left.<\/p>\n

I know I’m running out of time. And basically, she was killed by some terrorist in, it wasn’t even in Canada here, it was somewhere in the United States. And basically the rest of the article talked about the lessons of 1938 and Swastika Scrawl, etc., etc.<\/p>\n

But here’s the real kicker. Colby Cosh in his February 20th, 08 National Post editorial, responded to this editorial. And he very significantly revealed, he said, could there be any details they left out with all their talk of Swastikas on synagogue walls and white supremacists? One might imagine that Pamela Waechter was murdered by some rampaging neo-Nazi skinhead.<\/p>\n

But the perpetrator was in fact one Naveed Afzal Haq, whose Pakistani father founded the local Islamic center and who shouted at his victims, I am a Muslim American angry at Israel, end quote. And he writes, there is a tendency within the anti-hate community to conjure up Nazi boogeymen whenever human rights commissions are criticized. Farber and Rudner’s op-ed in its calculated misrepresentation of Pamela Waechter demise and its self-glamorizing claptrap about barricades provides an outstandingly shameless example of the practice. The original Nazis, after all, didn’t exterminate the Jews of Europe and only then suppressed free speech in the press. Hitler had the relevant guarantees in the Weimar Constitution suspended in 1933. Just one month into his chancellorship, an expert on hatred ought to have figured out that genocide far from being prevented by governments and their instruments of control and censorship almost inevitably takes place under their concealing shadows, end quote. Very poetically expressed and so very true.<\/p>\n

So I think we’re out of time for this week’s show. Hope you enjoyed it and we’ll certainly be continuing our journey next week when I hope you’ll continue to enjoy or join us here on the show. So until next week.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Unidentified stand-up comedy routine):<\/strong>
\nI’m proud to say I’ve been sober 11 years. First 11 years. Twelfth birthday, I just got hammered. And I’ve been pounding them back ever since.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 044 Air Date: March 6, 2008 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 (Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Copper Beeches – Granada Television adaptation): Sherlock Holmes: It is pleasant to me to [Continue Reading]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-16661","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16661"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16661\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16662,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16661\/revisions\/16662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}