{"id":16674,"date":"2008-03-13T15:28:37","date_gmt":"2008-03-13T18:28:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/?page_id=16674"},"modified":"2026-04-20T15:29:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T18:29:21","slug":"045-transcript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/045-transcript","title":{"rendered":"045 – Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 045<\/strong>
\nAir Date:<\/strong> March 13, 2008
\nHost:<\/strong> Bob Metz<\/p>\n

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

Clip (Tracker S01E05 – The Plague):<\/strong>
\nNurse:<\/strong> I\u2019ll need to make a copy of your insurance card.<\/p>\n

Mel:<\/strong> She\u2019s covered by my policy.<\/p>\n

Admitting Nurse:<\/strong> And your relationship to Miss Brown is?<\/p>\n

Mel:<\/strong> Sisters. Step-sisters. Different fathers. Different countries. Very confusing during the holidays.<\/p>\n

Cole:<\/strong> I didn\u2019t know you were sisters Mel.<\/p>\n

Admitting Nurse:<\/strong> I\u2019ll get this back to you.<\/p>\n

Cole:<\/strong> She seems very nice, Mel.<\/p>\n

Jess:<\/strong> We’re not sisters.<\/p>\n

Mel:<\/strong> Jess doesn’t have any health insurance yet. My policy covers family. Either you have insurance or you pay for it. Medical services here are really expensive.<\/p>\n

Cole:<\/strong> They only care for people with money.<\/p>\n

Mel:<\/strong> Unless you’re practically dying.<\/p>\n

Orderly:<\/strong> Out of the way!<\/p>\n

Mel:<\/strong> That looks bad.<\/p>\n

Cole:<\/strong> She’s very lucky. If she wasn’t practically dying, she might be turned away. Right, Mel?<\/p>\n

Nurse:<\/strong> We’re available here.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Good morning, London.<\/p>\n

It is Thursday, March 13th. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right here on CHRW 94.9 FM, where we’ll be with you from now until noon. No, no. Not right wing. Just right.<\/p>\n

Good morning, and welcome to the show. It’s Just Right with Bob Metz on CHRW. 519-661-3600 is the number you can call to join us today for our conversations on some of the following issues.<\/p>\n

I think today’s going to be a little more of a reactive day than a proactive day in terms of some of the subjects. Want to take a look at part two of making downtown pedestrian. There’s been a supermarket of ideas, including a supermarket in the downtown, for the downtown area.<\/p>\n

Want to also look at this new smoking ban that McGuinty is talking about for cars with children in them, and also in that vein. I’m looking at the Conservative Party’s, federal Conservative that is, latest political fix for what to do about our drug situation in this country.<\/p>\n

We’re going to look at the multiculturalism divide, language laws, and to begin with, to start off the show. I’m going to be talking a little bit about our health care system.<\/p>\n

You heard that clip in the opening of the show there. Lucky to be dying because that’s almost, ironically, that was a criticism in a way of the American health care system. And isn’t it ironic that that’s the same criteria that our health care system kind of is looking like right now. You got to be pretty sick before they take you in first. And that was always the case even before socialized medicine.<\/p>\n

Now last week on Thursday, March 6th, I took to task editorial writer George Clark for what I called his sort of smugly and uncaring editorial entitled, Sure We Wait, but the MRI cost me $3, which appeared in the Free Press just sometime before that. And of course, I felt Clark’s article dismissed the seriousness of wait times and ignored those, the people who can’t afford to wait.<\/p>\n

Sure enough, on Friday, March the 7th, the day after, what headlines should appear in the front page of the London Free Press? Parents Wait, 24 Hours for ER Beds by John Minor. And on Saturday, March 8th, also by John Minor, appears the headline, Spill Over Swamps Urgent Care Center.<\/p>\n

Now, there’s really not much in the details that I can offer in these articles that would tell you more than what the headlines already say. The hospitals are clogged, surgeries are canceled, pain, discomfort, no place to send patients who no longer need acute health care, etc., etc., etc.<\/p>\n

What’s remarkable, I think, amidst all of this mismanagement and chaos, which is what it really is all about at the bottom end of it, is that our politicians continue to do more of the same things that haven’t improved waiting times in the past. They keep doing more of the same thing.<\/p>\n

Dying to Protect Medicare is one recent headline I ran across on the subject so aptly observed. I was listening to an ambulance driver, a London ambulance driver, talking on one of the news shows in the media during the past week. And the situation described in our emergency rooms on the March 7th weekend is apparently a very typical scene that has been the routine for many years now. Ambulance drivers and attendants must often spend many hours of their time attending the patients that they bring to the hospital, in the hallways and in the waiting rooms on stretchers before a bed can be opened for them. Now remember, this is talking about people coming in on an ambulance. We’re not talking about sniffles and colds and people in that sense. Those are the guys that are waiting for a real long time.<\/p>\n

So you can see, it’s like a MASH triage. That’s what it sounds like. And I remember that’s exactly how I felt the last time I was in a Canadian hospital, which was several years ago when I had to take my mom to emergency for what eventually turned out to be a reaction to her doctor’s prescription for a skin condition. But while we were there, and this was at the old Victoria campus, I was just in shock. The place looked like a MASH unit.<\/p>\n

The beds were all side by side. And I don’t even want to tell you some of the details I heard the doctors discussing with the patient in the bed next to my mom’s. It was scary stuff. And I just couldn’t believe it. The time I’d been in that same hospital before, it was clean. It was spotless. It was spacious, even though it was old-fashioned and all the rest of it.<\/p>\n

If you’re too young to be able to remember what a hospital’s medical system used to be like, then you really have no way of realizing just how bad things have become.<\/p>\n

What’s happening today is not normal. It’s not natural. It’s entirely politically inspired and for the shallowest of purposes, I think. And that’s just getting elected. That’s why we’ve got our so-called safety net health care system, and that’s why it’s being touted as free and universal. It’s not there to help those in need. Get that out of your head. But to help everyone, it’s for free health care, regardless of urgency or need. That was my whole point with Gord’s letter last week. He was bragging about the fact he didn’t have to pay for something that wasn’t even urgent.<\/p>\n

And the plan itself, of course, health care, since it was started in 1969 in Canada, it’s the ultimate pyramid scheme. Let’s face it. The first groups of people who get to cash in are not getting a great deal. That’s how pyramid schemes work. While the people who join the pyramid scheme very late are the ones who end up losing everything while at the same time paying for everything that the other people got.<\/p>\n

The first groups get to charge up the old credit card health card, taking it to the limit, while the subsequent generations get left with the debt, paying higher premiums through taxes and health care, and receiving fewer services in return. By the way, the reason we even have provincial income tax in Ontario, which was introduced in 1969 by the Conservatives, was to supposedly take care of everyone’s health care premium. You don’t have to pay a health care premium anymore. We’ve got universal health care now.<\/p>\n

You just pay your premium. We’ll be this new Ontario tax. That was the single reason that that tax was brought in for. And of course, when the Peterson Liberals were in, they eliminated the OHIP premium, which by the way was about $30 a month at that time. I remember you paid it in three months’ installments, most people $90 a month. You paid it whether you’re employed or not. Some people think that was based on ability to pay. It was not.<\/p>\n

You paid it or you didn’t have OHIP. Period. Done. End of story. And people who were unemployed still had to pay that premium. They made sure they got their $30 a month in there. But the reason that Peterson got rid of that premium in the first place was to sever the contractual relationship between the client and the service, you see, because if you’re paying something called a health care premium and you get sick, you’re entitled to health care. But if you’re just paying a tax and you have no contract, nothing there that’s solid that can delist any service at a whim, and they do by the way, then you really don’t have health care at all. In fact, health care under socialized health care is becoming a privilege.<\/p>\n

The right disappeared the very day that the monopoly came into being. We have this state centralized hospital system. It’s got plenty of modern facilities. And plenty of beds to boast about. Just not enough doctors to man them.<\/p>\n

And why is that? Because opening one single bed in our state hospital system costs $1 million per year and every year. Because you have to meet all the union imposed safety legislation, labor legislation, building codes or restrictions. It includes janitor service, cleaning, all sorts of stuff. They work that into every cost of each bed. And of course, with the super hospitals they’re building these days, these over centralized facilities are now breeding and evolving their own super bugs as they call them, which have been said to account for up to 40% of all hospital related deaths.<\/p>\n

I’m thinking, holy smokes, folks, this is bigger than anything I’ve ever heard. About 40% of the people dying in our hospitals are dying from these infections and stuff. That’s frightening. And I think it’s enough to make you sick. Although, the order of the day to day with regard to our healthcare monopoly is, don’t get sick. That’s what I’ve been hearing people say over and over again. And isn’t it funny just today hospitals are announcing further cutbacks in service to avoid the illegal deficits that they find themselves running into at this time of year.<\/p>\n

So, healthcare boy, we’re in trouble. And on yet another issue we discussed two weeks ago on the show, namely official bilingualism, on which I commented that Canada’s not a bilingual nation, but rather a unilingual nation that happens to have two official languages. The more I think about this though, seems to me that in practice, Canada’s really only got one official language. And that language is French.<\/p>\n

And I’ll tell you why I say that. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can tell me of an exception. But I can’t recall any Canadian retailer being threatened, fined or jailed for failing to post English on something or other.<\/p>\n

I really haven’t. The fines and penalties only seem to fly when French is the language that someone has failed to post or use in the relevant context. As if to make my point for me, on the Saturday following my comments on March 1st in the London Free Press, full page story on the City Region section, the headline reads, Foreign Tongue. And the accompanying article written by Jennifer O’Brien follows the travails of Ayaan Aiden, a French-speaking new resident to the city who has discovered, quote, I thought Canada was bilingual until I got to London, she says. I noticed right away they don’t speak French here. This is not really bilingual, end quote.<\/p>\n

And I’m thinking, duh, but no matter reality. This is a big problem, quote. The city is not offering French services in the community aid, and says. Federal and provincial agencies are obliged to offer them, but it is difficult with the City of London because they are not obliged.<\/p>\n

And of course obliged here means being forced to do so. The law, she says, Gaston Mabaya is very weak for the municipalities, and he’s the Executive Director of ACFO, which received more than $155,000 in federal funding, another example of the cost of official bilingualism, to help settle francophone immigrants. And the article notes that in London, quote, after English, Spanish, Arabic, and Polish are ahead of French as a mother tongue. But nevertheless, Mabaya says French should be given the higher priority.<\/p>\n

French is one of the official languages, he said. In her frontline research, says the Free Press, Aidan has been dismayed at several places, including St. Joseph’s Hospital, where she was told at reception she would have to return in two days when an interpreter could be obtained. If you are very sick, you cannot wait, she said.<\/p>\n

Now, I think, doesn’t this apply to all patients who can’t speak English? I mean, I should introduce her to Mark Forte, who wrote a letter, who wanted to broaden the health care system that I read last week.<\/p>\n

Here’s yet another example of how government would spend health care dollars on non-health related issues, translation services and things like that. And I want to know, you have to ask yourself, just maybe I’ve got a curious mind’s need to know. Who told her this when she went to the hospital? And in what language were they talking? And if they were talking to her in English, how did she understand what she was being told? And if she understands what she was being told in English, then why all the fuss about French?<\/p>\n

I’ve seen this before. I’ve seen this inside Human Rights Commission hearings too, where you find that someone who can speak English perfectly is working with a translator. But as I suggested last week, we shouldn’t have any language laws, should we?<\/p>\n

Consider the damage done by such laws just on a psychological level and how they feed on this entitlement mentality that we seem to be having. I’m willing to bet that the Spanish, Arabic and Polish folks are not really feeling too slighted about English being used and being displayed as the language of the local majority, when in Rome, as the saying goes. But on the other hand, the French speaking or the French political minority, I can’t really say French speaking people, that’s a separate issue.<\/p>\n

But they seem to think that Rome should change the laws to suit them and because we have official language laws on French and when reality exposes the lie, well, they feel slighted and discriminated against. And, I have to say rightly so. Let’s face it, they’ve been lied to.<\/p>\n

They’ve been misled. About Canada being bilingual and all the other cultural nonsense our governments try to voice upon us by taking our money and denying fundamental freedoms. Isn’t it about time we just stopped all this BS and tried to treat everyone equally. But it seems that that’s just not what Canada is about anymore. So don’t be surprised if some human rights tribunal decides to enter the picture at some time on this one in the future, because I sure will not be. Got a footnote on this a little later, but we’d be dealing with that right after this quick break.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/strong>
\nAnd it is nice to be here in your bilingual French speaking city.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Brent Butt):<\/strong>
\nBrent Butt:<\/strong> I’ll tell you, I found a cheap way to have fun in Montreal. This is what I do. I walk into any government building because I always have a sign up that says, we would be happy to serve you in either English or French. And I always ask to be served in French. And then I stand there going, what? What are you saying? And then they start up in English and I go, no, no, no, the French, please. You can do that for hours. It’s unbelievable. And it’s my right as a Canadian citizen to do that.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Isn’t that a funny one? It’s a good play on the whole French rights situation and what you are entitled to do by law. I mean, that was Brent Butt, of course, the comedian who a lot of people know from Corner Gas. He does a lot of stand up and he’s a lot of commentary on the Canadian condition and that’s certainly one of them.<\/p>\n

I’m always surprised when you hear the kind of humor that’s being, and actually do this in Montreal, French speaking city quote, and the reaction you get from the audience is they can certainly identify. Sort of related to this issue is, of course, the whole issue of multiculturalism. Multicultural cash divides us, says Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mayor of Mississauga, according to National Post article written by Natalie Alcoba on March the 6th.<\/p>\n

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion criticizes federal multicultural funding as dividing immigrants instead of uniting them and called for better integration of newcomers. Quote, they’ve been given all kinds of money over the years to have their own organizations, their own programs, and I think there should be more money spent on integration. In other words, encouraging them to get involved in the community. So what Mayor McCallion is recommending is spend more tax money on uniculturalism. Quote, McCallion said, she knows the value of cultural groups and does not want to cut off their funding. However, she argues in favor of stepping up outreach efforts that help integrate the growing number of new residents choosing to live in cities outside of Toronto. There’s an interesting criteria like, hmm, like Mississauga maybe, maybe, huh?<\/p>\n

Oh boy, the self-interest is just amazing. Says Sandeep Agrawal, an expert on multiculturalism and ethnic enclaves from Ryerson University. We know that by 2017, visible minorities will actually become a majority here in Canada, and that speaks volumes, end quote. And I think it does, but not for a lot of the reasons that they might be suggesting. I don’t think too wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Let’s put it that way.<\/p>\n

Spending more government money, but on different purposes, doubles the harm done by the wrong and doesn’t make anything right. I don’t think. Why won’t McCallion, after explicitly identifying a source of the problem, retreat from eliminating, why does she retreat from eliminating the source of that problem? Because, of course, she wants other people’s money for her city, for Mississauga, and that’ll keep her popular with the voters, particularly that group of voters, who will now be seen as a majority by 2017. And, of course, in direct response to McCallion’s suggestion to spend more money on integration, Secretary of State Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, Jason Kenney, I can’t even believe we have an office like that. Secretary of State Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity.<\/p>\n

We need a department to determine this, you see. But he proudly boasts in a letter to the editor of the National Post on March 7th, quote, Our government has revised the multiculturalism program to focus on promoting integration, combating radicalization, and encouraging collaborative projects between Canadians from diverse ethnic backgrounds. In fact, our annual report to Parliament underscored this new focus with its title, Promoting Integration, end quote. Yet another proud, conservative moment where they can brag about the money that they’re spending on our behalf. And speaking of another silly issue that has now come up, oh man, I can’t believe this one.<\/p>\n

And everybody, I’m going to be going right the opposite way of everyone. I’ve heard in the media so far on this. And this is about the smoking ban that McGuinty is bringing in. I want to find drivers with kids who have kids in the car and they see them smoking. And if I was going to name this section anything, I’d call it liar, liar, cigarettes on fire. Or where there’s smoke, there’s liar. Or why to be fuming mad even if you don’t smoke. And I’m not a smoker. I don’t smoke tobacco.<\/p>\n

And that’s what this is all about. Legislation aimed at banning smoking in cars where there are children aged 16 and under will be introduced this spring, McGuinty says. And he says this after calling such a ban a slippery slope late last year. McGuinty has now said that he’s had a change of heart after visiting some kids at Sick Kids Hospital. I changed my mind and I think this is the right thing to do, he said.<\/p>\n

I think it’s the right thing to do for our kids, he repeats. The likely punishment for offenders will be a fine of up to $200. McGuinty said consultations with police about enforcement have been favorable. Critics pounced on the government charging that such a ban would be the first step toward outlawing smoking in private homes. And McGuinty rejected that notion. The step that we are taking has to do with children in cars and we have no plans to go beyond that, McGuinty says.<\/p>\n

The Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Lung Association, all right in there praising the government. And arguing that the car is already a regulated environment with specific rules for seat belts and child seats. So the amendment is not the slippery slope, as some have suggested or feared, says Rocco Rossi of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Another from the National Post headline, Ontario to Ban Smoking in Cars with Child Passengers, written by Lee Greenberg, adds to this scenario here, quote, we’ve always known it was wrong to smoke in the car with children, Premier Dalton McGuinty said.<\/p>\n

Now we’re going to give the entire force of law to that. Details of the legislation, which will be drafted in table to spring, were scant. McGuinty could not say how large the fine would be or whether offenders would incur demerit points. McGuinty added he doubts demerit points would be attached to the fine. Actually demerit points is supposed to be about your driving, not your social behavior, but starting to be a little bit less about that.<\/p>\n

Now, then they tell us that smoke is 23 times more concentrated in a confined car than it is in a small room according to the Ontario Medical Association, one of the most vocal proponents of the ban. Since forming the government in 2003, the McGuinty liberals have imposed a raft of measures that according to some critics, smack of social engineering, banning junk food in schools, outlawing pit bulls, making it illegal to smoke in enclosed public areas. Health Minister George Smitherman briefly mauled a ban on fresh sushi, while MPP John Milloy introduced a private members bill to fight that unfortunate human weakness that makes us act irresponsibly to mandate helmets for adult cyclists and rollerbladers. Perhaps anticipating those critics, Mr. McGuinty said the proposed smoking ban struck a good balance between individual rights, there’s something you never even hear them say except when they’re doing a balance on it, which means they’re taking it away, and society’s responsibility to protect its most vulnerable citizens.<\/p>\n

However, neither the NDP nor the opposition conservative party took issue with the bill. Less rules and less government is certainly something we stand for, but I think sometimes you have to bring in a rule to protect a vulnerable group in society, he says, Tory MPP Laurie Scott, and I think banning smoking in cars with children is a concept that I would certainly support, end quote. Now, here’s my take on this whole thing, I just see this as another demonstration of why freedom and individual rights have no defenders in the legislature. I also see it as a demonstration of hypocrisy, contradictions, and false assurances on further encroachments of the state into private affairs. That’s all crap, and I’ll tell you why. First of all, is there a real need for this law? No, and so say almost all its advocates.<\/p>\n

I listened to them talking on radio shows this week. The number of smokers who really subject their kids to concentrated levels of secondhand smoke in their cars is negligible. I mean, it’s negligible.<\/p>\n

I’ve even been a passenger in a car with smokers, and sometimes I didn’t even know they lit up because they made sure that the window was open, was sucking the smoke out the other side, and often I had one friend who quit smoking now, but I never really noticed his car smell of smoke, and I’d be sensitive to that. But nevertheless, here they are, they’re bringing this in anyway, which to me means that the entire exercise is symbolic. It’s quote, sending a message, namely that the state can do whatever it likes, whenever it likes, without any considered reference to fundamental rights and freedoms, other than to say we’re doing a balancing act, or what’s actually morally and legally justifiable, which always means within the context of a free society.<\/p>\n

And of course, it’s back to this. It’s just like censorship or anything else when persuasion fails, just use force. But if you’re going to use force at all, then why bother with persuasion? We could save millions and millions of tax dollars by stopping all the government propaganda health ads persuading us to quit smoking, and just let everyone know that they’ll be punished for any undesirable behavior. Wouldn’t that save a lot of trouble for everybody? Just make it against the law.<\/p>\n

We have no plans to ban smoking in private homes, says Dalton McGuinty, which of course is a meaningless statement considering the source. Can anyone actually believe anything this guy says at any time? I mean, he gives the term fibril, a unique and entrenched meaning when it comes to elements of liberal government by whim.<\/p>\n

It’s just amazing. McGuinty had no plans to ban smoking in private cars either. I mean, not even last week he didn’t have any such plans. And so how’s that? What kind of argument is that to say that he’s not going to do it?<\/p>\n

It’s meaningless. And it didn’t stop him from acting on a whim, which is far more dangerous way to govern than to have a plan. You should have a plan. And not having a plan certainly won’t protect anyone from his whims. With every step of the smoking bans in bars and restaurants, which basically have decimated an entire sector of the industry.<\/p>\n

If you don’t believe that, I know a lot of people who are really hurting, many of them went out of business. Bar owners were repeatedly assured that each new regulatory ban was as far as the government would go and being philosophically and politically illiterate, like most business people are, they go ahead, they invest thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to accommodate a smoking public while segregating it from the non-smoking public, which is what they used to do. But all that was for nothing and no one was allowed to sue their politicians for damages or losses suffered, just amazing.<\/p>\n

Here they are, they make you a promise and it’s not worth the paper, it’s not written on, isn’t that interesting? And most of the bars affected by smoking bans were for adults only, alcohol establishments, strip bars even, who were practically regulated out of existence. They already had age limits for entry, usually 19 or older, so so much for the child protection argument, okay? If it’s about kids, then why do we have those bans? If you can only protect children, obviously you can protect anybody you want. And speaking of which, again, inquiring minds need to know, why doesn’t McGuinty’s legislation protect all passengers in a car from secondhand smoke? They did it for restaurants, why wouldn’t they, why stop at kids?<\/p>\n

I don’t get it, that’s insane. You might not see the kid in the backseat, it’s easier to see a second person in there. How can you seriously make such a law child specific only?<\/p>\n

And I don’t know if my dad was a heavy smoker and he wasn’t getting a cigarette while he was driving the car, I think his driving might suffer a bit, I don’t know which would be more dangerous. But, it’s just amazing, the use of children as a legal wedge to violate the majority’s individual rights, and that means those of us of the age of majority, that’s what that term really means. It’s a tactic I’ve seen used over and over again, particularly when it relates to issues of violence and sex on TV, and it’s a distraction from the real issue and from the real eventual target of the legislation. And yes, I understand that children are unable to consent. And that would be an acceptable retort if it were not for the fact that consent is, was and always has been irrelevant to all other smoking bans, even drug prohibition laws for that matter. They don’t care if you consent.<\/p>\n

It doesn’t matter. So I want to know why aren’t adults being protected? And if on a whim, while this legislation is being tabled, McGuinty decides that it’s the right thing to do because it affects health, and we suddenly discover that he protects adults, I mean, then what happens? What if two adults are seen smoking in a car?<\/p>\n

Is each one of them guilty of exposing the other one to secondhand smoke? Is that how it’s going to work? Can you see what we really mean by a slippery slope? There is no slope, never is.<\/p>\n

It’s black and white. As soon as you’re talking slippery slopes, it generally means you’ve already crossed the slope. Once the government can legislate to any degree on matters such as this, the so-called slope has long since been slid down.<\/p>\n

I mean, we’re sliding right down the ice right now. And here’s a final moral argument. Unavoidable, I think, if we continue in this line of logic. Why are we bothering to stop with secondhand smoke?<\/p>\n

Hello? Why not firsthand smoke? Anyone want to answer that one for me? If the issue’s really about health, okay? If it’s really about health, why are we stopping at secondhand smoke? And I don’t think we will. I think we’ll carry on. I believe that we are headed towards a second prohibition on tobacco, and I think we’ll see a new drug war. It’ll fuel a myriad of new social and criminal problems, but of course that’s just a symptom of the greater problem. So let’s complete the circle. Okay, so we ban and prohibit cigarettes entirely.<\/p>\n

What would be the proper penalty, say, for possession? Ten years, twenty years? I mean, since tobacco use is in many ways more harmful than, say, even marijuana use, if you’re going to talk harm and health, and since penalties for marijuana have been as high or higher than what I just suggested, why shouldn’t we lock up all smokers? If you’re going to be morally and ethically and politically consistent, you would have to, wouldn’t you? And then we should also have the diet police. Did you know that diet is sixteen times more relevant and significant than smoking to the overall health of an individual? In other words, a smoker who eats well is sixteen times more likely to be healthy than a non-smoker with a poor diet. Now think about that one for a minute, especially if we’re going to have health care police. Obesity is fast becoming the number one killer, according to our health care terrorists. So, smoking bans in private homes?<\/p>\n

Is this a possibility? Of course it is. Wake up, folks. They can break into your home if you smoke marijuana.<\/p>\n

Remember that slippery slope we passed that years ago? They can break into your home if you smoke tobacco. You’ll smell that, too. Or keep the wrong kind of food in your refrigerator, or have the wrong kind of light bulbs in your electric receptacles. And I’ve talked about that already, too. Check out the smoke alarm legislation for private homes sometime. Fines of up to fifty thousand dollars plus imprisonment for not having an operating smoke alarm in your private home on every floor? Fascism, anyone?<\/p>\n

Hello? Holy smokes. All in the name of safety and health. And that’s where I think the new fascism is mostly coming from.<\/p>\n

And what’s really sad is that most of the media, the political opposition and political lobby interest offered no resistance and even support to this idea. Confounded as they always are by the necessary distinction between personal morality and legitimate state jurisdiction. They’re kind of like deer caught in headlights of an approaching car. And they honestly believe that the car will not strike them if they just hold still and don’t move.<\/p>\n

But when it comes to understanding this issue, they’re dead already and they don’t even know it. What can you say? But we’re live on the air right now and we will be back right after this.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/strong>
\nBut it is good to be here in Montreal. I love coming to Montreal. I think you guys should change the slogan on your license plates from Je me souviens to Smokers Paradise. Man, is there? Unbelievable. I’ve never seen a place with this kind of tobacco consumption. It’s unbelievable.<\/p>\n

Everybody I see, thirteen, sixteen packs a day. It’s just a huge, tumorous cloud hanging over the province. There’s no non-smoking section in all of Quebec. You ask for a non-smoking section, they just point to Ontario.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Mitch Hedberg):<\/strong>
\nMitch Hedberg:<\/strong> I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Yeah, that’s the way a lot of people are, I think. That’s the next issue. By the way, welcome back. The show is just right. I’m Bob Metz and you’re listening to CHRW Radio 94.9 FM. Where you can call in at 519-661-3600. And before I forget, I should also remind you, of course, of our new website that we set up last week and announced, www.justrightmedia.org<\/a>, where you can get the current shows, the past shows, and every archive show right back to the beginning. So you can hear what I actually did say on some of these issues that I often skip over some of the details if I know I’ve talked about it at length before on the show.<\/p>\n

Did you hear the latest? Tony Clement had an editorial in the National Post, March 6th, The Cost of Getting High. And he writes again, of course, he’s in the federal government. He is the federal Minister of Health, which again is, I hope you understand the symbolism of that. This is not the Minister of Justice writing. This is the Minister of Health. Quote, the UN Office of Drugs and Crime reports that Canada now has the highest proportion of marijuana users in the industrialized world at 16.8% for those between 15 and 64 years of age. And of course, we covered this report in detail on Just Right at least six, eight months ago or so.<\/p>\n

So again, if you want to catch that one, it’s online. 8% of youth report using marijuana daily. The most recent Canadian Addiction Survey indicates that while youth alcohol use rates have stayed relatively consistent since 1989, the use of marijuana by youth has almost doubled in the same period, writes Clement. Now, note that the prohibited illegal substance is on the increase while the regulated legal substance has stayed consistent. But after all, alcohol is legal and presents no health risks if one is to go by the law.<\/p>\n

Yeah, right. And writes Clement, quote, ecstasy seizures increased from about 180,000 tablets in 2002 to over 3 million in 2006. In 15 years, youth drug offenses quadrupled from under 4,000 reported incidents per year to over 17,000. Despite this, Canada has not run a serious or significant anti-drug campaign for almost 20 years, he writes. Now, how we can say that to me is beyond all comprehension right after he just said that drug offenses quadrupled and they’ve got like from up to 17,000 people in jail and being fined.<\/p>\n

Isn’t that how the anti-drug campaign works? Isn’t it working beautiful? You got your numbers up from 4,000 to 17,000. Oh man, anyways, quote, in the absence of clear advice from government, we have abandoned this ground to heartless pushers who look for young people to hook as their existing clientele sickens and dies. Now, he calls it advice.<\/p>\n

Now, let me tell you, governments don’t give advice. They fine in jail and punish. That’s all they do. That’s all the government does.<\/p>\n

And they operate on the principle in situations like this. Again, when persuasion fails, use force. And when you can use force, I still ask the question, why bother with persuading? Why bother with all these money spending things on persuading?<\/p>\n

Just get the old club out. That’ll teach us all to be civilized by gosh. That’s the real lesson that they’re teaching. And then they wonder why we have increased violent crime and decreasing respect in society at large because we’re looking at our leaders.<\/p>\n

Look at how they govern. And he says, of course, that drug users do die, says Clement. Vancouver had 36 drug overdoses in the first six months of 2007 compared to 26 in the same period of 2008.<\/p>\n

Now, to me, that’s insignificant on all counts. The stats are dwarfed when compared to drug overdoses on prescribed drugs and statistically insignificant in any meaningful measure.<\/p>\n

To have only 36 illegal drug overdoses in a year in a city the size of Vancouver with its disproportionately large drug culture is to me, it’s remarkable. It’s so low. That’s like, huh? I’m stunned. It’s this low. And this is probably how many people in Ontario smoke cigarettes in a closed up car with their kids. That’s the same kind of idea.<\/p>\n

There’s all 36 of them, right? Quote. Oh, now here. Here’s the biggie.<\/p>\n

This is Clement. Drugs, often described as recreational, are illegal for a reason. They take a terrible toll on human health. End quote. Now, this, dear listeners, ladies and gentlemen, is a complete and unmitigated lie. I understand that Clement is a healthcare minister and I’m not going to deny that drugs, any drugs, illegal or not, are harmful in some way.<\/p>\n

In fact, I had Dr. Dorman play the clip talking about the legal one saying that there are no harmless drugs. All of them are in some degree. But that’s irrelevant, whether they can take a terrible toll on human health.<\/p>\n

But here’s the issue. No illicit drug in Canada was made illegal because of its healthcare implications. Healthcare fascism is just stage two of healthcare, socialism and state monopoly. But the reason the illicit drugs were made illegal was, for example, opium was made illegal in Canada to keep out Chinese immigrants, who were seen to be the drugs’ main consumers, and who even when they were supposedly so high on opium, could outwork and outproduce the average Canadian laborer who was working on the early railroads. They helped put the railroads across Canada. And of course the unions were big backers of this.<\/p>\n

They’ve almost always been racist and always support laws that restrict the labor pool. I mean, that’s what they’re all about. If you don’t believe this, just check the parliamentary debates. They clearly illustrate this. And so one of the reasons Mark Emery is going to jail in the United States, because he brought a lot of this information to our attention in the same situation existed in the States.<\/p>\n

And I’m going to make a point of digging out the explicit references myself on some future show. But in the United States, for example, marijuana was made illegal, and this is all in congressional hearings. There’s a fellow named Jack Herer who wrote a book called The Emperor Wears No Clothes, in which you pretty well photocopied the congressional hearings.<\/p>\n

You need a magnifying glass to read them to see what the debate was about. But to make a long story short, in the U.S., POT was made illegal to protect the Hearst Empire’s right to contracted lumber, for paper that was being used to make the Hearst newspapers. And this happened in the late 1930s, because hemp was about to compete with wood as a source of affordable paper in the late 1930s. By the way, hemp, if you’re not sure, that’s marijuana.<\/p>\n

That’s what they used to call it. And so Hearst imported the word marijuana from Mexico, that’s what they called hemp in Mexico. He launched sort of a reefer madness style campaign and effectively got the U.S. government to ban hemp, which they could only do for two years, because the war broke out later, and then they forced farmers to grow it, which was really funny, but that’s another story for the whole marijuana issue. But marijuana laws were also enacted to be targeted towards black minorities. And this was one of the main reasons that Pierre Trudeau, when he was discovering that white kids were getting busted too, he was kind of motivated to bring some kind of end to the whole marijuana prohibition situation.<\/p>\n

And of course we’ve heard all about the Le Dain Commission, which of course discovers none of the attributes of pot cited by our healthcare minister in the sense he does. But when a politician writes, as does Clement in his own essay, quote, Ecstasy has toxic effects on the liver. Ecstasy pills often contain other damaging substances such as methamphetamine. And the first conclusion I have to draw is, oh, so ecstasy in its pure form is not harmful since the harm has been attributed to other substances. So if that’s true, and if health is a criteria, let’s go back to that. Wouldn’t a rational action to be to legalize it and get the impurities out of it?<\/p>\n

I mean, that’s what we do with food, right? But no, rationality and health are not on the conservative agenda on this issue. Or he’s just lying to us about ecstasy not being harmful.<\/p>\n

Maybe it is. Quote, This is why the federal government’s 2007 budget added $63.8 million in funding over the next two years for a national anti-drug strategy. With this announcement, our government committed more money to combating illicit drugs than has ever been spent in Canadian history. End quote. Again, another proud moment in conservative ideology. We outspent everyone. Yeah, we believe in less government and individual rights. Yeah, sure you do. And federal minister of health, Tony Clement, Meet Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. So what’s blocking white and red all over?<\/p>\n

Oh boy. Quote, Our government is concerned about the damage that drugs cause families, which is why our strategy placed particular emphasis on educating youth and their parents. We will provide youth with the plain truth on the harms of illicit drug use.<\/p>\n

There are no safe amounts and there are no safe illicit drugs. See, end quote. There we go again. Preventative medicine and the guise of government advertising and propaganda spending. Which is exactly what I warned against last week when we were talking about expanding Medicare to cover preventative medicine and all that stuff. All they do is spend tons of money promoting absolutist positions on drugs, food, alcohol, exercise, whatever, which almost everybody knows is nonsense.<\/p>\n

Let’s face it. The kids who are daily packing our smoke-free bars and dance halls in downtown London are a different crowd than the one in the days before prohibitions effects were fully felt. They drink limited amounts of alcohol relative to the old days and are on our high just about any other illegal drugs that have been mentioned. And they do it over and over again, putting a lie to the claim that there’s no safe amounts of any kind of illicit drug. You could just as easily and accurately argue that there’s no safe amounts of any kind of food.<\/p>\n

I mean, it’s always possible. You might have an allergic reaction. You might choke. You might be obese and just be contributing to the problem.<\/p>\n

And of course, there are millions upon millions of people who have in their past done all kinds of illicit drugs without experiencing the worst case scenarios that make anti-drug proponents seem like cartoon caricatures. I’m not alone in my observations, by the way. A lot of other people commented.<\/p>\n

In particular, noticed these. A wasteful war on drugs was the heading in the National Post on March 7th with some of the following comments under it. The first by Dr. Victor Davicus of Waterloo, Ontario, who writes, What a waste for the federal government to spend $63.8 million for a national anti-drug strategy. We may as well flush it down the nearest toilet.<\/p>\n

What exactly is the strategy that has not been tried already and failed miserably? As Health Minister Tony Clement should well be aware, the health and material costs to society from alcohol and tobacco far outweigh all other illegal drugs combined. This column is a perfect example of government scare tactics, misinformation and abuse of taxpayers’ money. I counter that no person has guaranteed anything in this life but death and taxes and suggesting that experimenting with drugs leads to a life of misery goes against the life experiences of countless successful individuals.<\/p>\n

Just to ask Andre Boisclair how his cocaine use prevented him from becoming the leader of the PQ, or if Bill Clinton had a hard time becoming Commander-in-Chief because he didn’t inhale. This misguided attempt to control illicit drug use is nothing more than the 21st century version of reefer madness and reflects poorly on the so-called, quote, brains and, quote, behind the Conservative Party of Canada. Letter to the editor-writer Alex Gorleski from Newmarket writes on the same day under the same heading, I’m always amazed by Conservatives who typically deplore liberal nanny state reasoning with regard to things like tobacco and trans fats, but are willing to argue for nanny stateism when it comes to drugs, end quote.<\/p>\n

Well, not anymore, Alex if you’re going by the provincial Conservatives here because they’re quite behind Dalton McGuinty’s No Smoking Law. And this is from someone, Executive Director Tim Tussaud, the Cannabis Law Education Reform Society in Vancouver, writes, the idea that there’s no safe amount of any illegal drug is patently false. Tragically, Tony Clement’s statements demonstrate exactly why youths primarily listen to their friends about drugs. The government has put out fear-mongering propaganda to young people about drugs for decades. And Minister Clement now apparently will spend millions on more of the same.<\/p>\n

What a waste. We have a call coming in and let’s hear from the caller. No?<\/p>\n

Caller hung up? Okay. Okay. And coincidentally enough, the following letter appeared right under the one I read again and refers to McGuinty’s Tobacco Ban. Quote, letter to the editor-national post, Robert Skieck of Oshawa writes as a non-smoker, Dalton McGuinty’s proposal to ban smoking in cars with children inside will have no effect on me. I think he’s wrong about that, but he think he realizes it when he writes, other than making me feel the icy chill of the government’s insidious efforts to re-engineer society. Mr. McGuinty might just as well pass a law against stupidity.<\/p>\n

I am concerned when governments make such empty gestures which do nothing but extinguish our freedoms one at a time, in which will ultimately turn our society into an over-regulated Kafkaesque idiocracy. And I understand we have a caller now. Is he ready? Okay. Let’s put him on.<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> Hi, I’m Joel from St. Thomas, Ontario.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Hi, Joel. How are you doing?<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> Good. I deliver oxygen for a cardio-respiratory at a hospital. And a lot of my patients are ex-smokers or currently smoking. And it really bugs me. And I was wondering, is there even a by-law against that?<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Against which?<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> Against smoking while on oxygen, which is…<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> I wouldn’t know about that, but what would you do to these folks? You think there should be?<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> They’re costing our government a lot of money right now.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Because people are smoking while they’re getting medical services is what you’re saying.<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> Just to be on the oxygen itself is quite expensive.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> I can imagine.<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> And just that problem itself is due to a lot of them are due to using tobacco.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Do they continue to use it?<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> A lot of them do.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> So what is your fear that they’re smoking near oxygen or that they’re just compounding the problem or both?<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>It’s definitely a fire hazard.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Well, that’s understandable. But now what are you suggesting? You would think that if someone was not being safe with their oxygen supply to someone who’s responsible for providing them with it, it would have the right to say something about it.<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>Oh, it’s been said and it’s almost a culture of throwing it to the person behind them. No one wants to take any responsibility in the medical community, I believe.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> And what would you see as a solution to this problem, Joel?<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>Bringing in more regulation.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Such as? Give me an example.<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>I thought of many ideas. I’m sorry, I can’t think of anything right now.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Well, would you put these people in jail? Would you find them? Penalize them?<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>I don’t know about a fine, but\u2026<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> That\u2019s all government can do.<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>I know, I heard your comment before. All they can do is punish and fine people.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Okay, so you’ve got this guy. He’s dying of cancer. He’s got a heart disease, lung disease, whatever. He’s on oxygen and he’s doing something. You don’t want him to do… Your suggesting punishment is somehow going to fix this situation. I would suggest to you it’s not.<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>I agree.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> My father died of cancer and he smoked cigarettes right into his 70s, and he would have loved to have had a cigarette in his past, in his last few years of life. But he couldn’t and it’s more than about addiction, I think. I think we’re fooling ourselves when we say it’s just about addiction. I think there’s more to it than that. But I can see what problem you’re dealing with, certainly ethically, in terms of… See if we had a private healthcare system, a private doctor could put some regulations on that patient and say, look, I’m not going to look after you. We’re hearing that a lot already in the public system where doctors are refusing to help patients who won’t help themselves, so to speak. And I think maybe that’s the only long-term answer as tough as it seems. But I mean, if we’re going to put resources into people, you think that they’d at least cooperate.<\/p>\n

Yeah, I hate seeing these people wither away and die.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> I understand that. And I think a lot of the laws we want to pass are out of that altruism and consideration, and that’s why we have to be very careful when we do that.<\/p>\n

Joel: <\/strong>Okay, is that about it for that then, Joel?<\/p>\n

Joel:<\/strong> Thank you for taking my call today.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Well, thanks for calling.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/strong>
\nI think teenagers are smarter nowadays because at least teenagers nowadays are doing drugs that sound good. Like ecstasy. A state of blissful euphoria. What did I do when I was a teenager? Acid. A liquid that could dissolve bones. Oh, yeah, we were thinkers.<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Steven Wright):<\/strong>
\nSteven Wright:<\/strong> You know the number one way to meet people nowadays? Supermarket. I tried it, didn’t work. There’s my, come on, line. You gonna eat that crap? Hey, hey, where you going? Hey, come on back.<\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/strong> Good, come on, line. Supermarket, just one of the things that was being recommended for downtown renewal plans, the subject we discussed about last week on the show. Or was it two weeks ago, I forget now? Plans for saving downtown are becoming a dime a dozen, and boy are those dimes being flipped lately. Everyone’s got their own idea of what to do with the downtown. Government’s not the only culprit in advocating all kinds of downtown policies, but of course it’s the only agent capable of forcing policies on downtown properties and business owners.<\/p>\n

But just to give you an example, some of the ideas that have been tossed around that I saw in the free press, letter to the editor, Edward Jones, free press March 3rd. If you want people to come downtown, remove all parking grabs. Do away completely with high-priced parking meters and private parking. Charge little or nothing at all for rental spaces as they do in great many surrounding communities. Can you imagine what would happen downtown if there was no charge for any parking? You think you’d find a place?<\/p>\n

I don’t think so. Quoting City Lights Bookshop owner Teresa Teraswick, Ben Benedict, reporting from the Londoner, has her saying, quote, the word on the street is that people like the report, which is the report that we were talking about last week, the downtown report put out by the LDBA. But they find it too focused on ideas rather than solutions. That’s an interesting distinction.<\/p>\n

What we’re getting from some people says, Teresa, is that there’s a lot of rhetoric and they don’t see how it will be implemented. As for trees, we’ve had that and the bar crowd just ripped them out. Well, now I understand why we have metal trees. That explains the metal trees. I could never figure that out. Why are they putting metal trees downtown?<\/p>\n

Well, that’s so that the bar crowd won’t rip them out. And who else? Now, I really had to make a comment about this one too.<\/p>\n

There was a one-third page of op-ed editorial core needs public-private partnership, which appeared March 8th in London Free Press, and written by my very good and well-intentioned friend, Robby Smeeth. And we are friends. I disagree with him on this issue. I’ve already expressed it with him personally. And I understand what motivates him. Now, Rob’s like a lot of business people. They want to save money.<\/p>\n

They have a great concern for their downtown. But, to me, it’s not about the what, but about the how. And I think that’s where so many of them miss it. And what Rob was basically suggesting was that the city must designate and somehow fund and somehow fund. I like that.<\/p>\n

Well, that’s taxes always, isn’t it? The London Economic Development Corp. Or some other arms-length downtown group he suggests. Well, that would make it three. And we’ve already got the LDBA. We’ve got that. There’s a second one that they were working with.<\/p>\n

I can’t think of its name right now. But we don’t need that. They’re all government-funded things. And he’s suggesting that developers like Sifton’s, Alaston, and Drulo could quietly buy up the vacant buildings downtown for bargain prices, renovate them with government help, then sell them back to the private sector at a loss. And he says he can do this for only $3 million or less. If the loss to the subsequent purchaser is followed with a guarantee that the new buyers will realize a 10% to 12% capitalization rate, guaranteeing a profit for the new purchasers.<\/p>\n

And he suggests federal and provincial renewal project dollars might be available to help offset and bring down the costs. Well, no, I disagree. I think the costs will remain the same. Only the taxpayers’ identity changes with federal and provincial spending. It doesn’t change the total cost. It just means some poor schmuck in Vancouver has to pay for what’s the something we’re building here in London. And of course, he says London would end up with a rejuvenated core whose increased assessments would quickly pay back the money invested. And again, more property taxes in the future. And I understand that Rob is typical of many business-minded people who believe in lower taxes and less government. And that’s what he’s thinking. He’s thinking, well, they’re pretty, they want to spend hundreds of millions.<\/p>\n

I only want to spend three, but I’m going to do it the same way that they do it. And that’s where I think the whole problem comes in. A number of other people making suggestions.<\/p>\n

One letter to the editor, writer Glenn Hockinson suggests start by building a performing arts center now when it only costs $50 million instead of in 10 years when it’ll cost $100 million and impose a ban on undesirable businesses such as second-hand stores, tattoo parlors, and fast food outlets. And another writer, Eaton Kwan says, oh, we’ve got to help them. You can’t just kick people out. You’ve got to help them and give them money.<\/p>\n

And everybody’s got a plan with somebody else’s money. But finally, one voice of reason admits the chaos. And, thus, reject this report reads the heading on the letter of the editor to the Londoner, March 5th, written by the Forest City Institute. The report, quote, fails to identify the root causes of the core’s decline. Perhaps worse, the task force promotes two failed ideas. Taxpayer-funded redevelopment and creative cities as the solution to problems. By failing to identify high levels of taxation and an enormous regulatory burden as the factors which cause downtown property values to decline and owners to stop reinvesting in their properties, the task force is unable to provide any truly creative or innovative solutions to the decline of London’s downtown core. Not surprisingly, the task force attempts to repackage the idea of downtown redevelopment despite the abundant evidence of the failure of the previous $100 million worth of redevelopment. Enough already. Failed ideas, either individually or running in tandem, are still failed ideas and will only commit London taxpayers to pouring money into uneconomic sinkholes. City Council should do well to reject this report and its entirety and put money into fixing real sinkholes instead. And boy, do I agree with that 100%.<\/p>\n

And that’s it for the show today. That’s about all I’ve got to comment on today and we hope that you will again join us next week when we’ll return with Just Right. So, be sure to be back for another…<\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Stewart Lee):<\/strong>
\nStewart Lee:<\/strong> I’m Stewart Lee. Later on I’m going to be talking to you about how my tragic and ultimately fatal addiction to various forms of hard drugs has helped me to overcome my previous dependence on born again Christianity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 045 Air Date: March 13, 2008 Host: Bob Metz Disclaimer: The views expressed on this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW. Clip (Tracker S01E05 – The Plague): Nurse: I\u2019ll need to make a copy of your insurance card. Mel: She\u2019s covered by [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-16674","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\/16674","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=16674"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16675,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16674\/revisions\/16675"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}