{"id":16700,"date":"2008-03-20T12:40:55","date_gmt":"2008-03-20T15:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/?page_id=16700"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:41:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T15:41:46","slug":"046-transcript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/046-transcript","title":{"rendered":"046 – Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 046<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Air Date:<\/b><\/span> March 20, 2008<\/span><\/p>\n

Host:<\/b><\/span> Bob Metz<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Clip (Star Trek: The Next Generation “A Matter of Time”):<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/span>Picard:<\/span><\/strong> We’ve located three underground pockets of carbon dioxide here, here and here. Our drilling phasers can release enough of the gas to form an envelope which should temporarily hold in the heat of the sun.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moseley:<\/span><\/strong> We’ve spent years, decades trying to avoid anything that would lead to a greenhouse effect and now here we are about to create one on purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n

LaForge:<\/span><\/strong> Less than 20% of your normal sunlight is getting through that dust, Doctor. If we can hold enough heat in with the CO2, that should give the planet time to mend itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Morning London. It is Thursday, March the 20th, 2008. I’m Bob Metz and this is Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM, where we’ll be with you from now until noon. No, no, not right wing. Just right.<\/span><\/p>\n

Welcome to the show today. We’ll be talking about landlord licensing, jobs, labor, free trade, unions and what’s going on with the economy. Fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion just passed, I believe it was yesterday or today. I’m not even sure, but war protesters were out. Something I want to comment on.<\/span><\/p>\n

But first to begin the show off, I want to talk about again one of my favorite recurring themes, global warming.<\/span><\/p>\n

519-661-3600 is the number you can call if you want to join in. And I also want to remind you just once more that we do have a website set up specifically for the show, <\/span>www.justrightmedia.org<\/span><\/a><\/u><\/span>, where you can see an archive of all the shows right back to the first one. And I’d like to announce today for the first time, yes, the files are somewhat indexed now. You get some kind of idea of what the subject headings might be in the shows, because we had them all online a couple weeks ago without any sort of index headings.<\/span><\/p>\n

And at least you’ve got something very functional there. Watch the site. We’ll be adding features to it as time goes on that will be part of the show.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I hope you enjoy it. But first let’s global warming. This is a big issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

I’ve been talking about it. Of course, it’s not really about the environment. And again, check the site out if you want to really get back into some of the arguments I was getting into there. But I call it the global warming cult. And it’s leading this propaganda campaign to convince us that it’s our fault the earth is warming and that the sun and other natural forces can’t possibly be responsible for the changing weather.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, they’re grasping at very unintellectual and unscientific straws to bolster this insane viewpoint on the environment now. Clicking around on my TV the other day and I noticed the weather channel has become particularly offensive in this regard. And if it isn’t David Suzuki on one of his emotional diatribes screaming at us, now they’re appealing almost directly to mysticism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dancing for rain kind of thing. This past week I’ve been noticing another one of their global warming features in which the wisdom of the ancient Aboriginal natives is being invoked as another reason yet to buy into the global warming religions. There’s now a green spin on North American native dances and their mystic incantations. And what made the feature notable to me was not perhaps you could argue about the gross untruth about the actual past relationship of a lot of North American natives to the environment because it was not all peace and harmony with the land if you read an accurate account of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

But in fact there was an article in the National Post recently which demonstrated how the so-called environmental footprint of any person living in sort of primitive means cast a huge footprint compared to someone living in a highly modern or technological society. But that’s not what really caught my attention. What caught my attention was the constant targeting of affluence as the enemy of the environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

The word affluence came up repeatedly as the cause of the problem. Now this is so wrong, I don’t even think it’s wrong. It doesn’t even get on the wrong scale. And the fact that the weather channel is almost completely government financed, they got through regulation, through licensing, through advertising, and a host of other controls that pretty well ensure that the piper calls the tune. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that so much intellectual junk is pouring forth from what should be an objective information station. I have never yet seen or heard a dissenting voice on the global warming cult aired on the weather channel.<\/span><\/p>\n

You just won’t hear it. But affluence has nothing whatever to do with pollution or global warming since people who are not affluent, people at subsistence level or lower pollute just as much if not more than people who are affluent. To compare the poor countries of the world with the affluent countries in terms of their pollution levels and environmental footprints, the evidence is overwhelming that wealth, not poverty, is the only way we can even address such issues as the environment. And it’s so overwhelming that these poverty pimps just go into denial and go into their religious chanting phase by repetition convincing themselves that by hurting the affluent, they are somehow helping the environment. It’s funny because it’s all about needs versus affluence. It’s funny that these people who are so concerned about the environment suddenly don’t really care as much about the environment if you’re talking about need. They clearly excuse all pollution and CO2 gases if they’re necessary or if people are in need. But if you’re affluent, then you’ve got to cut yourself back to subsistence levels to qualify for pollution tax credits, which will magically give you permission to pollute. It reminds me of the ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides in lawn care chemicals. If you need it, it’s okay.<\/span><\/p>\n

Go ahead and use those chemicals. But if you want to use it for something considered beyond subsistence or beyond need, like wanting a beautiful bug-free lawn, well, then you’re a sinner. And you must be punished by law and prohibited from extending your needs into desires.<\/span><\/p>\n

I have to tell you, in terms of philosophy, this is quite an evil concept if you think about it. It’s about envy. It’s about greed. It’s about hatred. All directed at wealth and at the producers of wealth.<\/span><\/p>\n

And all brought to us by the Green with Envy movement, which of course is really red. Lorne Gunter in the March 10th National Post writes, The media snow job on global warming is the headline. And Gunter comments on how little interest most media outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy by citing the formation of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change announced the week before in New York and reported on the pages of the Washington Post. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors, the sun, El Ni\u00f1os, La Ni\u00f1as, volcanoes, etc. Not human sources are behind global warming. Of course this evidence has been around for years and you’ve heard here on this show for the past year.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Washington Post points out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians such as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and that the conference sponsor the Heartland Institute received money from oil companies and healthcare corporations. Now there’s nothing wrong with scrutinizing the motives of people engaged in a dicey debate. The subjectivity arises from scrutinizing only one side and always with a preconceived notion of what you’re going to find. At last week’s Manhattan Climate Conference, delegate after delegate related stories about how they had been denied tenure, shut out of the scientific conferences and rejected by academic journals because no matter how scrupulous their research, their conclusions disagreed with the prevailing orthodoxy of the climate change Pharisees. I think that’s incredibly an important comment to make that when people do come up with conflicting information that is just rejected out of hand and they won’t even look at it. Peter Foster adds his two bits to the whole snow job on global warming in a March 12th National Post editorial headlined The New Road to Serfdom. Now this one really caught my attention because I almost said this same thing in a totally different way on an earlier show middle of last year when I was talking about, I actually read a part from Ayn Rand that she had written back in the 1960s where she said, well the left is now going to turn to the environment and ecology and here is the strategy they will use and here are the panic tactics that they’re going to give you and she described everything from polar bears to the end of the world kind of scenarios with tornadoes and hurricanes. But Foster asks, how did we get into this ridiculous mess? It is all inextricably tied to the remarkable job that the left has done in the past 20 years to rescue itself from the brink of extinction by exploiting environmental concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n

And I might add to say nothing of the poor job done by the so-called right encountering the left’s propaganda, which of course he doesn’t talk about, but that’s not the subject of this concern. And he continues, that revival started in 1987 with the report of the UN based Brundtland Commission. Brundtland was packed with representatives of the old left, defined as those who seek state control over capitalist enterprise on the basis that it is both morally suspect and practically unsustainable. The Commission played into widespread misconceptions that the world was running out of resources, that the capitalist rich had achieved their wealth at the expense of the poor. However, its most important new weapon was that of the alleged despoilation of the environment by industrial society. The old slash new left was quick to seize upon the potential of climate change at the Brundtland follow-up at Rio in 1992. Rio was organized by Brundtland Commissioner Maurice Strong, a longtime committed socialist who was the strategic mastermind of the new environmental left.<\/span><\/p>\n

From Rio emerged the processes that led to the Kyoto Accord. In fact, I talked about all this in excruciating detail when I once hosted a show by Jim Chapman and sat in on that. The environmental movement has also been astonishingly successful in co-opting education systems and highly skillful at exploiting universal psychological tendencies to social conformity and deference to authority. The suggestion that climate change is primarily a moral problem has been a masterstroke, of which the masterstroker is Al Gore. Invoking morality is a powerful weapon in shutting off debate. It employs the so-called psychology of taboo to play some claims, for example that climate change may be natural, beneficial, or practically unstoppable beyond the pale. Those who promote such notions must therefore be evil or psychologically unbalanced or in the pay of powerful corporations. Invoking the authority of science and the democratic value of consensus are again both designed to cut off rational analysis. It’s a good point. If scientists had to work on consensus and vote on anything, they’d never discover anything.<\/span><\/p>\n

You’d never discover a single law of nature by voting about it. The new left that emerged via Brundtland, Rio, and Kyoto has thus co-opted a huge coalition of self-interested supporters attracted by the prospect of preening as saviors of the planet. Together they are threatening to carry the globe down to a new road to serfdom. Now regular listeners to this show will again recall, and I read that passage from Ayn Rand, and interestingly, what was it called? The New Left, the anti-industrial revolution in which she explicitly predicted each step in argument that the left would use on the environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

And she wrote that back in the 1960s and 70s, not in the 1980s. March 11th National Post, Letter of the Day, Propaganda Not Science Behind Global Warming Fears, writes Jan Narveson, Professor Emeritus of the University of Waterloo. If anything, Lorne Gunter understates the case about the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, which he says, I have seen and read carefully. This important document makes damning criticisms of the politically correct view of global warming, and the arguments are powerful. Example, the last eight years show no warming trend, and last year was colder than the 20th century average. The historical record has been partly ignored and partly just warped by the global warming enthusiasts. And the methods used by the defenders of the politically correct view are not science, but pure propaganda. Governments the world over, not the least of them our own, are wasting our money and worsening our lives on the basis of distorted and largely refuted speculations about the climate. It’s time to stop this nonsense, he writes. Now, if you want to see some clear examples of the nonsense, the snow job on climate change in action, as Lorne Gunter would put it, those of us living in London, I think, have a particularly lethal dose of this poisonous environmental propaganda being spewed out to us daily in the pages of the London Free Press. Have you ever seen their Green Planet series?<\/span><\/p>\n

They run that weekly. There are limits to how many human beings mother earth can sustain, reads the nonsensical headline of this series on March 16th. The article is mostly concerned with overpopulation, which again I refuted every argument made on a previous show, but that doesn’t seem to stop the environmentally handicapped crusaders still trying to revive all those Malthusian theories, which by the way have never once been proven to be right. Writer Vivian Song in her article, it’s a philosophy, bingo, resurrected from the coal-fired ashes of the 70s. Now, I want to tell you folks, philosophies do not come out of coal burning. That’s not how philosophies are born.<\/span><\/p>\n

Philosophies are based on ideas. But nevertheless, it’s a philosophy resurrected from the coal-fired ashes of the 70s when environmental groups started sounding the alarm about uncurbed population growth and its impact on the planet’s resources. They were crusaders of the Zero Population Growth Movement asking couples to reconsider how their baby-making plan means one more mouth to feed for an overworked mother earth. Having children is selfish, environmentalists say, and they’re correct, having children is selfish, but they’re trying to tell you selfishness is bad.<\/span><\/p>\n

No, it’s not. If you think having children is bad, then you have to say being selfish is bad. Driven by the egotistical need to preserve the genetic line at the expense of the planet. In other words, what they’re telling us is dirt is more important than people. They think that people are, we have this genetic need to meet this genetic thing. If that were true, then it would be natural, wouldn’t it? It would be part of nature. And why be against that? But that’s not what they’re opposed to, of course.<\/span><\/p>\n

But she then cites Professor of Economics, David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo, who pretty well destroyed every bit of credibility he might have had by arguing, and this is again a Vivian Song writing, while it would be easy to blame developing countries where uneducated women give birth to multiple children, Foot’s to hypocrisy, developed countries have already bred and raped their lands of resources, he said. And I’m sitting there scratching my head. Have you ever looked out the window lately? What is he talking about? Breeding and raping the land is unbelievable language. It would be hollow criticism to pontificate about how the world’s poorest countries are producing too many dependents when it is the industrial countries that stole their share of food and energy. Now, I read something like that and I just have to pause to reflect on just how stupid, outrageous, immoral, it’s just outrageous that this claim is. It’s based on an ignorance that rivals the belief in a flat earth society. I just can’t believe it. If you believe in this kind of crap, that’s dangerous and self-destructive. It’s economically backward. It’s socially suicidal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Just think about it. But there’s more, the rich buy, the rich, remember, buy and drive bigger cars and are more likely to fly. Population growth is terrible for the environment itself, but there are lots of other things like technology, culture, and wealth that play a role. Now, I’ve never ever heard that before. The technology, culture, and wealth are bad for the environment. In fact, I’ve always heard the opposite.<\/span><\/p>\n

But that’s what David Foot says, who really put his foot in his mouth with that one. Again, the contempt for wealth, for capitalism, for freedom, and anything that is valuable or virtuous to humanity. Talk about getting everything exactly 100% wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s the entire opposite of reality. I jokingly said David Foot has single-handedly given the term environmental footprint an entirely new meaning. And finally, climate change could threaten our health, reads a front page story in the London Free Press, March 11th, in a purely speculative piece. Cheryl Black of the Canadian Press reports, In an article in today’s issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, infectious disease specialists predict global warming will increase the risk of infectious disease by expanding the geographic ranges of species known to carry diseases that jump from animals to humans. Dr. David Fishman, a scientist at the hospital for sick children research institute in Toronto, said, It is difficult to specify a time frame for such a blooming of infectious pathogens, but suggested such changes could occur during the next several decades. We’re not trying to predict the future, Fishman said, right after he predicted it. What we’re saying is that there’s a real possibility. Human beings are just one group of organisms that live in a really complicated ecosystem and on it goes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Human beings are not just one group of organisms subject willy-nilly to the laws of nature. It’s precisely because human beings are the only beings capable of reason and understanding and of adapting nature to man rather than the reverse, that these predicted outcomes are extraordinarily unlikely, particularly in countries where people have their right to use their minds to solve their own problems. I’ve heard other philosophers say this and the more I hear these arguments, I really have to agree with them. Make no mistake, it’s a fundamental hatred of mankind itself, that’s a major motivator behind global warming believers.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can see it everywhere in their ideological outlook on life. Once again, we see another call to support next week’s on Saturday, March 29th, Earth Hour. You see that in the pages of London Free Press by Greg Van Moorsel on March 14th. Again, another issue I covered in detail in the past show referring to the endarkment of society being foisted upon us by governments at every level, both literally and symbolically. Londoners are being asked by City Hall to plunge themselves into darkness for an hour on March 29th, snapping off unneeded, and there’s that word again, unneeded, see, it has to be an unneeded light. If it’s for pleasure and you don’t need it, well then it’s an evil light, you have to turn that one off.<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s all about your motivation and your needs. In a show of environmental solidarity with millions worldwide, well, it sounds like a union movement if I ever heard one. Van Moorsel’s editorial goes on to pontificate about how carbon dioxide is evil, and he also talks about totally unrelated environmental issues like London’s sewage polluting the lakes and the City of London being too big geographically, which surprised me. This is a city after all its squanders land all out of proportion to its size, its girth occupying the same terrain as Canada’s largest city with only a fraction of its people. And that’s why I have to turn my lights off on Saturday because of the size of the city. And of course, landfill sites are also evil, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. So flick off your lights on March 29th, says Van Moorsel, because after all, symbolism can be a powerful agent of change, but only if it reflects public will.<\/span><\/p>\n

And of course public will means government will, you won’t. I think that the London Free Press should be given an editorial and news reporting award for environmental terrorism and fear-mongering and misinformation. Personally, I find all this propaganda stuff on the environment very offensive. It’s intellectually insulting.<\/span><\/p>\n

I’m sorry. I know a lot of you feel the same way, but you feel a bit maybe intimidated and reluctant to express your disagreement, which is exactly how the propagandists want you to feel. I just would advise you don’t let that stop you because what they want is to have the authority over you to make you bend to their way of thinking, and don’t let that happen. So old statement, question authority before authority questions you. And you have to remember, science and logic do not matter to environmentalists. They’ve seized the moral high ground on the issue, and that’s why they control it.<\/span><\/p>\n

So that if you want to defeat them in any sense to resist the whole ideology, you have to do it on that level, on the moral level, and you have to expose what they are and reveal what we are.<\/span><\/p>\n

Okay, we’ve got a caller calling in. Let’s have the caller on.<\/span><\/p>\n

Can’t hear anyone today, Sarah. Oh, there you are. Okay, we got you. Go ahead. Is he still there? Are we having a technical difficulty. Okay.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Hi.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Yeah, hi. Can you hear me?<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Yeah, Bob, this is Paul calling. I\u2019m calling from Sweden.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Wow, calling from Sweden?<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Yeah, how do you do?<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Not too bad.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> I’m just listening to the program talking about global warming, and it’s my contention really, even after what I’ve seen all over the world, that this is really just another elaborate scheme at wealth redistribution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Oh, it is that.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Oh, yeah, it is. I mean, if you can just share what happens over here at the airports now, over here in Europe especially, there are children. Now, this is something that’s arranged by the newspapers here in Europe. There are children of 10, 11 years old that walk around the airports with these like church robes, these like choir robes, these white robes, very cultish looking really. And they’re going up to people who are about to take trips on airplanes, and they’re trying to talk them out of taking their flights. And failing that, what they do is they ask where these people are going, and then they calculate just how much carbon dioxide pollution their particular trip would go. And then after they calculate that, they decide how much money they should pay, and they actually get some people out of guilt to pay these kids money. And they ask what are you going to do with this money that they get? And they say, well, they’re going to buy solar powered ovens to cook food in India. So by the time you go through this old rigmarole and the cult and then involving children, it really is just a way to get some money for someone else’s cause.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> It’s all about money, isn’t it? It’s really funny here in another one of our papers. Paul, in London, they’re suggesting what they want people to do. These are city hall suggestions of what people should do when they turn off their lights next week Saturday. Some suggestions suggest, well, you have a candle at dinner for your party, have friends and family, or you read ghost stories in the dark, or you play hide and seek with your children in the dark. Have you ever heard anything that silly government giving people advice on how to spend their leisure time? Unbelievable. Thanks for calling Paul.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Thanks a lot, Bob.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Okay, all the way from Sweden. And that was Paul Lambert, by the way, who actually was a guest on this show last year when he talked a lot about what life was like in Sweden.<\/span><\/p>\n

That’s it for this section. When we come back after this break, we will be switching to another subject. And I think this one’s on war protesting, back right after this.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clip (Flick off):<\/span><\/strong>
\nIt’s gonna be easy. So just flick off. Flick off. Flick off.<\/span><\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/span><\/strong>
\nI love Canada, our little bilingual country. We were just over in Kosovo helping out the Americans, brought over all our military strength. Three ships, two tanks, and Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s Eskimo carving.<\/span><\/p>\n

We just don’t have what all the other countries have, right? They have like their SDMs and their ICBMs, which I’m not even sure what those letters stand for. But they sound good. When you think about it, that’s all they really need are acronyms that sound threatening. I think Canada, we should just make something up. Just tell all the other countries. This year we spent over $40 billion on our new BAAs. And we will be the only ones who know it stands for bow and arrows, just for our little secret.<\/span><\/p>\n

We don’t need anything though, because we have the Americans sharing our border. If anyone ever attacked Canada, the Americans would jump in and help us out right away. Well, we’re counting on it.<\/span><\/p>\n

We’re like the annoying little brother of the U.S. Before they can attack anyone, they have to tell the United Nations. So the United Nations is kind of like the mother. The U.S. is like, Mom, we’re going to war. The U.N. is like, OK, but you have to take Canada with you.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Well, Mom, we are at war, aren’t we?<\/span><\/p>\n

Welcome back. It’s Just Right on CHRW 94.9 FM. We’ll be with you from now until noon. 519-661-3600 is the number to call if you want to call in.<\/span><\/p>\n

Three articles, all in the London Free Press, within a day of each other caught my attention for a number of unrelated reasons, really. But there is a common theme. March 16 and 17, 2008, protesters speak out against Afghan mission, and protesters target Afghan war, where the two headlines, relating to Canadian protests, organized against Canada’s efforts in Afghanistan.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Toronto, thousands of protesters fill streets across the country on Saturday, March 15, to speak out against Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan, and to mark the upcoming five-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, which just passed yesterday. And what’s interesting, that is a war that we’re not even officially involved in, but they protested it nonetheless. Rallies were organized in 20 communities nationwide in a call for the federal government to recall its troops from Afghanistan, and instead adopt a peacekeeping role. I’d like to know how they’re going to do that after they recall the troops. You can have a peacekeeping role without troops. Which protesters said is Canada’s true calling?<\/span><\/p>\n

This is another one of those smug myths we have about ourselves. Federal New Democratic leader Jack Layton attended the protest, notes the article, and in the photo above it is a protester holding a sign which reads, elect an anti-war government.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second article reports that Darius Murashi, president of the Fanshawe College Social Justice Club, and an organizer for protest in Victoria Park on Sunday, with following the Saturday March, is optimistic but not unrealistic. I don’t think just peaceful protesting is going to stop everything, he said. Lynn Moyes, who attended the protest with her father and boyfriend, heard about the protest on the radio and decided to attend. We’re against the war, she said. We figure in 2008 there’s got to be a better way to solve problems.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, of course you’ll never see even one suggestion of what would be a better way to negotiate with people who are trying to kill you, and destroy everything that you’re trying to build. War is not the answer, reads a sign on the picture accompanying that article, and which also notes, among those speaking were Irene Matheson, NDP MP for London Fanshawe. Yeah, I wonder who’s behind all of these anti-war protests. Isn’t it interesting that it always seems to be the left?<\/span><\/p>\n

I wonder why? Now, in stark contrast to this losing mentality we see exhibited at these so-called anti-war protests, and I did a whole show on that subject too, was the following third article appearing the same day with the headline, most Americans oblivious to Iraq war, which was penned by Bradley Brooks for the Associated Press. James Carafano, a military analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said, the decline in violence since 30,000 troops were sent to Iraq last summer has been important in the public eye. Americans are not casualty averse.<\/span><\/p>\n

They are failure averse, he said. That is why you’ve seen public support rebound after it was clear that the surge was working. The number killed in Iraq is far less than in other modern American wars in Vietnam.<\/span><\/p>\n

The U.S. lost on average about 4,850 troops a year from 1963 to 75. Now, I did some arithmetic there. That’s about 13 years. If you use that figure, it works up to 63,050 people. In the Korean War, from 50 to 53, the U.S. lost about 12,300 soldiers a year.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, that was for about four years. So you take that, you’re looking at around 49,200 people, 50,000 people. Soldiers and analysts say the impact of the deaths in Iraq has been lost on many Americans who have no personal connection to the war. It’s still a war that hasn’t involved a draft, very important, or an increase in taxes, said John Alterman, who has the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. This is a war that most Americans continue to feel they don’t have to make sacrifices for. If you remember on the night of 9-11 attack, that’s one thing that George Bush said to everyone.<\/span><\/p>\n

He says, we’re going to run this war, so we’re not asking Americans to make a sacrifice, which means draft and all sorts of non-consensual issues. Carafano said that the public seeming indifference to casualty figures is the rule, not the exception for most wars that America has been in. Meanwhile, back here in Canada, our casualty figures are creating hysteria in the media, even though they’re still well under 100, not for one year, but for the whole five years we’ve been there. And we include now in our reported stats the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan that have nothing to do with combat duties, like the poor fellow they found dead in his bed last week, and many others killed by misfortune or accidents unrelated directly to the combat. Each one of those kinds of deaths is being added to the total war casualty figures as well. And that’s what we’re doing here, and of course every time one comes back, the left gets in its protest wagon and starts saying we’ve got to pull out. People protesting these wars just have no answers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now here’s the question. How long should we stay in Afghanistan? And how long should the U.S. stay in Iraq? I was actually asked those questions on Jim Chapman’s show. When was it? The week after they invaded Iraq, and my answer to Jim at the time was, we’ll be there for 100 years, Jim. We’re still in Europe. We’re still in all the other countries that we’ve ever engaged in a war, not necessarily in combat duty, but we’re there. We’re there for life. Because the answer is you stay there until the job is done, which requires two things.<\/span><\/p>\n

One, being clear on your objective and when it’s been achieved, and two, getting the job done with the proper resources and the proper time frame. Now if the protesters are really concerned with ending violence and bringing peace to those areas of the world, maybe they should be volunteering for combat duty, and advocating that more troops be sent to those areas, just like the U.S. did, which reported success at reducing the violence. Isn’t that funny? You send people with guns over there and the violence goes down. How do the protesters explain that? While Americans are generally reported to be oblivious to the war in Iraq here in Canada, our protesters choose to be oblivious to reality and to reason. They live by a new mantra. It’s called, see no good, hear no good, do no good. And as always, as I’ve always said, they remain on the side of the bullies, the nations who rule by force. That’s about all I’ve got to say on them today. When we come back, we’ll be talking about people before profits, the economy, unions, cheap labor, and all the rest. We’ll be back right after this non-commercial break.<\/span><\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/span><\/strong>
\nCanada is a diverse nation. But I’ve found that all Canadians everywhere, whether they be French, English, or native, are all united in their simple pride at not being Americans. The only major difference between Canadians and Americans, I think, is that an American will live his entire life and never once think to himself, damn those arrogant Canadians.<\/span><\/p>\n

We have other questions. What do you do, for example, with all of the money you don’t have to spend on your military? Americans spend half a trillion dollars a year on our military. Half our taxes. Your taxes must be so low.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clip (The Jim Chapman Show):<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/span>Jim Chapman:<\/span><\/strong> Well, can you sell your message if it turns out that a majority of Ontarians are socialists at heart?<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul McKeever:<\/span><\/strong> Well, the thing about socialism is it tends to implode. We’re up to our eyes in debt. There’s no more room for wiggling. And this is just the last gasping breath in Canada of what we saw in a more radicalized socialism in the Soviet Union.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jim Chapman:<\/span><\/strong> Well, a lot of people would listen to you say that, though, Paul, and say that maybe you’re overstating the case a little bit, that we don’t see the signs of crumbling that we saw there, that we’ve got, we have a healthy GDP or gross provincial product, if you will, that economically Ontario is still fairly sound, that yes, we’re heavily taxed, but we get a lot back for our tax dollars. A lot of it may be wasted, but we still, we get a lot of value. I mean, a lot of people look at the situation and believe that. How are you going to convince them? This is what fascinates me about your party. You guys are also confident that you can get this message across. How are you going to convince people of this?<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul McKeever:<\/span><\/strong> Well, luckily, the economy’s on our side. You can’t fool the economy. In the short term, I can tell you, as an employment lawyer, that we are very quickly, because of the low dollar, finding most of our significant factories and etc being bought out, really we’re being turned into more of a branch plant economy. The reason that we have this perception that we’re successful is because the Americans need to have cheap labor. We think we’re being paid the same amount, but that’s only because our dollars were 60% of what the American dollars worth. We’re actually cheap labor. And when we cease to be a palatable place in which to set up plants, and we’re seeing that more and more, the Americans will pull out and then we’ll realize just how poor we are.<\/span><\/p>\n

We are successful in Ontario, despite our socialism, not because of it. More rules, I mean, if you look at the liberal handbook there, you’ll find the word ban in there or regulate more than you’ll see anything along the lines of allow or permit.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Welcome back.<\/span><\/p>\n

There’s a familiar voice you might not have heard for a while. That, of course, was Jim Chapman in conversation with Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever five years ago on Jim’s cable show on Rogers.<\/span><\/p>\n

And it was interesting, of course, you probably figured when they were talking about the low dollar that that didn’t kind of make sense. But I have to say that everything Paul said there is really proven to be the case. Paul, of course, is also an employment lawyer who tells me about the horror stories around the Oshawa area all the time, just people are losing their jobs all over the place. And the reason I bring this up is because I caught a letter to the editor, sometimes what people just have to put in the paper can get me going on something. Time to put Canadian jobs above free trade, reasons the heading above James de Camara’s letter to the editor, London Free Press March 17th. It caught my eye because I consider it sort of an oxymoronic statement, sort of like saying put eggs before chickens or arguing, no, no, put chickens before eggs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Have we not lost enough jobs yet? asks the writer. And he continues by saying, people say, well, there’s nothing I can do.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, there is. Call your local MP and let him know how we need to make free trade fair for all countries or abolish it. We cannot compete with these impoverished countries labor wise unless we ourselves want to become an impoverished country. I just have to tell you folks, I find it stunning that anyone can rationally say that we are rich nation cannot compete with an impoverished country. What kind of thinking is that? It doesn’t even make sense. But nevertheless, he goes on to say, another thing we can do is stop buying all these foreign products. I wonder if he’d like it if all the other countries Canada trades with would start talking the same way.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can see where that’s going. But here’s his argument, you may think at the time that you’re saving a couple of dollars, but really how much do you save when it costs you your job? In my opinion, the conservatism Brian Mulroney messed up this country with unfair free trade. And again, the conservative Stephen Harper wants to mess things up even further by wanting to bring in unfair free trade with Korea.<\/span><\/p>\n

This government needs to stop trying to play a role of the hero in other countries and concentrate on the problems in our country. Now, follow to its logical conclusion. What this writer is suggesting would wreak a measurable havoc with the Canadian economy and put even more Canadians at work. This is certainly a message we’ve been hearing from union people, like Buzz Hargrove lately. So I want to make a couple of points clear here.<\/span><\/p>\n

First one is this, let’s be cognizant of one thing. The Canadian economy produces way more products and services than Canadians themselves could possibly consume. Canada supplies more oil and gas to the US than the mid east does.<\/span><\/p>\n

Did you know that? If we only produced in gas and oil for the Canadian market, which is what abolishing free trade would mean in its purest sense, then we’d have to shut down the refineries and put a lot of people out of work. Or on the other hand, Canada does not grow enough bananas to meet the current Canadian levels of banana consumption. And if we decided to grow our bananas here, which would be technically possible with greenhouses and applied technology, but the price of bananas would get so high that few would be able to afford homegrown bananas, which in turn would make the initial investment in banana growing technology kind of a losing proposition from the outset.<\/span><\/p>\n

So the old chicken or the egg theory raises its ugly head again. And by the way, it is unfair that Canada should have all that oil and gas. And it is unfair that Venezuela and Brazil and other countries like that have all the bananas in addition to having some of their own gas and oil. And yes, it’s unfair that some countries have cheaper wage pools than Canada does. And it’s unfair that some countries prevent their citizens from buying our stuff. But just like the bananas and the oil, that doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to knowing what’s always best for the prosperity and well being of the nation in the aggregate, not for some special interest group or single group. Free trade is always the way to go, unilaterally.<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe that. And free trade means no government intervention in economic choices that people make. If we had the courage, Canada should lift all its barriers to all goods and services without any necessity of considering whether the other countries exhibit the same courage. We can’t control what’s going on in most of those countries. We can influence and lobby them and stuff. But as a late economist Milton Friedman, so astutely demonstrated in his Free to Choose series, it won’t take long for the other countries who impose trade barriers or subsidize their products, for their citizens to eventually realize that they’re paying us to buy their stuff, which is something that also occurs when governments subsidize.<\/span><\/p>\n

And so it’s a losing thing for them, but a profit to the particular industry that’s getting help from the general public. Politicians and union leaders hate free trade because free trade diminishes their power to interfere with the economy. But remember, free trade means free from government in a citizen’s decision regarding what he or she will buy in from where and from whom they’re buying it from. And now that people being hurt by trade barriers are always the ones in the country that’s imposing the trade barrier. Forcing people to buy only locally means that the people and companies they’re forced to buy from have some kind of rights that the rest of us don’t have. And you want to talk about inequality and unfairness?<\/span><\/p>\n

And it’s about the best way I can describe it. Canadians weren’t too concerned with free trade back when the dollar was setting new lows in relationship to the U.S. dollar, almost dropping to half at one point. But all this meant was that we were cheap labor. Just like Paul said at the beginning, we were just giving it away and thinking, oh yeah, we’re doing so good.<\/span><\/p>\n

And now the piper’s come to call the tune. The second big principle I think that we have to be cognizant of is that labor is dependent on capital for its productive competitiveness without tools and machinery, technology, and energy, and most importantly, money in the form of capital investment. Every person’s labor has sort of an equal value, really, almost close to nil, since a person alone without any capital would be hard-pressed in nature to provide even for himself and his family, let alone produce for other people. How much could you do if you just had a shovel?<\/span><\/p>\n

And that would be a tool, too, wouldn’t it? Capital is the key to all increases in the standard of living, and that’s why the word capital is in the word capitalism. It’s truly a capital system in every sense of the word. The whole point of living in a free capitalistic nation is to have the right and ability to accumulate wealth without fear of having it confiscated from governments. And unfortunately, that’s been the history of what most nations to date have done. Most nations practice various forms of socialism and collectivism and fascism, which is all out to destroy wealth and capital. And socialism destroys wealth and capital by redistributing it for consumption, which artificially, by force, increases consumer demand, which restricts supply, and then there goes that process again. The irony of this, of course, is that labor as a political group always flocks to unions and organized labor monopolies into political parties who are all actively working to destroy everything that real laborers need to get ahead in life, rather than just tread water or fall behind, by working harder and getting less in return. And that’s the road to serfdom and that Canada has been on that road for quite a while. Now, the third great principle is the sheer reasonability of free trade. It’s both logical and moral, and it’s necessary, but that doesn’t define anything about it.<\/span><\/p>\n

If you want to see the logic of the ideas, just look at the foolishness of the opposite. For example, if it’s logical to restrict free trade, tariffs and prohibitions, taxes and licensing between nations and between provinces, which we still do, unfortunately, then why not restrict trade between cities and between municipalities, and make them all self-sufficient. And for that matter, restrict trade between individuals.<\/span><\/p>\n

And then you could be completely self-sufficient. And if that sounds stupid to you, you’re right, it is. But that’s exactly the argument constantly put forth by union leaders, politicians, and the letter writer to the free press. Free trade is always to the benefit of consumers, business, and labor alike. Underground and black markets aside, you either have free trade, forced trade, or no trade. And only political interests are ever in favor of trade restrictions, and that’s basically not in anyone’s interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, the upcoming clip that you’re going to hear goes back actually 10 years. And it includes myself, labor leader Sid Ryan and host Rhonda London, on the Rhonda London show way back in April 21st, 1999, on the CTS network in, it comes actually out of Burlington. So give a listen to this, and then we’ll be back after this break.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clip (The Rhonda London Show):<\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/span>Rhonda London:<\/span><\/strong> I’m going to stop you there, and thank you for your phone call, because he brings up an interesting point. In this era, where we’re seeing union contracts negotiated for two, zero, and two, does it make sense to be paying 2% of everything that you make in union dues?<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> Okay, first off.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rhonda London:<\/span><\/strong> Up to 2%.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> Okay, yeah, up to 2%. Because an awful lot of locals don’t charge 2%. What you have to look at is, what are the benefits you’ve got in your collective agreements? It isn’t necessarily what did you negotiate today.<\/span><\/p>\n

The collective agreements are built over a period of time, maybe 10, 15, 20, 30 years. You’ve got to look at, do you have a good pension plan? Do you have job security? Do you have seniority? Do you have good wages, better wages than you would in the private sector? Obviously, you have better wages because we’re hearing $8, $9, $10 an hour. It’s the norm in the private sector, that’s not the norm in the unionized sector.<\/span><\/p>\n

All of those benefits come as a package, and that’s what you have to take a look at and say, okay, what is this 2% per week or per month that I’m paying into my union? What is it worth to me at the end of the day? If I pay $300 per year in union dues, do I get better than $300 per year back over those workers in the private sector? The answer to that is, surely you do. You’ve got better pension benefits and wages. You don’t get them in the private sector. That 2% is worth thousands of dollars to you in your back pocket. And yeah, so you pay higher taxes. But believe me, somebody rather be taking home $35,000 per year and paid taxes on it than be taking home $15,000 a year.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Hang on a sec here. If you wanted to do something useful as a union leader, you know what you could be doing for labor in this province and in this country? Fighting for lower taxes. Fight for a higher tax exemption rate. It shouldn’t be like your minimum, you shouldn’t be paying taxes on anything you make before $20,000 a year. But the problem is the kinds of issues that union support are the kinds of issues that governments have to tax your labor for, that’s why they’re paying 52%.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> So let’s talk about taxes. So Mike Harris came in in the last election supported by people like you…<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> He wasn\u2019t supported by me.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> …saying lower taxes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> I ran against Mike Harris. OK?<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> So as a result of those taxes, he had to borrow $4 billion, by the way, to give people a tax break. Having borrowed that money, he then proceeded to take $800 million out of hospitals, which has now basically crippled our healthcare system. You take education, $1.5 billion out of education, which he’s crippled the education system. Children had 500,000 children in this province had their benefits cut by 22%.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> You can’t pull the plug on all services without opening them up to the market.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> Out of the mouths of young children in this province by the welfare cuts. All of that to pay for your tax breaks. You want me to give us more of this, Mike?<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Well, first of all, lower taxes ironically create more revenue for the government as a Harris government has discovered.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> So why does the healthcare system mess up?<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Because the healthcare systems run by the government and the education system run by the government.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sid Ryan:<\/span><\/strong> That’s a simplistic answer. It’s being run by the government the past 50 years and we haven’t seen hospitals closing and we haven’t seen emergency departments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Well, it took 50 years for the credit card to run out.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rhonda London:<\/span><\/strong> We’re going to have to stop it there. I don’t think we’re going to settle this debate today at any rate. Robert Metz, Sid Ryan, our time is gone, but thank you both for joining us today on the show. You both brought up some really interesting points.<\/span><\/p>\n

Comedy Clip:<\/span><\/strong>
\nYou like Chr\u00e9tien? The honorable, the right honorable Jean Chr\u00e9tien. Right. Are you happy that he was reelected for a second? I love people. We don’t care who the prime minister is again. You know why? Because we live in the best country in the whole world. And we know that the politicians only screw things up. So our opinion after an election, we’re like, oh, you won. Hey, congratulations. Go in the office if you want. Just don’t touch nothing. Please, just read for a couple of years and we’ll send the next lyin\u2019 bastard into replacement. I know it’s sad.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/span><\/strong> Pretty much how it is out there. I got to tell you about that debate I had with Sid Ryan. It’s one of the funniest things I ever went through because we were just in a shouting match for about an hour straight. He just kept talking over anybody and anything. And I started catching on about halfway through that that was the only way to get a word in edgewise. But that was also done during the middle of a Toronto transit strike, which is one of the reasons they called me into Toronto to discuss the issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

You’re listening to Just Right here on CHRW 94.9 FM.<\/span><\/p>\n

Got a few minutes left here just to say a few brief things. First of all, John Tory, I just want to get this past me before I go on to the next one. I actually heard a news story over the past week that reported that PC leader John Tory actually criticized McGuinty for failing to lower taxes. Can you imagine that?<\/span><\/p>\n

Specifically, business and corporate taxes in this case. And I’m thinking, wow, that’s something almost sounds a little bit Tory. Now, I don’t for a moment believe he’d actually lower taxes for anyone, but that’s not important. He’s at least saying what some of his past conservative constituency wants to hear.<\/span><\/p>\n

And he knows they’ll stay loyal to him even if he never delivers on that promise. It’s funny because, I’ve watched these fiscal and social conservatives, they’re so blindly loyal to any party with the word conservative in it somewhere, regardless of whether or not there’s anything remotely conservative in the party policies and philosophies, which basically change with each passing wind. And boy, do politicians pass a lot of wind, let tell you, changes with every breeze. Lowering taxes is something that Tory adamantly refused to even say, let alone commit to during the last election. I remember Steve Paikin on TVO catching him in a very embarrassing moment when he simply couldn’t allow himself to even say the words lower taxes. So don’t read his lips, read his mind. This is the first evidence I’ve heard of Tory’s new commitment to traditional conservative values, which I explained over the past few weeks is kind of a false front being used to disguise all those flaming red Tories who actually run the party.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tax and spend, that’s the fundamental political policy of all the major parties and that’s about all I got to say on that. Now, if you’ve seen all the excitement in the past week and I was involved in it indirectly because I’m a tenant in the city of London and I got one of these notices telling me my rent’s going to go up by 250 bucks a year, roughly a little over $20 a month or something like that because of this move by the city to want to license landlords. Of course, it’s not a landlord licensing thing, they’re really licensing properties.<\/span><\/p>\n

You get a mixture, every media calls it something else. It’s really a property tax without being called a property tax and it’s really about taxing tenants in the end because it doesn’t serve any other purpose as a license. And I got to tell you, I was totally surprised when I’m opposed to the licensing of landlords even if it was five bucks a year.<\/span><\/p>\n

But when I found out that this is what it’s going to be, like my building alone is worth about 10 grand on this license. And you know, it’s sort of going to operate like a business improvement area, the association where the members pay and the politicians get to control everything. In this case, the tenants pay and the politicians control landlords caught in the middle.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think licensing landlords opens the door to more public housing and government spending really. What are the real issues here? First of all, let’s be clear on something. Ownership of anything includes the right to lend it, to lease it, to sell it, or to rent it. And that includes your mind, your body, and your time, and therefore your property because those are the consequences of applying your mind, body, and time to creating anything or acquiring anything. So when somebody is licensing you to use something that is rightfully yours, they’re claiming ownership to it. They’re claiming control of it. And to the extent that they do control it, since it’s a private interest being controlled by public, by government, that is called by definition. I’m not trying to panic any more, that’s fascist, as opposed to socialist, which is ownership and control.<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s the only thing that separates the two. Secondly, having to go to a third party government for permission, I think it’s just morally obscene. If I had to, it’s like going to the government to ask for permission to breathe. And of course the real problem is a lack of municipal enforcement of current bylaws and laws that they have already in place. Judy Bryant, chair of the committee, looking into this is we’re trying to target illegal apartments, so why not do so enforceable?<\/span><\/p>\n

What’s the problem here? I remember all the horror stories I was subject to when I was defending a local landlord here before Human Rights Tribunal. Horror stories about how difficult it was and is for our landlords to have property bylaws and tenant infringements enforced by the authorities. Joe Hoffer, legal counsel to the London Property Management Association, said on the radio the other day at the end of the meeting they had at Centennial Hall, he says, ironically, Gina Barber stood up at the end of the meeting and said, we’ve listened to you and then said, we’re going to go back to staff and we’ll be coming forward with a licensing bylaw that has more definition to it, which was astounding considering that only four 40 speakers supported it, everyone else condemned it.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I don’t think they’re listening and we’re going to have to keep making effort to make sure they’ll listen and understand the implication for tenants if they go ahead with this licensing bylaw, says Hoffer. Now that’s exactly how it was at Centennial Hall when council was getting ready to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. I remember that because I was speaking to the committee of the speech there, the vast majority of the crowd in attendance was totally opposed to council’s interferences, but they lost their case anyway. And that’s exactly how it was back in the days when Gord Hume wanted London to host the 1991 Pan Am Games at 110 million in taxes, when nevertheless, 80% of Londoners in any poll, given at any time, even on sports shows, were ever in favor of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

So thanks to Mark Emery and myself who formed the No Tax for Pan Am committee, we won that case and Londoners were spared the misery of higher taxes, but only for a short time, unfortunately. So I can hardly wait to hear what the upcoming definition of a license will include when they come up with that one. Just for the record, the legal definition of a license reads as follows. I have a legal dictionary, a grant or permission, a power or authority given to another to do some lawful act. It may be written or verbal when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. And the regular non legal dictionary, this is really interesting, defines a license as four definitions here. One, an official document giving permission to engage in a specified activity, perform a specified act, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

That certainly matches the legal one. Now here’s two, three and four. Two, unrestrained liberty of action. Three, abuse of freedom or privilege, laxity. Four, deviation from or relaxation of established rules or standards, especially for artistic effect, as you hear the word used poetic license.<\/span><\/p>\n

So you often hear the phrase, no, we’re in favor of freedom, not license, when in fact what’s implied by license is this unrestrained freedom or as freedom is sort of naturally restrained. So I predict that city council will come back with a new license definition that will be according to these definitions, deviant, will bend all the rules and standards, will give city council unrestrained liberty of action and will amount to abuse of its privilege. And all of those things will fit into the definition of license. And of course, what is it really?<\/span><\/p>\n

It will really be a tax. And what’s to stop them from licensing homeowners and business owners, not a thing. So that’s pretty much all I have to say on that subject.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think we’re running out of time. Are we here, Sarah? I’m getting a signal from Sarah there. And that’ll be it for today. Boy, I can’t believe it. I got through most of the material. So join us again next week when we’ll continue our journey in the right direction. Until then, be right, stay right, do right act right, think right, take care.<\/span><\/p>\n

Comedy Clip (Mitch Hedberg):<\/span><\/strong>
\nYou know you go to a restaurant on the weekends, it gets busy, so they got to start a waiting list, they start calling out names, they say like, Dufresne, party of two, table ready for Dufresne, party of two. And if no one answers, let’s say the name again. Dufresne, party of two. But then if no one answers, they’ll just go right out of the next name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bush, party of three. Yeah. But what happened to the Dufresnes? No one seems to care. Who can eat at a time like this? People are missing.<\/span><\/p>\n

You people are selfish. The Dufresnes are in someone’s trunk right now, with duct tape over their mouth. And they’re hungry. That’s a triple whammy. We need help. Bush, search party of three. You can eat once you find the Dufresnes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 046 Air Date: March 20, 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 (Star Trek: The Next Generation “A Matter of Time”): Picard: We’ve located three underground pockets of carbon dioxide here, here [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-16700","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\/16700","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=16700"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16700\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16701,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16700\/revisions\/16701"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}