To all Canadian smokers: Are you absolutely disgusted by the dishonest anti-smoking propaganda permeating the airwaves these days and which, in all likelihood, YOU ARE PAYING FOR? Check out
The Facts About Second Hand Smoke
It knocks the crap out of the second-hand smoke bullshit that is behind the serious erosion of personal freedom and property rights in North America. It also contains valuable links to sites of interest including advice on how to avoid being impoverished by the rapacious and thieving cigarette taxes smokers are being assaulted with.
An old friend of my wife's recently invited my family to a beach party at a cottage on Lake Erie. We arrived early and the host was just finishing up some construction work. I was standing outside, near the porch that was being built when I lit up a good old Camel Light. After a few puffs, the host's wife came out and asked me to please smoke further away from the house. Some of the deadly sidestream smoke was apparently wafting into the cottage.
So I moved back a few feet thinking, "Hmmm.... great party THIS is going to be!"
A short while later my wife and I decided to take the kids down to the beach where we smoked peacefully for the next three hours. When we got back to the cottage the rest of the guests had arrived and the party appeared to be in full swing. I noticed someone had prepared a campfire using a lot of dry brush which was almost ready for lighting.
I went over to where I had been smoking earlier, right by the smoldering barb-q pit and lit up again. Someone I knew, a smoker named "Stan", came over to me and asked me to go with him to a spot about 15 meters away from the cottage. As he lit up a smoke of his own he told me that the host's wife, "Betty", had had an "allergic reaction" to tobacco smoke earlier in the day (must have been my Camel), and we had to smoke back where the cars were parked. "Hmmm," I said, remembering the campfire preparation, "it will be interesting to see whether she has an "allergic reaction" to the campfire when they light it..."
There were about five smokers at the party, about 25% of the entire group. We spent most of the evening "partying" down by the parked cars. Every now and then one or more of us would return to the front of the house and make an appearance, "partying" with the non-smokers briefly before returning to the smoking section. During one of these visits I observed that the fire had been lit and "Betty" was actively piling loads of this dry tumbleweed type of brush on the fire creating wonderful thick plumes of smoke.
As she stood there, almost hidden in the vast plumes of smoke I saw no evidence that she was adversely affected. It seemed odd to comprehend that if this wonderful brush smoke were polluted by someone smoking tobacco in the area "Betty" might get sick.
Later in the evening "Stan" told me he had asked, "Betty" whether the campfire smoke bothered her "allergies" at all. She told him she was not bothered by campfire smoke because it was "natural". I guess she wouldn't be bothered if she found rat droppings in her oatmeal either.
I found a site on the web at http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/woodhealth.htm titled, "Wood Smoke and Health References", which provides some information on the constituents of wood smoke (yes, there were actually a few pieces of wood smoldering away in the party "campfire"). From one of the abstracts listed there I quote, "Wood smoke is known to contain such compounds as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, aldehydes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and fine respirable particulate matter. All of these have been shown to cause deleterious physiologic responses in laboratory studies in humans. Some compounds found in wood smoke--benzo[a]pyrene and formaldehyde--are possible human carcinogens. Fine particulate matter has been associated with decreased pulmonary function in children and with increased chronic lung disease in Nepal, where exposure to very high amounts of wood smoke occurs in residences." (See also Health Effects of Wood Smoke.)
I have to say I find it just a little bit incredible that someone who is so sensitive to tobacco smoke as to be sent into allergic paroxysms over the slightest whiff can simultaneously remain impervious to the constituents of wood smoke, not to mention a smoldering brush fire.
Even more curious was what happened later. "Betty" went to bed early.... maybe that brush fire DID affect her.... but once she was apparently asleep we smokers were allowed to return to the brush fire and pollute it with our ETS to our heart's content. Hence, not only did this strange affliction appear to be very selective but it only occurred while "Betty" was awake.
I don't think I'll go to any more of these parties... Oh, not because of the smoking rules.... I'm just not overly keen on billowing brush fires.
The last couple of times I have been camping in a provincial park here in Ontario (Bon Echo and Algonquin) I have been aware that the entire campground is usually full of campfire smoke in the evening. It's kind of neat when it gets dark because the smoke really accentuates the beam from flashlights....
The thing I don't like about it is the smoke tends to irritate my throat.
Also, the smell gets into my hair and clothes which continue to positively reek of campfire smoke even into the next day. Of course, this is easily remedied by a shower and a change of clothing.
This also reminds me of a relative of mine who has been greatly encouraged by all of the dishonest anti-smoking propaganda of late. This individual self righteously applauds just about any and all government violations of property rights in the name of protecting the public from the alleged evils of ETS. One of her fondest complaints about ETS is that she can smell it in her hair and clothes which continue to positively reek of tobacco smoke even into the next day.
But she sure loves camping!
Me? I'm going to turn into an "anti-ECFS activist" and lobby vigorously for the prohibition of campfires.
"Do you mind if I light a campfire?"
"No, do you mind if I fart?"
Once upon a time, there was a guy named, "Ahkbar."
He was about 37 years old at the time of this adventure.
Born in Iraq, he could remember living in refugee camps as a child... and being shuffled from place to place until his family finally settled in Canada. (Ah Freedom!)
To make a long story shorter, Ahkbar ended up driving a taxi in Hamilton, Ontario.
During the bubble years up until 2008.... the cab business in Hamilton had almost (almost) recovered from the damage done to it by various governments in the early 1990's.
Ahkbar and many other immigrants, having been denied the opportunity to build a decent future for themselves in their new homeland because of accelerating government sclerotization of the economy in general, and their labour market interventions in particular ended up driving cabs in Hamilton.
There were signs that the cab business in Hamilton might finally be coming back to life. Weekends were becoming quite lucrative. Some drivers said they were pulling in as much as $600 on a Friday or Saturday night shift.
Some cab drivers even went out and bought nice houses. With hefty mortgages.
Other cab drivers did not buy nice houses. They had been in the business for a while. They had already been through prior recessions. They did not want to find themselves caught in upside-down mortgage situations at the same time that demand for their services plummeted.
Then a couple of things started to happen.
1 - the price of gas went way up. Since the drivers had to pay for their own gas before taking home their earnings the increase in gas prices hurt them.
Of course they wanted some kind of relief from this pain.
And where had Canadians accustomed themselves to turning whenever they found themselves in need of some kind of "relief?"
(If the answer to that question eludes you... just turn on CBC radio.)
Of course, it was common knowledge at the time. If one was in need of relief all they had to do was turn to Pepto-Local Government. And if there was a little too much of Pepto-Local Government one could always resort to Provincial Exlax and the McGoofball effluent would abound.
So, in accordance with their training in mandatory government youth incarceration and indoctrination centers, they looked to their god for relief.
What specific power (ooohhhhh ... ghoulish sounds..... P O W E Rrrrrrrrrr) did their god have?
Well, it's quite simple. Their god had the power to issue mandates. It had the power to legislate prosperity.
And so, in it's infinite wisdom and compassion, their god did what it does so well.... it waved its magic wand, it codified a new mandate, and it decreed a 30% increase in taxi rates.
It would have been nice, for cab drivers, if they lived in a world where a 30% increase in the price of their services did not prompt any of their customers to think twice about employing them.
Sadly, the world does not seem to work that way. HSR ridership went up 6% in the wake of the increase.
Duh!
By one account, taxi business volume declined by 40% within a month of the mandatory standard of living increase to cab drivers.
Duh!
Some cab drivers tried to warn the others about what would happen if they increased the cost of their services. They were laughed at.
Some cab drivers tried to point out that,
2 - there was some shit happening in the United States mortgage market. The world might be moving into another recession...
and that if we were moving into another recession..... it would be a really bad time to have the audacity to increase our own prices when demand for almost everything else was likely to go.... d o w n..... w ay .... d....o....w..... n.
But no.
Politics trumped the market. A recommendation for a rate increase was voted on by local politicians after about three seconds worth of consideration.....
and the lives of about 1,200 Hamilton cab drivers started to slowly swirl around the drain.
So,
Two years into what some are calling the "Greater Depression," our friend Ahkbar found himself working for about $3 to $4 dollars per hour.
(Don't it make you feel warm all over when you ponder the awesome power of legislation? )
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Ahkbar also found himself unable to afford the cost of automobile insurance (surely, one of the more politicized expenses,) and he
gone and done a bad thing.... driving without insurance.
Got caught.
Got fined $5000
("Driving is a privilege, not a right," according to the Gov. Inc. monopoly road mentality.)
and then... on November 1, 2010
Ahkbar gone and done another bad thing.....
He made an illegal left turn.
He got three tickets for the bad thing he did.
He showed 'em to me.
1 - the address on his license had not been updated within the specified time.... I think that was $110.
2 - Even though he was driving his mother's car.... and the pink liability slip was in the glove compartment he was charged with failure to provide proof of insurance... or whatever.. $65.
3 - though the whole incident was precipitated because he made an illegal left-hand turn... there was no ticket for that... instead, there was a ticket for "Careless Driving," .... about $490.
There was something about the cop touching his arm and then using that as an excuse to slap the cuffs on Ahkbar.
One of the cops made a comment about the book he saw on the seat of Ahbar's mother's car... a book about Adolf Hitler.... it came across more as an accusation what mere comradery curiosity.
Comments were made about his immigration status.
Ahkbar then spent three hours at the police station.
All of this because he wanted to buy a coffee at Tim Horton's.
Well, that is my story.
Of course, it is all fiction.
We all know that cops are really decent people who care about freedom and justice.
I mean, in your personal experience, hasn't that always been true?
"The practice of slavery dates to prehistoric times, although its institutionalization probably first occurred in early historical times"
"Slavery," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Should the rich nations of the West pay reparations to Africa and it's Diaspora?
Grab your wallet! Yet another group is on the prowl in pursuit of unearned cash. Calling themselves "The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission" they blame the West for Africa's social and economic problems and feel the Americas and Western Europe should fork over some $777 TRILLION plus interest in reparations. The beneficiaries of this claim are to be the people of Africa and the Diaspora.
According to the declaration of the commission (the Accra Declaration), the money would be demanded from ''all
those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism.'' Curiously, the other nations who participated and benefited from the slave trade, those of North Africa and the Middle East are not mentioned.
"Over the centuries, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million people were shipped across the Atlantic from Africa as slaves, and another 14 million African slaves were taken across the Sahara Desert or shipped through the Persian Gulf and other waterways to the nations of North Africa and the Middle East."
Race and Culture: A World View
by Thomas Sowell.
Evidently, it is not the slave trade that the commission objects to since slavery as an institution existed in Africa and throughout the world long before the Portuguese got in on the game in 1444. The commission seems to have made the observation that the West is rich enough to satisfy the claim and decided to conclude that the West is rich because of the slave trade.
The combined annual Gross Domestic Products of the 9 richest American and European economies amounts to a mere $15 Trillion[1], hence, even if those nine countries were to surrender their entire Gross Domestic Product every year to Africa and the Diaspora it would take about 52 years to satisfy The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission's claim.
Is the claim just? Well, yes and no, depending on your fundamental political philosophy. To individualists, the claim is ludicrous, to collectivists on the other hand, the claim is perfectly valid. The reason for the difference is quite simple... individualists insist that individuals are responsible for their own actions whereas collectivists subscribe to the more convenient belief that someone else is always responsible for those actions. That is why criminalists, close relatives of collectivists, are often heard to say "I am a product of society, that is why I robbed, raped and murdered. Society is responsible for my actions. It wasn't my fault."
Collectivists apply the same thinking to the economic realm... where the criminal insists someone else is responsible for what he did, the collectivist insists someone else is responsible for what he didn't do. For example, the skillful, ambitious, energetic, intelligent, hard-working person must bear responsibility for the material sustenance of those who are not skillful, ambitious, energetic, intelligent and hard-working.
The West's peculiar instition: the welfare state, rests on this premise. I.E. the modern version of slavery, where the government owns the people but lets them keep a portion of the value they produce so they will keep on producing. The other portion of the fruits of that labour, that part-owned by the government (tax evasion is stealing it's advocates claim), is extracted via taxation and doled out to various groups in accordance with the degree of political clout those groups manage to muster. Some of the recipients of this dole do not produce but, through welfare eligibility, (a legal claim to the fruits of other's labour) benefit from the coercive transfer of goods and services from those who produced them.
In the same way, those clamouring for reparations for slavery insist they are entitled to the entire life's labours of every man, woman, and child in the West mainly because Africa never did produce the factories, transportation infrastructure, markets and technologies the skillful, ambitious, energetic, intelligent, hard-working people of the West produced. Far from having any fundamental aversion to slavery some advocates of African Reparations explicitly endorse modern taxation slavery as a means of obtaining their booty. (see below)
According to Pan African Congress (PAC) deputy president Motsoko Pheko in an article from from MISAnet/PANA
The labour of Africans was used in the Americas, Europe and West Indies to build the foundations for today's wealth of the so-called developed countries.
Does Mr. Pheko honestly believe we in the West would still be living in log cabins if not for the labour of Africans? Does Mr. Pheko really think that there would be no pharmaceutical industry in the West if not for the labour of Africans? No electronics? No automobiles? No jets? No central heating and air conditioning? No flush toilets, washing machines and refrigerators? Are we seriously expected to believe that the vast new computer industry and the internet would not have existed in the West if not for the labour of Africans? Were the great bridges, dams, and skyscrapers of the West built on African labour?
Anyone possessing the merest scintilla of economic sense would reject this whole idea out of hand. The great wealth of the West is due to capitalism, not physical labour. Unfortunately, the proportion of the populations of the Western democracies in possession of said scintilla is dangerously small, hence the possibility that the proposed victims of this reparations idea remain susceptible to myriads of specious claims.
It is difficult to believe that Mr. Pheko is serious in making this claim... indeed, the claim is so preposterous that only one conclusion can be drawn.... the true basis for the African reparations claim is precisely that African labour had nothing whatsoever to do with the massive wealth of the modern West, and that therefore, in accordance with standard collectivist/criminalist thinking, Africa is morally entitled to own it - or at least fifty-odd years of the entire economic output of the nine richest Western nations.
A more reasonable approach to the question of reparations might be to identify the heirs of those specific institutions and individuals who profited from the slave trade and colonialism. Having done so it would be necessary also to determine exactly which proportion of the current wealth of these institutions and individuals was due to the exploitation of the descendants of modern African and the Diaspora.
A fair-minded individual could hardly object to a request that these legitimate assets be returned to the heirs of the original owners. Yet according to the essay The legal basis of the claim for Reparations
By Lord Anthony Gifford, British Queens Counsel and Jamaican Attorney-at-Law at the Africa Reparations Movement (ARM) website,
It would be possible to identify individual companies that could be proved to have made vast profits from slavery. There are plantation owners in Jamaica, and titled families in England, whose living heirs owe their wealth to slaving.
... but this approach would involve too much work and the defendants would reject it. Lord Gifford believes that instead, all citizens should assume collective guilt because governments have "reserves" and "taxation powers" and that it is "governments who must in the end be persuaded that reparations are to be paid" by everyone regardless of the culpability of their specific ancestors. Imposing the burden on innocent third parties[2], many of whose ancestors were hardly better off and often worse off than many slaves does not seem to deter Lord Gifford in his pursuit of what he calls "justice".
The key point here is Mr. Gifford's specific rejection of going after those who today can be identified as direct beneficiaries of the slave trade in favour of the more lucrative prospect of going after those whose ancestors were not.
More stuff:
[1] Annual Gross Domestic Product of Selected Nations
| Country | Annual Gross Domestic Product (1996) in Trillions |
| U.S. | 7.66 |
| Germany | 1.7 |
| France | 1.22 |
| United Kingdom | 1.19 |
| Italy | 1.12 |
| Mexico | .777 |
| Canada | .721 |
| Spain | .593 |
| Netherlands | .317 |
| Total | 15.3 |
| Source: | The New World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999 |
[2]
The population of Western Europe, North and South America is currently about 1.3 billion people. $777 TRILLION US represents a mere payout of $597,692 for every man, woman and child living in the "guilty" countries. This is about $70,636,364 for each of the roughly 11 million Africans who were shipped accross the Atlantic.
Slavery Reparations Argument Based on Greed
Are reparations proper way to right slavery?
A little something for the history buffs out there, if there are any left. Anyone who is familiar with the horrors of Nazi German...
