Friday, December 10, 2010
He wrote an article commenting that Republicans have no ideas, but still the Democrats won.
He has also written an article comparing President Bush, getting information from terrorists to Mr. Assange. I was not aware that Mr. Assange was fighting any wars, were you?
Both of those articles were answered on Full Comment on the National Post website.
Here is my answer to his ignorance about why war is conducted and why it is NOT pretty, just necessary!
Dan Gardner says
"almost all its leading figures feel the near-drowning of suspects is a valid interrogation technique?"
Again Mr. Gardner expresses his high tolerance of ignorance.
First: WE ARE at war with a military that is too cowardly to put on a uniform and hides behind women and children.
Second: Perphaps Dan is not familiar with the concept of war. War is when you send YOUR soldiers out to KILL enemy soldiers. It 's not fun, but it's necessary to prevent being overrun by bullies, and speaking German, Russian or Chinese for the rest of your life
"ALMOST" is NOT DEAD! To save many lives, even if 1 were killed, would it not be worth it? We are not talking about policemen Dan, we are talking ENEMIES who would kill, bomb, shoot, and murder, not talk mean to you or spit in your face!
So yes "near-drowning" of not suspects but terrorists captured in a war zone is mild, and much better than the creation of public beheading videos of innocents broadcast for the world to see.
"Almost" is an interesting word. When you drive on the 401, or QEW, every moment you are ALMOST DEAD, because a slight turn of about 1" [2.54 cm] will kill you, but somehow millions do that every workday and other than high stress levels do NOT die from ALMOST! In fact I doubt that they were even thinking about how dangerous it really is when a slight turn of the wheel or a moment of inattention in heavy traffic can kill you DEAD, not just ALMOST.
So if we look at it from another point of view, would it be better to just allow the terrorists to kill more innocents, bomb more civilians, sacrifice MORE of their children and wives, and the families of others or simply make someone who is vicious enough to shoot you dead on sight, to simply be more comfortable after doing it?
Sorry but I try to make my guests comfortable and would if necessary kill an enemy who is dedicated to killing me, or even Dan Gardner, not to make them "feel at home".
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/03/dan-gardner-why-should-assange-be-punished-when-bush-goes-free/#ixzz17jrB5YRT
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
In your Things to Watch column, you are SO notably biased against evangelicals that you cannot leave out an opportunity to slam us. Who do you think you work for? The CBC?
When you refer to the proposed, rather outrageous Ugandan law to kill homosexuals and insert the phrase "and the apparent support it received from American evangelical groups" you show that IF WE WERE BLACK you would be looking for a lynch mob to hang us. Sorry but your verbal lynchings are also NOT acceptable.
Your inappropriate slanderous remark reflects more on YOUR prejudice than ANY evangelicals.
I could pick individual evangelical groups, some of which are not in favour of ANY KIND of capital punishment to those whose ministries send many individuals and millions of dollars to help people from Haiti and others around the world. More apparently, stats show that the "unevangelicals" apparently keep more of their money tight-fistedly to spend on themselves. I could cite sources if you wish. I read them in the NP as well as elsewhere.
Can you really picture the aging Billy Graham, or even the embarrassingly outspoken Pat Robertson of Operation Blessing and CBN or Rick Warren whose "Purpose-Driven" books sell in the millions around the world or many millions of the less-famous, jumping up and down for glee at the thought of homosexuals being killed? What ivory tower do you live in? Come out the air is fine!
These American evangelicals are usually the same people who are AGAINST the accepted practice which you probably endorse of killing unborn babies, of course dressed up in harmless words like "fetuses". I have news for you, it isn't just the "feet" that are killed!
No if you picked on any group which has the earmarks of being in favour of such nonsense maybe you should look to the pro-abortionists, who more "apparently" are in favour of the murder of helpless individuals for the convenience of someone else.
Charles G. Pedley BA MSED [two degrees, both above zero]
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The damage done
In 1998 Wakefield wrote and then vociferously hawked an article in the British medical journal Lancet linking autism to the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella). After the council's decision, Lancet retracted the article on Jan. 28. Among the facts that have come out of the inquiry into Wakefield's research is that two years before his paper appeared, lawyers seeking to sue vaccine-makers paid Wakefield the equivalent of $700,000.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Now we have the 'HINEY' flu. Today in the National Post, Dr. Douglas Bradley stated that the REGULAR SEASONAL FLU usually kills about 64,000 people per year in the U.S. which is ONE DEATH per 4800 people. Comparing that to what has just happened as the Brazilian winter flu season has just passed where ONLY ONE DEATH PER 345,000 people occurred. The Doctor points out that these are EXCEEDINGLY LOW RATES of infection and death.
Thus in Brazil, the death rate attributed to HINEY flu was 98.6% LOWER than the normal death rate from flu! It appears that we should be MORE AFRAID EVERY YEAR from the normal seasonal flu then from this media and government-hyped flu.
And yet we have the WHO [World Health Organization - no relationship to the band of the same name] and the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION declaring we are in the middle of a pandemic. Apparently so far that PANDEMIC has NOT PANNED OUT.
Dr. Bradley points out that the irrational pandemic claims have spooked almost as many people as the original "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Fear is everywhere fanned by in a large part U.S. Obama administration officials and the obedient press.
Many have pointed out that Mr. Obama is in trouble politically at home, [the world has not caught on yet], by pushing too much, too hastily conceived legislation which has made his approval rates lower than any presidents in the last 60 years. Now if a pandemic is believed, then Mr. Obama can slip his socialist, radical healthcare proposals through into law while the panic ensues. A typical diversion tactic used by socialists everywhere.
Since last year when he HINEY flu was discovered, the Obama administration has been fanning the flames of pandemic panic, seemingly oblivious to the facts that this flu is LESS DEADLY than the NORMAL FLU. Many have said that this serves to obscure Mr. Obama's failing election claims to "change". As I pointed out last year BEFORE the election it is now in evidence that the ONLY CHANGE that Mr. Obama wanted to bring to Washington was him in the White House. Mr. Obama's radical socialist agenda, ignored or not investigated by the leftist liberal media thus is covered up by the fearful H1N1 flu fanned by the flaming faulty foes of truth.
As Dr. Bradley aptly points out, instead of precipitating panic, the WHO, public health officials and the pliant press SHOULD BE reassuring the population that there is LESS TO FEAR from HINEY, H1N1 than from normal seasonal flu.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Usually I find myself disagreeing with your articles in the National Post when they are in the area of climate change especially which does not exactly seem to be in your area of expertise.
However since I criticize, I must also congratulate you on your article about Suzanne Somers Bimbo MD. This is an area which you obviously know something about and it goes a long way to debunk the myth of Hollywood gods and goddesses who know everything. Clearly they live in a world of fantasy and make-believe and often delude themselves into thinking that they know more than the average person which is a hyperbole beyond scope.
Congratulations on the great article. I hope you write more on this area especially as it applies to Whoopie Goldberg, Roman Polanski, Michael Moore and their ilk.
But please John, would you actually READ the National Post articles on climate change before you even think of writing another article on the topic? That is NOT your area of expertise or research, but knowing about celebrities ruses, except for Al Gore and David Suzuki, obviously is.
Keep up the good work [which of course does not apply to 'Gore-ball' warming] (:-)
Charles G. Pedley
200 Educational Programs = Less than $21 CAD - Excellent Software - Over 8 Million Users
VIDEO:Canada Human Rights
Evolution / Intelligent Design
Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed
I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?
We have become a nation of beggars
Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.
[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]
- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"
- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.
-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."
-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."
-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.
- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."
The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:
Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.
To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.
We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.
Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.
Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.
Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.
At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.
And why not?
Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.
Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?
The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.
Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.
One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."
Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."
Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.
What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."
Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.
But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.