Polio is not near elimination

[Letter to the Globe and Mail, never published]

I hate to burst Margaret Wente’s post-Christmas feel-good bubble, but Africa did not have a year without polio, at least not if you care about the symptoms (sudden onset juvenile paralysis). The problem is that the World Health Organization calls this Acute Flaccid Paralysis if poliovirus is not found. And this is not a trivial problem because cases have risen from about 14,000 in 1996, the first year for which WHO bothered to collect statistics, and have been over 100,000 a year since 2011.

Margaret Wente apparently doesn’t know about this. WHO just documents it. And even when people are informed, they don’t seem to care. Because deep down westerners care about disease in poor countries only when they fear it might spread. And although WHO claims ignorance as to the cause, they have admitted that some of the cases are probably caused by exposure to pesticides. But who cares about children dying from poverty and pollution in lands far away? Certainly not WHO. Probably not you.

WHO Polio and AFP Statistics

A more realistic view of university troubles

[submitted to the Globe and Mail, but not published]

While Tom Flanagan is right that American Universities are in crisis, his thinly veiled racism is uncalled for. First of all he claims that marks have been inflated, with university being dumbed down from the good old days when he (and I) studied. But then he criticizes affirmative action claiming that the students who benefit from this (obviously people of colour) struggle to succeed. Joining the dots he is saying that black students simply aren’t even up to the dumbed down standards of today and shouldn’t get all uppity and try to go to colleges where smart white people go.

Flanagan is correct when he describes a US education bubble, both based on increased enrollment and unsustainable student loans. But I assume that his right-wing politics are what don’t allow him to point out that it is greedy for-profit lenders and the greedy for-profit colleges that have created this problem (and of course a US government that is for-the-profit and not for-the-people). Although Canada could certainly do better (low-cost or free university education would be a start) I don’t know of any signs that Canada is being parasitized by colleges whose main aim is to get students to take out loans for an education that will not meet the promises in the advertising materials.

Did Trudeau Favor Men in his Cabinet?

Published in the Globe and Mail

November 7, 2015

Whenever gender equity is discussed (or any other kind of employment equity) skeptics raise the concern that some women might be picked simply because they are needed to reach 50%, and therefore some more qualified men might lose out. But the possibility that Trudeau, for example, had more qualified women than men is never considered. Perhaps some men only got a cabinet position because although there were more qualified women, Trudeau wanted to boost the number of men to achieve parity. 

Shocking stain of racism in Canada

[Sent to the Globe and Mail but, as usual, not published]

The letter on Syrian refugees by Sarah Johnson represents a shockingly strong stain of racism in Canada. No longer able to nudge-nudge wink-wink about aboriginals, Chinese, Jews or Italians, it is acceptable to assume that all Syrian refugees are ne-er-do-wells, lazy bums, or terrorists. From where does this idea come, when history shows that immigrants usually work hard, strive to educate their children, if not themselves, and quickly become important members of our society? Why can we imply this about muslims and not others? Who will be next?

Even if these people were right, that all refugees will end up in slums in Europe, would it be fair to dump this problem on Europe? Furthermore, now that we can strip citizenship from these second-class citizens (like myself) racists should applaud the options we don’t have with native born children who go off the rails.

Banning the Niqab at Canadian Citizenship Ceremonies

[submitted to the Globe & Mail as a letter, but not published]

If the Niqab was banned at citizenship ceremonies it would punish the supposedly oppressed woman (were the nuns I grew up with all oppressed women without personal agency in their severe costumes?) and not her supposed oppressor, her husband. That would only increase the marginalization of the oppressed, and increase the power of the oppressor. In effect it would reward the oppressor in order to punish the oppressed.

But, heh, I am glad the Conservatives have finally started to care for oppressed female minorities, even in this warped way. If only they had so much concern for the fate of aboriginal women in our society and the barbaric cultural practices, such as residential schools, that helped rip apart the fabric of aboriginal society.

Issues of Charlie Hebdou you might have missed

I have been assured in multiple articles I have read this week that Charlie Hebdou pulled no punches, that it attacked all powerful groups. Clearly this means that only muslims don’t have a sense of humor, and that all other religions, cultures and countries currently fighting wars in muslim countries have also been attacked, just as viciously, by this magazine. I’ve also learned that freedom of speech is absolute. There are no limits. Even though Charlie Hebdou produced cartoons that most media won’t republish, they are all behind everything they did, 100%. Really. They would love to publish them if it wasn’t that their lawyers lacked a sense of humor. Okay, there are also a few muslims who are upset, but this is either because they are closet terrorists, don’t have a sense of humor, or missed our issues in which everyone else was skewered in the same manner.

So, just to answer the critics who say that Charlie Hebdou reserved their vicious attacks only for muslims, here’s a synopsis of other issues you must have missed, or you wouldn't think that:

The Christian Terrorist  Issue

You'll love this issue. Stunning graphics of white christians shooting abortion doctors, blowing up buildings in the heart of America, and of course prominently features Anders Breivik and his 77 victims. He’s not just called a neo-nazi, we put a crucifix around his neck, and show him praying in church, just to make sure that you get the connection. The accompanying graphics pull no punches, emphasizing the fact that, in the West, as opposed to unenlightened parts of the world (i.e. muslim), there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. If there are any threats against the magazine from Christians and Neo-Nazis, we will just double-down and produce another issue with even more outrageous anti-Christian fun.

The Catholic Pedophile Issue

Everyone knows that the Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests. And the church still has a lot of power, making them a perfect target for fearless satirists. The graphic possibilities of priests with their frocks pulled up above their knobby knees screwing little boys and girls will have you rolling in the aisles, especially if you read it during Mass. No scruples about the portrayal of pedophilia here. Think of the extra giggles when some of the more observant and stuffy churchgoers walking down the aisle catch a glimpse. The look of horror will add to the deliciousness of this issue. The faces of the priests in the cartoons will be modeled on well known Catholics, whether or not they have been touched by the scandal, just to rub the freedom of the press in their self-satisfied faces. Why should a magazine care about the peculiar sensibilities of a religion anyway?

The Jewish Stereotype Issue

Reflecting back on the first half of the twentieth century when anti-semitism was widespread and acceptable in most of Europe this issue uses the iconography of the stereotypical Jew - yellow skin, hook nose, hunched back, gold coins filling their pockets. There was so much material, the hardest thing for our artists was deciding which stereotypes to copy. Again, the faces of famous Jews are featured. Their bodies, of course, will all be the same, it saves money on artists and has better comic effect. How better to forget French collaboration with the Nazis and the horrors of the holocaust than by rolling on the floor laughing? We’re so fearless that we don’t care if they sue us!

The American Empire Issue

This issue was a piece of cake because there was so much material. The graphic possibilities of a black helicopter shooting civilians and journalists. Little boys being sodomized in front of their mothers. The visual impact of a drone hitting a wedding party, with an entire page of frames just to show the body parts flying by in slow motion. Just to emphasize that it is not just muslims who slaughter people a dozen at a time the issue shows graphic details of the Haditha massacre (two dozen), Fallujah (we lost count), and a special page reserved for Robert Bales who went postal and killed sixteen on his ownsome. The American government is so much in favor of freedom of the press that this issue will be for sale on both sides of la Atlantique. We know it will be a big hit at the White House. Those guys really know what’s funny and what’s not.

The Black Nostalgia Issue

Many people long for the good old days when it was acceptable to show black people as lazy, dirty, banjo picking, watermelon eating, sex maniacs. This issue draws on centuries of beautiful stereotypes of black people and is sprinkled with the 'N' word. In fact, one page, is devoted to this forbidden word. For true freedom of speech there cannot be any forbidden words. No self-censorship. No fear of offending sensibilities. Freedom of speech is so awesome, and especially now that there is no more prejudice in the world against black people (just a few whiners who think that “Black Lives Matter”), even blacks will have to put their banjoes down and stop spitting watermelon seeds long enough to roll around on the dirt floors of their hovels at the hilarity of it all.

There are limits

I recently read a pro-gun slogan that said something like, “No registration, no licensing, no training, no magazine limits. Any gun, anywhere, any time” (I can’t retrace my steps to the exact quote). Absolutism is always the refuge of small-minded people, but in this case it’s easy to see that this is a lie. Even in America you cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon, a rocket launcher, a tank, a nuclear bomb. So the question of whether there should be restrictions on weapon ownership has already been answered in the affirmative, but by pretending that it's still open, pro-gun fanatics (and what else can you call them) can stop the discussion of where the dividing line between legal and illegal weapons should be. Nobody, in America, can ask whether semi-automatic weapons should be heavily restricted or banned, because gun fanatics can lie by saying that NO weapons should be banned. It’s an outrageous lie, but it does the trick and shuts down the conversation.

Back to the tragic events at the Charlie Hebdou offices in Paris. No speech, no matter how vile, no matter how distasteful, justifies the killing of the author. No exceptions. The murderers were criminals who will make the world a worse place for everyone except for those who glorify violence.

No writer or artist should be killed for their work. Neither should they received 1000 lashes as in Western ally Saudi Arabia. Neither should they receive decades in jail, as did Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning.

But that doesn’t mean that there should be no moral limits on free speech.

The “I am Charlie Hebdou” and "Je suis Charlie Hebdou” movements are being hypocritical because they are implying that the unforgivable crime of the murderers proves that there should be no limits on free speech.

But there are limits. Nobody can conceive of posing concentration camp victims in sexualized poses to satirize the current Israeli government. What about President Obama being anally raped with an assault rifle by Wayne LaPierre as satire on the failing of his gun control measures? Or the new Pope sodomizing a naked man representing the Vatican to symbolize his attacks on pedophiles within his own church?

There are limits, and they amount to widespread self-censorship. Charlie Hebdou itself fired a writer in 2009 who joked that Nicholas Sarkozy’s son, who had just married a Jewish woman, was going to convert to Judaism for greater social success. That seems mild by comparison to the anti-muslim cartoons, but it not only resulted in the author's dismissal by the magazine, but also led to hate crime charges.

Most of the journalists who are, this week, with Charlie Hebdou, are refusing to post the offensive cartoons. One reason is that the cartoons truly are offensive, and would not qualify for publication in these journals. Another reason might be that support for Charlie Hebdou (as opposed to support for the individual victims of the massacre) might dwindle if people saw what had been published – especially if accompanied by an editorial pointing out the self-censorship that would make such vile cartoons impossible in almost all other contexts, such as against powerful people or other religions.

The media outlets who “are Charlie Hebdou” but who refuse to republish the cartoons are being accused of being cowards. They are being cowards because they were shocked into defending the cartoons as freedom of speech before realizing that the cartoons are so shocking they don’t deserve republication. Now they are caught in the middle. They do not want to support what the murderers did. And they do not want to support what Charlie Hebdou did. So they are trapped.

The West is also being cowardly. Governments have no problem trampling on freedom of the press for a variety of reasons (critic of Middle Eastern policy, British MP George Galloway was recently denied permission to enter Canada, merely to give a speech). Media has no problem with self-censorship, in fact media could’t exist without choose what was worth publishing and what was not. So at times like this they are trapped. They want to pretend that there is no censorship in the West, that there are no limits on free speech. But there are.

I do not think that Charlie Hebdou should have been banned from printing the cartoons, but I think that all the media who claim to be friends with these cartoonists (including liberals John Stewart and Michael Moore) should have told their friends at Charlie Hebdou to imagine the cartoons redrawn in another context (including with powerful figures or other religions in place of Mohammed or a stereotypical ugly bearded muslim). And if they could’t imagine that, then as a friend-to-friend, they should advise them that they should not be published. They should have done this instead of unthinkingly invoking freedom of all expression when it is quite clear there is no such thing.

Charlie Hebdou’s cartoons did not illustrate freedom of expression, they illustrated freedom of oppression.

Charlie Hebdou Massacre and the Dalhousie Debacle

The murder of 12 people, 10 journalists, and 2 policemen, my islamic fundamentalist radicals is unforgivable but it is a bit rich to see it as an assault on freedom of the press.

This satirical magazine found new life by inflaming islamophobia by printing and reprinting cartoons insulting the muslim prophet Mohammed. The magazine, according to Slate magazine, “depicts the prophet naked and in pornographic poses” (I have only seen some of them, most media refuses to re-publish them).  Such things can be published in Europe with the tacit or overt support of many people with anti-islamic leanings, especially the far-right. Similar cartoons cannot be imagined in the context of Christianity with, for example, the Pope giving oral sex, or a naked Mary giving birth to Jesus out of her ass. Even if the cartoons hadn't been so vile, muslim culture requires that no image of the prophet be shown, which is very different from christian culture where depictions of Jesus, Mary and other religious figures are very important, and found on the walls of most churches.

Not all of the Hebdou cartoons were so obnoxious. One cartoon of the prophet Mohammed with his head in his hands bemoaning the terrorists who are operating in his name, is quite powerful, although still disrespectful of the muslim prohibition on images of the prophet.

The magazine was criticized in 2012 by the French government when it announced plans to publish this new series of cartoons, “In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excess and calls on everyone to behave responsibly”.

So what does this have to do with the dental students in Halifax, Canada? If we get past the mass murder, the West is also calling it an attack on freedom of the press, rather than just the mass murder that it surely is (if it had been 12 pornographers, or 12 beggars, or 12 prostitutes, or 12 soldiers or 12 nuns, it would have still been mass murder, and unforgivable). What Charlie Hebdou did with their cartoons was, in words, to sexually assault an entire religion, and what they were portraying was far more malicious than the boys in Halifax who were obviously amateurs at sexualized insults.

Yet, the West is apparently now all in favor of the freedom of the press no matter how vile the publication is, yet is interested in crucifying 13 young men for a private conversation at a lower level of maliciousness. If the young men had published a magazine with similar cartoons using women in their class as models would that have been okay?

Imagine another thing. A satirical magazine in, say, Iran publishes a series of cartoons mocking western religions or political figures by showing them naked and in sexual poses. Would that be defended as freedom of the press?

The worst thing is that the three terrorists have accomplished the exact opposite of what they presumably wanted. They, who worship violence, might have thought that the West might now respect islam more, but actually, the horror from their actions will almost certainly inflame anti-islamic sentiment, making life difficult for the millions of muslims who just  came to Europe to find a better life, and just want to quietly get on with earning an income and raising a family. And it will provide further justification for the West's war on Islam which probably kills more than a dozen civilians every day.

Dalhousie Dental Debacle

13 male dental students at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, one term away from graduating, had a private facebook group in which they posted a lot of things, including sexist and misogynist comments. Some of the posts specifically referred to female dental students in the same class.

Clearly the postings were wrong and reflect an unfortunately common attitude of men against women when alone in the 'locker room'. However, it appears that some people want to punish these young men by destroying their careers before they start, as an example to the millions of other Canadian men who have made similar comments, particularly during their youth. Perhaps the belief is that if a few young men are publicly destroyed, that all young men will reform their attitudes towards women. Probably the opposite will happen.

The university correctly proposed a restorative justice process, but four women wrote a bizarre letter in which they not only rejected this process, but also refused to file a complaint (because they felt that if their name became public their academic success would be threatened) and refused to be witnesses in any process that does occur. They also want to see the entire facebook group's conversations, which date back to 2011. Their attitude is naive and misdirected. Naive because no fair process can occur when the victims of malicious words refuse to explain the harm that they feel has been done to them.

This article from the CBC contains the letter from the four anonymous women.

The letter proposes that the complaint that is brought forward is one from four Dalhousie faculty members, rather than from any of the young women involved. The university is being increasingly intimidated and diverted from the restorative justice process into a process where many people hope that the men will be outed, and face eternal shame.

It is ironic that feminists would be trying to apply a very masculine and failed justice model. Hang the first street urchin caught stealing bread, and that will stop all the others. Throw all drug users in jail and drug use will plummet. If all the men who had made misogynist comments of the same severity were treated in the same way, probably the majority of professional men (and men in most other walks of life) would have to have their credentials withdrawn. Remember, I was once a young man and I remember many men my age making similar comments. I abhorred them, but I always felt I was in the minority. The implication that everyone who makes such egregious comments is on the path to physical abuse of women is clearly false.

If these comments had been made in public, such as in classrooms, or if there was a plan for real, physical action against women, then the situation would be totally different. There is no evidence that this was anything more than juvenile fantasizing.

Our society should evolve to a point where men do not grow up with such neanderthal views about women. Restorative justice, in this case, would force the men to face the impact that their malicious remarks would have on women when they came to light (and in the present day the argument that the conversation is private isn't very strong, because embarrassing words have a way of finding their way into the public sphere). The men would have an opportunity to express their remorse, and the women would have an opportunity to judge whether they felt this was genuine or not. And there could be a discussion of consequences, consequences designed not to punish, but to help move the attitudes of men to women forwards. Restorative justice could educate other men about the harm their words do, whether they come to light or not, and is more likely to help change attitudes than a more traditional harsh punishment.

The alternative is to throw the men out of university, and due to the high profile of this case, probably deny them any opportunity to complete their education, or ever work as a dentist. Their investment in their education would be destroyed, and there will be a lawsuit against the university, and probably a very large settlement to the young men. The young men will feel that their lives have been ruined by the inability of women to tolerate remarks that many men, perhaps the majority, make when alone with other men. The women will eventually realize the extent of the damage and may well conclude that the consequences of their reaction were much greater than they intended, that things got out of hand. But it will be too late.

And the attitudes of misogynist men will harden, because they will see this as an attempt by feminists to stop men from letting their hair down and letting off steam in a private club, unable to distinguish between normal manspeak and truly dangerous men who are interested in sexually abusing women.

I briefly discussed this situation in my discussion with Judith Levine on my radio show, "The Infectious Myth" but at that point it had not spun so far out of control.

Both sides of the HPV vaccination debate are faith-based

The 2008 Nobel citation lauding Harald zur Hausen for his theory that the Human Papilloma virus causes cervical cancer included the admission that, "discoveries whether these vaccines are effective in preventing not only against cervical lesions but also cervical cancer and death must await the collection of epidemiological data during the coming decades". That's right, the belief that the HPV vaccine is effective against cervical cancer must, at present, be based on faith. This puts the proponents of the vaccine, who like to see themselves as rationalists, on the same footing as Bishop Henry.

Published in the Calgary Herald. October 9, 2013.

Let's not get stressed about the clothes people wear

In response to the Parti Quebecois' proposal to ban religiously inspired clothing and ornaments from public spaces. 

I have never been terribly affected by the clothes people wear, I hardly even notice a cross or turban any more than piercings or tattoos affect me. Exceptions are a T-Shirt or tattoo with offensive writing or clothing that is so revealing it makes me feel like I'm leering just because my eyes are open. But I'm not sure how to know whether a head scarf or cross is worn for religious reasons, as a fashion statement or just to keep mom and dad happy. And does it mean that someone is a fundamentalist or progressive in their religious views? When I encountered a nun or priest in their full length gowns as a child it had the opposite reaction that perhaps they intended, I certainly never wanted to feel so constrained by my habits (in both senses) when I grew up.

I do know, however, that Jim Keegstra wore normal clothes, clothes that reflected western secular values, if clothes can do that, when he taught his children in Alberta that nobody died in the Nazi holocaust -- no Jews, no gypsies, no socialists, no communists, no mentally 'deficient'. It seems that he was capable of being hateful and racist without the help of clothing, just as I'm sure teachers can stick to the syllabus, and government officials can stick to public service, whether wearing a miniskirt with a cross around their neck, a Sikh turban and kirpan, or a hijab.

Published in the Calgary Herald, September 25, 2013.

How to deal with rebuilding after floods

The Calgary Herald published this letter on July 13, 2013:

Defenders of the Calgary flood status quo, such as [Calgary Herald columnist] Don Braid, could be more thoughtful and creative. Where houses have been destroyed, it is reasonable to tie rebuilding money to certain conditions. In the lots most at risk, this could be a condition to build elsewhere, with governments purchasing the lot for parkland, at the former market value. In other cases it could be rebuilding with mitigation, such as no basement. In intermediate cases, homeowners could be offered a voluntary relocation package.

The devastated homeowners certainly should not be blamed for their dire situation, almost certainly not being warned at the time the house was built or purchased, that it might be destroyed by flood. However, as a society, there is no point throwing good money after bad, and while we should make sure that everyone gets back into a home, we could significantly reduce our exposure to the next flood by requiring or requesting that the new home be in a safer area in the few homes or businesses in Calgary that are most exposed to future flood danger.

David Crowe
Calgary
403-861-2225

Tragedy at Lac Megantic

Everyone who has voted for a political party that promised to reduce red tape and regulation on companies (despite their big and getting bigger profits) and everyone who has cussed out unions because they want a decent wage for workers (despite concessions given, often futilely, over the years) bears some responsibility for the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

How can we accept that a train carrying dangerous cargo would, for even one second, be unattended?

How can we accept that a train carrying dangerous cargo would not have a backup engineer on board?

How did we come to accept that corporate profits are really more important than our lives?

How many more Lac-Mégantics will it take before “regulation” and “government oversight” are not seen as four-letter words?

Published in the Globe and Mail

Libertarian Gun Fanatics

In response to: Empty People not Loaded guns by Linda Schrock Taylor


Dear Linda:

How many people died in the attack in China?

How did having a gun at home protect Adam Lanza's mother?

How does the US rank on global per capita gun deaths?

In 1941 how many shots could the average gun fire before having to cock and/or reload?

Regards,
   David Crowe

---

Linda responded:

And your point is....  I wrote about empty,  soulless people.   And you wrote....  rhetorical questions. 

Linda Schrock Taylor

---

And then I replied:

Let me answer my own questions.

1. One person died when 22 were attacked by a madman with a knife in China versus 27 in Newtown attacked by a madman with an assault rifle.
2. Adam Lanza's mother did what many libertarians and gun fanatics recommend. She kept a gun at home and taught her children how to use it. And one of her children killed her with her own gun. So much for the safety of having more guns around.
3. The US is 10th on the list of per-capita gun deaths, behind countries like El Salvador, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil. The death rate of about 10 per 100 000 people is more than 100 times greater than gun-phobic Japan (0.07 per 100 000).
4. The guns in 1941 could fire once or twice before being cocked and reloaded. It is hard to massacre 27 people under such circumstances.

I am sure that Japan has millions of disaffected young men who spend too much time playing violent video games. Yet there is little access to guns.

You have a theory about the cause of violence, but you provide no evidence, just your prejudices. The cause could equally be psychiatric drugs that are known to cause violent (and suicidal) behavior, or many other things. But, bizarre and violent behavior has always been with us, but the ability to carry the violence out is usually much more limited.

- David Crowe

---

And then, on Dec 21, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor responded again:

And I have every right to my theory.  If you don't like my gate, don't swing on it.

Read Thomas Sowell's latest on gun statitics.   

Odd that you read LRC.

---

So then, I replied again:

Linda;

If you put an article on a public website, expect people to challenge you on it, especially when you provide no data whatsoever for your hypothesizing and refuse to address the facts that I bring to your attention. 

I read Lew Rockwell because libertarians have interesting and important views on some things, such as war and our allopathic, coercive, destructive medical system ... so I get exposed to their crazy ideas about guns and the economy.

I guess it's not surprising that you'd publish on Lew Rockwell because you assumed that everyone there is a gun fanatic and you would never be called to account. That's called cowardice.

Regards,

    David Crowe

---

On Dec 21, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

I have 166 articles at LRC and have written there for 10 years.  You hardly know me.  

Bye. 

Linda;

---

And, on December 26th, I replied, probably for the last time.

Dear Linda;

Ah, yes, the good old echo chamber.

I have also written a lot:

http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/index.php

but it takes me longer because my articles use facts, and I try not to write only for people who agree with me although, admittedly, it is difficult to break through the barriers of censorship etc.

You don't even try.

Regards,

     David Crowe

---

I guess it wasn't the last time because on Dec 27, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

David...

Note:  Opinion pieces do not require facts and foot notes.  They are OPINIONS.

You are showing your underside... As a rude,  nasty person... And as a rude, nasty person, you will never convince anyone to see anything from your point of view.

Obviously,  you do not like my gate SO stop swinging on it!  

I have tried being nice.   I have tried being professional.  Now I will try being rude

.. Go away. 

---

I pushed my luck and tried again:

Linda;


Gun violence is too serious an issue for uninformed opinions. You have given me no facts to support your opinions, so I must assume you don't have any.

So please don't comment on things that affect people's lives if you're not willing to back up your opinions with some basic statistics, and are unwilling to either defend your opinions with facts in the face of the information I provided, or withdraw your opinions and apologize.

I don't think I have been nasty at all, but what is nasty is elevating your dogmatic opinions above the lives of past and future victims of gun violence.

And now you've pulled in Lew Rockwell as your lifeline. I would have preferred some data.

Regards,
     David Crowe

---

Finally, on Dec 27, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

David, 

I DONT_HAVE_ TO GIVE YOU FACTS.   I am an OPINION writer!!!! 

I am also a Reading Specialist and it appears that you need some reading remediation in the "comprehension"  area.  You may want to check for a local tutor. 

I will now block you because you waste my time.   I have a life as well as other OPINIONS to write. 

Linda Schrock Taylor 

I guess if someone blocks me I get the last word...

---

Dear Linda;

I'm really sorry. I always thoughts that opinions were derived from considering all the facts. But you have set me straight, I now understand that baseless assertions are perfectly valid opinions.

If you ever do find any facts to support your OPINIONS on guns please let me know. Otherwise I suppose you have done me a favor by blocking me.

Regards,

    David Crowe

Most mass shootings caused by untreated mental illness?

Letter submitted to the Globe and Mail:

I challenge Andre Picard to support his claim that, "The vast majority of shooters have also suffered from untreated mental illness". This is an unbelievable remark given that it is well known that many drugs for psychological conditions (such as the SSRI antidepressants) can cause uncharacteristic outbursts of violent behaviour. See Dr. David Healy's "Let them eat Prozac", for example. Even in cases where shooters have recently stopped their medications, it does not remove responsibility from the medications since it is known that many psychological drugs have withdrawal symptoms which can exacerbate the side effects of the drugs for some time after stopping. Healy pointed out that drug companies know this and use it to their advantage since study subjects going from drug A to B will suffer less in the short term than study subjects going from drug A to placebo. Andre Picard should not be intimidated by the clout of pharmaceutical companies and should investigate how many of these shootings involve mental illness being treated, never treated or recently halted. Then we can have an adult debate over the role of both behaviour abnormalities and the drugs often recommended to treat these conditions.

Is John Baird Evil?

[letter to the Globe and Mail, not published]

People like John Baird often cite Hamas' refusal to recognize the existence of the State of Israel as proof that the group is evil. Does this mean that John Baird is evil by refusing to recognize the existence of the State of Palestine?

Bishop is right about HPV (perhaps for the wrong reasons)

[letter to the Calgary Herald, not published, as usual]

Bishop Henry might be right about HPV. Reading from the 2008 Nobel Committee citation, in which the scientist who first claimed that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer was lauded for his scientific achievements, shows that the Bishop is right to be cautious. The committee said, "discoveries whether these vaccines are effective in preventing not only against cervical lesions [i.e. non-cancerous changes] but also cervical cancer and death must await the collection of epidemiological data during the coming decades." So, it is clear, from the best possible source, that the HPV vaccine has not been proven to reduce the already very small risk of cervical cancer. Furthermore, at least half the population (and possibly all the population) must accept another small risk (of vaccine side effects which, occasionally, can be severe), a risk that becomes significant when multiplied by the millions of people who face that risk when they take the vaccine.

Canada against Gaza

[Written just before the Israeli/Gaza ceasefire]

John Baird [Canada's foreign minister] is correct that there is a double standard when it comes to Israel, but it is the opposite of what he thinks. He wants us to ignore the illegal occupation of Gaza, including the collective punishment that is the blockade. He wants us to ignore the fact that the death rate is always much higher on the Palestinian side and that the majority of deaths there are among civilians (even if we assume that every adult male is a militant). He wants us to ignore the fact that the Palestinians actually have a right to resist, but the Israelis do not have the right to enforce their occupation of Palestinian lands by force. He wants us to pretend that Israel is a democracy, without explaining how a "Jewish State" can give equal treatment to non-Jews. And he wants us to pretend that Palestinians hate democracy by turning a blind eye to the assassination of many of their democratically elected government's leaders. He wants to avoid the fundamental question of where the Palestinians came from and why they have largely lost their right to live where generations before lived.

The biggest lie is that the Palestinians caused this latest round of violence. The Israeli's assassinated Ahmad Jaabari and the immediately started a bombardment that resulted in well over 100 Palestinian deaths, many more injuries, and caused a reaction that has caused a handful of deaths in Israel. All deaths, including those in Israel, are criminal. But it was Netanyahu's calculated political action, putting his own people at risk, that caused the latest conflagration.

Canada could return to being a world leader on this issue, putting pressure on both sides to end the violence, but Canada's Israel-is-always-right standard is, quite simply, disgusting as it puts our country in the position of supporting many outrageous war crimes.

Stephen Harper vs Kim Jong Un

I certainly hope that "Dear Leader" learns to spend less on his jails, police, military and their hardware and more on the health and education of his people. But my words are not just for Stephen Harper, I hope the same for Kim Jong Un.

Submitted to the Calgary Herald, but not published.

Proponents Lie About Needle Exchange Programs

Susan Martiniuk is being criticized for pointing out that Insite might being exaggerating (or imagining) reductions in overdose deaths but Insite is also imagining something else -- a reduction in drug addicts turning up positive on HIV tests.

A 2010 study by two SFU criminologists published in the International Journal of Drug Policy was a mathematical model that made this claim  based on a single 1996 paper (des Jarlais), that lumped together data from three studies, only one of which contained both clean needle users and non-users. The three studies had significant differences which were ignored (age, race, frequency of injection etc.). What was pointedly ignored by the SFU criminologists was a well-designed study from 1997, based on IV drug users in Montreal. Published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, it showed that consistent clean needle users were 10.2 to 21.8 times MORE likely to become HIV-positive between 1988 and 1995 than IV drug users who never used the clean needle facility. Intermediate users of clean needles were intermediate in risk.

One factor that is rarely considered is the toxicity of street drugs, something that would be solved only by decriminalizing the drugs themselves, not merely the injection of them. A recent study showed, for example, that cocaine (specifically in Vancouver) is usually cut with a drug that causes severe immune suppression (levamisole).

- David Crowe

P.S. Four referenced papers available on request

Submitted to the Calgary Herald, but not published.