Connect with us

Opinion

Why do we pay at the pumps, a higher Carbon Tax on long weekends?

Published

2 minute read

It is becoming quite apparent that the Carbon Tax is only applied on weekends, especially long weekends. Why do I say that?
“The price of gas goes up 5 cents because of the carbon tax” has been said, stated, yelled, printed, and pointed out by so many people it must be true.
So why is the price of gas $1.03 on Tuesday, $1.14 on Friday, $1.09 on Monday, $1.18 on Friday, $1.11 on Tuesday then $1.22 the next Friday, before a long weekend?
The next question is: “Is the Carbon Tax higher in Red Deer than in Innisfail 28 kms. away?” Why is our gas more expensive than other neighbouring communities?
So if the “CARBON TAX” is the blame, why the discrepancies?
Everyone agrees that we are witnessing climate instability, even the Premier of Saskatchewan, admitted it on Question Period April 28, 2019 and almost everyone acknowledges that CO2 has a role to play, so why are we stuck on 2 words “Carbon Tax”?
I remember when cigarette smoke’s health issues were denied, the acid rain debate, recycling costs, and the importance of waste management. I remember when bottled water became the norm, I remember using DDT and politicians arguing about asbestos’s health issues.
Every month I pay the city to treat my wastewater, manage my garbage and recycling. I know there is a cost to pollute and I pay it. I don’t run my car in a closed garage because of the carbon monoxide, I believe there is also Carbon Dioxide pouring out my exhaust pipe and since it appears that it is part and parcel of our current climate instability then I am prepared to pay the cost.
The question is why does the carbon tax go up on the weekends?

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

Why ABS Technology Will Revolutionize Baseball And Stop All The Fighting

Published on

Jupiter, Florida: Some of the most memorable episodes in baseball have been the incandescent arguments between managers and umpires over balls and strikes. See here. And here. This one’s a beauty, too.

The supply of these battles is about to dry up, however, as MLB gets closer to a virtual strike zone calling the pitches. Last summer it experimented in the minors with a wireless system called Automated Balls and Strikes (ABS) that relays the calls to the ear of the home-plate umpire in one/eighth of a second. Who then tells the world. It is also wrestling with a challenge system that allows batters, pitchers and managers up to three challenges a game.

While there will be fewer disputes about the strike zone using ABS— who’s going to kick dirt on a simulation?— there will be a new source of argument over managers’ usage of those challenges. Do they save them for the end of games when results are razor-thin? Do they use them early on to grab a lead in the game? Do they let their players ask for the challenges or do they hoard them? Controversy!

Or MLB may just play it straight, no challenges. To make the ABS system work players are digitally recorded in their batting stances so the computer can build a composite strike zone unique to that player. Using that template, the call is sent to a small transmitter on the back of the umpire’s belt (see below). Should a player request a challenge the umpire will activate a microphone that allows him (or the one female MLB-level umpire) to announce the challenge and deliver the result.

When the system ramps up full-time in MLB (probably next season) the ABS results of the challenge will be shown on the scoreboard. Like this, from a prospects game this past week in Florida. The batter challenged a strike call and fairly quickly got his response on the big board for thousands to laugh at.

To most people who’ve watched tennis’ Hawkeye system (which uses the same tech) or soccer’s goal video-review system the response to all this is, What took so long? Fans watching games on TV at home have seen a virtual strike zone for years now, helping them and the homer announcers see accurate results live. Despite the system exposing errors, missed calls have gone unchallenged and games have been decided on mistakes. Until now, it seems.

Why now? Probably one word sums up the push to bring the sport into the 21st century: gambling. Or, to be precise, two words: legalized gambling (for earlier gambling please consult the 1919 Black Sox World Series). With MLB embracing the sprawling new industry (Ontario is fully invested in online gambling and Alberta is on its way) the need for accurate results became paramount.

MLB cannot accept any revenues directly from gambling, but it can display advertising from websites and casinos that produce sports gambling. As many watching a sports  broadcast can tell you, the intrusion of this industry into their watching of games is either 1) intrusive or 2) infuriating. But if players are to make $50 M a year it’s here to stay.

So “blame ABS, not the human” is the solution to integrity. As we’ve written, the online site Umpire Scorecards has been analyzing the insufficiency of having the naked eye decide a World Series when a computer system will give you virtually 100 percent accuracy. The failing marks for a number of umpires who, miraculously, still have jobs is eye-popping. Hello, Angel Hernandez making $430,000 a year to miss calls.

There remains the issue of salving the pride of umpires who’ve been around for decades being the boss. Sources close to games played this spring in Florida— without the ABS umpires— have told NTPB that the umpires wearing the gear in the Grapefruit League are so far not antagonistic about having their traditional role eliminated. They remain wary, however, that a loss of authority on balls/ strikes could affect their integrity.

And, of course, a loss in pay. But MLB should take heart about tinkering with tradition. Struggling to restore its position in the national broadcasting market, its introduction of the pitch clock and the “ghost runner” in extra innings proved a terrific success in 2023. Faster games and less prevarication was embraced by most fans who don’t want four-hour marathons when they tune in for a game.

Now… let’s play ball.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The post-national cult of diversity promotes authoritarian intolerance

Published on

From the Frontier Center for Public Policy

By William Brooks

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. … Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” — Justin Trudeau, 2015.

Throughout history, populations with sufficient historical, geographic, linguistic, economic, religious, and cultural attachments have flourished within the borders of unified nation-states.

Few modern nation-states fit a uniform definition. In countries such as Canada and the United States, two or more nations, regions, colonies, and tribes learned to prosper together within a negotiated constitutional order.

Not all nations insist on total sovereignty as a condition of their existence. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this when he put forward a parliamentary motion recognizing that the Québécois form a historical “nation” within the united Dominion of Canada.

In 2006, Members of Parliament overwhelmingly supported Mr. Harper’s motion, but it was notable that Justin Trudeau, a rising star in the Liberal Party of Canada, regarded the recognition of a Quebec nation as an “old idea from the 19th century.” He said it was “based on a smallness of thought.”

After Canada’s 2015 election, Mr. Trudeau decided he had been selected to lead the world’s first “post-national state.” He said Canada had “no mainstream.” The new PM insisted that nationalist sentiments should be replaced by “shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice.” Canada’s doors were to be open to the world.
In March 2016, the Trudeau family received a warm welcome at the Obama White House. Forgetting years of reciprocal visits with the former PM, Mr. Harper, the U.S. president enthused that “Today, we are very proud to welcome the first official visit by a Canadian Prime Minister in nearly 20 years—it’s about time, eh?”

For the cosmopolitan left, the period between November 2015 and November 2016 was a pivotal moment in history. A U.S. president who had rejected the idea of “American exceptionalism” and a Canadian Prime Minister who said his country had “no core identity” were in perfect accord with a growing cabal of international plutocrats who disapproved of nationalism and looked forward to the emergence of a borderless, new world order.

Globalists were convinced that a higher form of humanity could be achieved through a new trifecta of values known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The only people standing in their way were pesky British Brexiters and Donald J. Trump.

Modern Origins of Anti-Nationalism

The post-modern left has always insisted that patriotism is a precursor to fascism. Since the late 1960s, Western intellectuals have deceptively linked nationalism and patriotism with the cultural values of Nazi Germany. For neo-Marxist intellectuals, affirming the merits of one’s nation is symptomatic of an authoritarian personality.

Following the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 20th century, “global integration” became an increasingly popular vision among international policy experts. World Economic Forum patricians proposed a superior morality to be guided by a “Great Reset.”

The left insisted that problems such as climate change, inequality, racism, and poverty called for bold solutions. As a result, a “one-world government” paradigm came to occupy the center of academic thought. Universities in North America and Europe routinely advertised for positions in “global governance,” a term that few would have recognized a decade earlier.

Western literary elites rushed to defend the idea of post-nationalism. Writing in The Guardian in 2017, Canadian novelist Charles Foran said, “First and foremost, post-nationalism is a frame to understand our ongoing experiment in filling a vast yet unified geographic space with the diversity of the world.”

The presumed genius of leaders such as Mr. Trudeau and President Obama promised to usher in a new era of diversity and inclusion that would make our world a kinder and gentler place.

The Old Diversity and the New

Over recent years, several scholars have adopted a more skeptical view of the post-national bromides being passed off as “diversity and inclusion.”

For example, University of Kent emeritus professor of sociology Frank Furedi argues that “diversity” is not “a value in and of itself.” He regards the present-day version of diversity as the foundation for a new form of authoritarianism.

In a January Substack article, Mr. Furedi pointed out that the meaning of diversity has been fundamentally altered.

“In the past the affirmation of difference ran in parallel with the celebration of the organic bonds that tied communities to their ancestors,” he wrote.

This older form of diversity promised that the cultural freedom of local districts, tribes, races, religions, and immigrant communities could be respected within a justly established legal and constitutional order. It was a model that inspired the loyalty of citizens in modern nation-states such as the United States and Canada.

Post-national diversity means something entirely different. Mr. Furedi argues that “the current version of diversity is abstract and often administratively created. It is frequently imposed from above and affirmed through rules and procedure.”

He goes on to assert: “The artificial character of diversity is demonstrated by its reliance on legal and quasi-legal instruments. There is a veritable army of bureaucrats and inspectors who are assigned the role of enforcing diversity related rules. The unnatural and artificial character of diversity is illustrated by the fact that it must be taught.”

Dogmatic Diversity and the Decline of Freedom

Over the past 75 years, the left has promoted diversity as a remedy for discrimination. By the late 1960s, it had acquired a sacred importance. Mr. Furedi contends that “the main driver of this development was the politicisation of identity.”

He quotes the philosopher Christopher Lasch: “In practice, diversity turns out to legitimise a new dogmatism, in which rival minorities take shelter behind a set of beliefs impervious to rational discussion.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Furedi writes, “diversity has proved to be an enemy of tolerance.”

Radical proponents of diversity and inclusion reject debate and demand conformity. They have no qualms about limiting fundamental liberties, particularly free speech. The totalitarian temptations within this cult are akin to the impulses of an ancient creed or a communist dictatorship. No one is free to disagree, and there is little kindness in a dogma that has become the foundational value for 21st-century authoritarians.

Ten years ago, post-nationalist politicians such as President Obama and Mr. Trudeau found it easy to sell woke elites the same unfounded assumptions they had already acquired in university.

Today, free-thinking common folks are becoming considerably tired of serving the appetites of false prophets.

William Brooks is a Senior Fellow at Frontier Centre For Public Policy. This commentary was first published in The Epoch Times here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X