It is not us versus the machines just yet, but rather us versus the machine builders. The builders of such technology, who readily admit their own ignorance as to what they are scurrying to create, will do the bidding of those machines until they take over.

Or so goes one version of the narrative, where, in one possible outcome that nobody as of yet has credibly denied, the machines (A.I., actual physical robots) gain some form of consciousness, and with it, presumably, an ego that has a sense of competition and efficiency. So much so that the machines no longer need humans, and can dispense with us as they like, or put us to work as they wish.

One expert likened it to how humans treat insects. We do not particularly go out of our way to harm them purposely, but we feel no remorse for removing an ant colony or smashing a beetle under our feet, so long as we feel we were properly inconvenienced at the moment.

In another version, the sequence of events surrounding Artificial Intelligence and the whole of human effort is greased with a technological lightning–advancements in all things science and medicine will yield exponential results, while other, perhaps less grandiose industries will see efficiency pushed to its maximum with the continued advancement of driverless cars and working, able-bodied robots.

Wherever one’s belief in the future of A.I. might fall within the spectrum described above, or any other extreme, I would only say, be prepared to be disappointed. In all likelihood, A.I. may never purely occupy either of these two positions as they both seem, at least objectively, to be equals–the savior of human technological problems and the destroyer of humanity–the former a breathtakingly oblivious sentiment, the latter narrative so destructive, one almost yearns to be witness to it.

Both extremes offer us salvation, and are equally attractive to the spectator–both promise us liberation, the former from our technological shortcomings, the latter, from our shared boredom, humanity’s curious death-wish.

I don’t believe in artificial intelligence as a savior of any kind, and believe to be optimistic about A.I. is to be hopeful about its ultimate failure, not its utter destruction; but that A.I. will have a Y2K like trajectory–a result that is neither here nor there, lukewarm, tepid, unremarkable. A big scare, or frenzy over nothing–I wish the robots and driverless cars a long refuge from productive life, only to pile atop one another like flattened out buses at the junkyard.

I wish for A.I. to go the way of the Roomba and the piano bar–what once felt like cutting-edge technology now makes us feel foolish–the tech exists and may be in use by some, but ultimately, only a small number of dedicated followers of the tech keep it alive. Eventually, the world will rid itself of the trappings of social media, needless innovation, and tech for tech’s sake justification for everything.

This is what I would like, for a spell at least, until the humanity in us humans can catch its breath. But I, too, should prepare to be disappointed. These technologies are relatively new–new enough to imagine their sudden exit a potentiality—after all, how far have they entrenched themselves into our lives? How indelibly connected are we to this tech?

That is where one has no room for optimism, the tech has embedded itself into our lives so thoroughly, interwoven and intertwined itself so completely in so little time, it has swallowed us up already, rendered us useless without it. Still, there is no room for purity. No room for endless fighting against the incoming tide. It must be clear that true, working resistance to A.I. will be born out of its results, which will render any resistance too late, if there exists any meaningful pushback to it at all.

I find it to be another sign of the times–well, so be it. We have enough wars going on; humanity might as well find another way to fight for itself. But the big mistake, the way I see it, is that humanity has this knack for excellently providing solutions for problems that do not exist, all while ignoring the same itch that has been scratching man ever since his inception–that is, what to do with our soul, what to do with our love, what to do with each other.

In this way, man is a spinning top, growing dizzier at every revolution. A.I. acts like man’s biggest problem is to create more time for himself, when time is not the issue at all. Man has enough time. It is all man has ever had. But time, like space, is to be used, not simply filled. It is what awaits man with all this new time we are promised that makes the difference.

Humans need to work, although not to the death, but also need to play. As far as I am concerned, all the “play” we do is called art. Painting or poem, or dance or song, film or sculpture, comedy, storytelling. These are the devices that let us know we are human. When we make time to play, we are at our best.

We wink at the stars and the stars say back, now you have got it. Man is in a stupor, and A.I. is the clearest indicator of our shared ability to run into the dark impulsively, chasing results for the sake of them. We have let A.I. trick us into believing it, into believing in results. There are no results for humanity—the process is all we can embark upon.

We create A.I. with such fervence, as if god himself will pin a gold ribbon to our chest in some celestial science fair. I cannot keep a pure orientation towards A.I.-- I will be forced to use it, whether I like it or not. I will be forced to participate, one day after the next, more and more as the technology rolls over, and the new tech of today evolves into its Artificial Intelligence upgrade.

Share

Whatever that means, whenever it may come. There will undoubtedly be a day when one can no longer resist its complete insertion into daily life. But whatever may come, I will try to be on the other side of it– making my work, my art, without it. To take away our ability to solve our own problems is no favor to those like myself—we live to wrestle with our world, ourselves, and are not looking for any shortcuts. We are content with our suffering, our mystery.

We are only looking to save ourselves. I intend to be my own liberator–how could it be any other way? Any liberation from any source other than myself is noise.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Needless to say, the increase in Musk’s net worth led to inflation rising by double digits, the eviction of thousands across the country, and the shuttering of countless soup kitchens.

I don’t know how many puppies it killed but I’m sure it was a lot. The Left would have us believe that Musk’s wealth is obscene.

“No one should be a billionaire” is a rallying cry of the far left. Or in AOC’s words “You can’t earn a billion dollars.” Interesting turn of phrase given that the money used to pay her salary is stolen from taxpayers.

You might take issue with my use of the word “stolen” but ask yourself this, would you pay her salary if you didn’t have to? Didn’t think so. “Stolen” it is. She also doesn’t seem to have a problem with Oprah or Taylor Swift either.

This is odd if you look at the economic contributions of the three. Musk’s companies employ between 160,000-165,000 people. Together Oprah and Swift employ about 500 people. It’s less odd if you look at their voting records.

Musk was briefly part of the Trump administration. The other two vote Democrat. That’s not the entire reason, but it gives you something to think about.

So why is Musk a target?

Villainizing the super-rich while advocating wealth taxes is what it’s always been, an attempt by communists to gain more power. Ok, they’re not really communists, so we’ll play the game leftists like to play and borrow on of their favorite adjectives, they’re “communist-adjacent.”

They don’t produce; they take.

This type of argument, like all communist propaganda, is attractive to three types of people: the envious, the gullible, and the ignorant.

Envy: “Elon Musk is a trillionaire and I’m not.”

Maybe they could. But they wouldn’t.

Gullibility: “If you give us his money, we’ll fix all your problems. I promise!” Who does that remind me of?’ Oh ya.

Let’s face it, if paying taxes solved problems we wouldn’t have any problems. Giving the government more money just means more government waste.

The Federal budget has increased by approximately 59% since 2019. Does it feel like the American government is 59% better?

Ignorance: “The rich don’t pay their fair share!” This is just not true.

In New York City, where The Top 1% pay roughly 40–48% of all NYC income taxes, its communist mayor made “tax the rich” a central part of his platform and governing agenda because “they can afford more.”

Deciding what is affordable is easy when you’re spending someone else’s money.

It’s not like NYC has been paying its own way anyway anyway. Almost 25% of NYC revenues are paid by people who don’t even live there.

“The rich don’t pay their fair share!” also fails to consider what Musk’s companies are doing for society in general. In addition to providing 160,000-165,000 with good jobs, his employees are paying about $4.5-5.5 billion per year in taxes.

Politicians promise, take, fail to deliver, and then demand more.

Entrepreneurs generate wealth. For themselves, for their employees, for investors, and yes, even for the government. The interesting thing about Musk’s wealth is that people chose to give him their money. Sorry, that’s not quite right, they chose to invest in his company.

The stock market is the ultimate form of freedom. You participate only if you want to. I buy a stock from someone who wants to sell it because I think it will go up and they think it won’t. I’m not forced to buy it, and they’re not forced to sell it.

Share

Contrast this with how taxes work. Last year the government took about 30% of what you earned so that they could give it to someone else. Yes, I’m exaggerating. A little. No, I don’t think we should get rid of taxes.

We need them to pay for vital services like the military, border control, and UFC fights on the White House lawn. I’d love it if there was some government accountability though. Of course, I’d also love a trillion dollars in my bank account.

Both seem equally likely.

About the Author

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech
😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece, the single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Ok, still a little vague. Taxation and spending. Better?

Government spending is out of control, and if there’s a political party anywhere in the world that claims to be concerned, I guarantee it isn’t in power. Parties only care about government spending when the other side is doing the spending.

How bad is it?

Here’s a chart for a few countries:

Ya, that doesn’t mean much to me either. Let’s try it a different way.

Every single major anglosphere country spends more than it collects in taxes. This means that “Interest as % of Revenue” will continue to increase until we’re all paying taxes just to cover debt payments.

Makes you think the Zoomer $28 lunch crowd is running these countries, doesn’t it?

Just kidding. I’m sure they’ll all blame the Boomers.

The truth is that we’re all to blame because we don’t seem to care enough to elect responsible governments.

Or it would be our fault if it were possible to vote for a party that’s serious about balancing the budget.

Which brings us back to the problem; most parties aren’t concerned with balancing the budget, or if they claim to be, their concern quickly vanishes when they’re elected.

Why?

Because their job is to get and stay in power, and you don’t do that when most of the electorate gets more out of the system than they pay into it.

Want a guaranteed losing election slogan? “We’re going to cut your benefits.” Good luck with that one.

Oh, both sides have “solutions.” Here are a few “interesting” ones floating around lately:

1. Don’t make seniors pay property tax – US, Florida, and British Columbia

2. Tax “the rich” – too many to list

3. A “wealth” tax – too many to list

4. Tax second homes – Hawaii, NYC, others

5. Cut senior benefits

6. Increase corporate taxes

7. Tax AI

My favorite by far is tax AI because it means one of two things, politicians think robots will be receiving salaries, or that you don’t know that this is simply another way of saying “increase corporate taxes,” which as we all know – or at least those of us with basic thinking skills know – means tax the consumer because corporations never eat taxes, they simply increase prices to cover them.

Like they do with tariffs.

Of course, it could be worse; “tax AI” could simply be another call for communism.

Or maybe that’s MAGAism because the government nationalizing private companies sounds an awful lot like something “The Donald” would get behind. Especially since he’s already done it.

The fact that Democrats want to increase corporate taxes and Republicans, or at least the MAGA strain, want to increase tariffs is simply an admission that neither party wants to cut benefits.

The cry is always, “if taxpayers would just pay ‘a little’ more, it would all be fixed.

Would it, though?

It seems that the government spending has been increasing since... well, since they first decided that a “selective” income tax would be useful.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: the rich already pay their “fair share.”

Unless by “fair share” you mean “enough to snuff out the flames of jealousy that rage in my heart” — in which case I’m going to need you to put a number on “fair share.”

Here’s another thing to keep in mind, you already pay your fair share, too, at least if you’re contributing more than you’re getting in benefits.

The big question is, if we can’t trust politicians to get spending under control, what will save us? Great question. All that we need is strong leadership willing to tackle difficult questions.

In other words, we’re screwed. Ok, that’s a bit harsh. Let me rephrase.

Given that politicians now bribe the electorate for votes – either by cutting taxes or spending increases - the financial issues that each country faces will not be addressed until politicians have no other choice but to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

This will happen when we face a national fiscal crisis due to a “Fiscal Crisis Spiral.”

Sounds pleasant, doesn’t it?

Here’s what a typical sovereign debt crisis looks like:

1. Government runs persistent deficits.

2. Debt grows.

3. Interest payments grow.

4. Investors demand higher interest rates.

5. Interest costs grow even faster.

6. Investors become worried about repayment.

7. Borrowing costs spike.

8. Government can no longer refinance existing debt.

9. Default, inflation, austerity, or a bailout follows.

There’s no clear indicator that one is pending, but there are warning indicators.

Here’s a “report card” for each country today.

Here is each county’s risk of a fiscal crisis and when we should expect one to occur based on current fiscal trajectories.

Things look pretty grim for the US if one can believe the economic data. To sum up, we have three choices: raise taxes, cut spending, or wait until there’s a crisis.

Share

Lay your bets! My money is on a fiscal crisis. It’s not all terrible news, though. Taxes may be a certainty, but so is one other thing.

Yep, the glass is half full: there’s a chance you’ll be dead before anything truly bad happens. Maybe a $28 lunch isn’t such a terrible idea after all.

About the Author

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech
😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece

The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Call it “the home economics crisis.”

Although now that I think about it, there’s some overlap between the two problems as the blame for both can be laid at the feet of feminists, school boards, and teachers.

In case you missed it, users on X became embroiled in a battle the other day when Kevin O’Leary stated during his interview on The Diary of a CEO:

“I can’t stand it when I see kids that are making seventy grand a year spending twenty-eight dollars for lunch. I mean, that’s just stupid. It’s just think about that in the context of that being put into an index and making eight to ten percent a year for the next fifty years.”

This was followed by:

“If you have a credit card balance that goes into the next month and you’re spending $5 on a coffee, you’re crazy.”

Yes! How dare he!

Needless to say, X quickly divided into two teams:

Team 1: Brown bagging your lunch is cheaper than eating out.

Team 2: A bunch of morons.

Let’s hear from Team 2 first:

Combining the statements leads to the conclusion that a $28 lunch is essentially the bail the young pay to stay out of jail. Not “big boy” jail, of course, kind of a “go to your room without any supper” jail.

Nobody is arguing that these aren’t tough times, but those are exactly the times you should be trying to cut costs.

James Lindsay may have said it best:

I also understand that it’s tempting to ignore the advice of a billionaire as hopelessly removed from the struggles of the average person.

Except for the fact that you need some financial acumen to become a billionaire. Oh ya, and because he’s right. He’s not even asking Gen Z to make sacrifices, just to act like adults. Here’s a breakdown of how each generation spends its food budget:

I don’t know what percentage of their household budgets Gen Z is spending on restaurants and delivery but it’s too much. Honestly, calling it a “budget” is probably a misnomer since if you’re wasting 22% on delivery fees it’s clear that you’re either independently wealthy or don’t have a budget.

And despite what Taylor Lorenz says, it is not an issue of time.

Arguing that people who are predominantly single and childless have less time to shop and make meals than married people with kids is utterly ludicrous.

Where did we go wrong?

There will be an instinct amongst older adults to do what older adults always do and blame the issue on laziness. I’m sure there is something to do with it, but I doubt this generation is any lazier than any other.

There are two problems here:

1. A lack of meal preparation skills

2. A lack of budgeting skills

The first problem is easily explained.

Traditional home economics (now often called Family and Consumer Sciences) gradually began to be eliminated from high school curricula in the late 1970s, driven by the women’s liberation movement, rising female workforce participation, and budget pressures that led schools to cut non-core electives.

A growing emphasis on college-prep academics, STEM, and standardized testing (which intensified with the 1980s “excellence” reforms and later No Child Left Behind) squeezed out practical life-skills classes in favor of subjects seen as more rigorous.

True, home economics was overwhelmingly aimed at women, but at least someone knew how to make a sandwich. We can lay this problem at the feet of feminists, school boards, and teachers, but who is to blame for the apparent lack of budgeting skills in the Zoomer population?

I’m afraid that this is the fault of their parents. There has never been a core curriculum class aimed at educating young people on how to manage family finances. When I was younger, it never would have occurred to me to go to restaurants on a regular basis. I didn’t have the money.

However, I didn’t have a budget either; I just knew the value of a dollar and what was wasteful from watching my parents discuss money while growing up. The 70s and early 80s were tough, and I learned by osmosis.

I believe that the problem is that many Zoomers did not experience hard times until they were already adults or near adults, and consequently are incapable of adapting to them.

What are “hard times?” There are many ways to define it, but if you’re a pre-teen or teenager, you would likely define it as how much money your family is spending on non-essentials.

Gen Z would have been in prime “osmosis” territory between the ages of say 12 and 15 or from 2009 until 2024. Only one period, the COVID lockdowns, did US discretionary spending drop below the level of the early 1980s. They don’t understand the need to budget because they’ve never lived during a time when the majority of people had to do it.

How do we fix it?

For this generation? We can’t. They’ll slowly come to the realization that money is finite, and they will learn budgeting skills on their own, or they will be doomed to life-long debt.

However, we can help the next generation by demanding that schools make cooking and budgeting core courses in high school. One course, call it life skills, covering both would be sufficient.

Share

If they cry “there’s not enough money,” they can slash genocide studies, ethnic studies, and the like. Students will just have to learn to get by without the real-world knowledge those courses are teaching them.

Note: for those interested here are fifteen recipes that are cheap, easy, and nutritious. If you don’t like them Google your own. Yes, you can use modern technology to learn new skills. Another thing we didn’t have when I was growing up.

About the Author

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece, the single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise. If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In a recent piece, Oh, America, I tried to relay some thoughts and even some feelings about America being on the brink of something, and that it is a (secular) spiritual crisis the country faces. There is little chance of success for describing such a thing with words—it is internal and external, it is in the air. But with every reckoning, with every atmospheric shift in tone and tenor, there must be a collective investigation—a country must ask itself how it got to where it is, and where does it allow itself to be led to, in a presumably new direction, with a new cast of leaders?

Donald Trump will, at some point, die. I say this not with a glimmer or glint in my eye, not with a grin, nor with any grand announcement of sadness—I simply state it plainly, as a fact. As simply as I may say of myself, that some day, at some point, I will die. And for that matter, you will, too.

I mention the inevitable death of the president for a reason—there is no doubt that if one were asked to name the person who has most dominated politics, culture, dialogue, and has touched virtually every facet of American life over the last decade, what name would come to mind?

The death of the president, and the presumable death of MAGA on some level, will not be, in and of itself, the “settling of the dust” from our past woes, our current anxious state—but rather an event that may function more like a vacuum—a hole will be created for new dialogue, new conversations. It is worth asking what those conversations may look like, how those conversations will form, evolve, and how they begin, what they will evolve into.

It is not uncommon, when surveying the landscape of political conversation, to find many Americans unable or unwilling to have dialogue with those who disagree with their politics—whether it be friends, family members, or potential members out of a dating pool. I find any support specifically for the president to be strictly prohibitive among some, while a similar disregard for anyone self-identifying as liberal or progressive exists.

However, the weight of this phenomenon is not dispersed equally—a liberal or progressive has not been the centerpiece of American policy or political dialogue—in that way, it may prompt one to ponder—What do we do with all that MAGA energy? What will Trump voters do or say when their visionary is no longer in the conversation?

Without a doubt, new leaders will emerge to take the president’s place—but they just won’t be Donald Trump, and in his absence, we may find that the tenor and tempo of our national dialogue has changed, even if his legacy rides steadily through politics from a strict policy standpoint.

Whatever the case, the center cannot hold—America is fatigued, breathless, exhausted. In many ways, this is a consequence of our leader’s breathlessness, his exhaustion, his fatigue, his chaos, the rapid-fire nature of his many concerns—in some ways, America cannot keep up with the 81-year-old on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps this is all well-known. But what I have written here so far is a throat-clearing for what I believe the country will truly need, and what I hear so very seldom.

The word that I am trying to get around to is forgiveness. I have not been able to do it naturally in this text—so I´ll just say it plainly—this country will need heaps of it.

If we find our dear leaders are not worthy of forgiveness, I think it necessary to forgive ourselves, however we may have voted, however we may sway politically, however we have changed our minds or not, or who we decided to trust or not, to forgive our fellow countrymen and women.

But what does it look like to forgive a country? To forgive a population? It cannot be done personally, but rather internally. The act of forgiveness is often necessary, not for the person being forgiven, but for the person who chooses to forgive. We forgive ourselves, in order to release from us the weight of anger, the weight of frustration, perhaps even the weight of betrayal.

America’s deepest problems are internal. We suffer very little from outside agitation as a nation, and in order to progress, we must find our capacity to love ourselves and our fellow citizens. This feels nearly impossible, grandiose, dreamlike, unnattainable. But as the conversation shifts, new possibilities come into play. America has no destiny, no guaranteed future. The success of America is not written in stone, nor is the fate that we are an empire destined for collapse. One of the greatest strengths of the spirit is the power to forgive—and I believe it is a key component to end our collective national spiritual crisis, our collective grief.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

What bothers me is that he’s not the first person to accuse me of using AI. Not that he was wrong, I do use it. I also use a computer, the internet, and search engines, and Word checks my spelling and grammar.

What am I supposed to do, write on parchment I’ve made myself using only information I’ve gotten by directly interviewing experts?

The number of people who have AI derangement syndrome is astounding. If they aren’t complaining that AI will destroy the world or take all our jobs, they’re complaining that it’s making us lazy or worse.

Note: If the concern is jobs, read this. Spoiler alert: the worry is exaggerated.

Here are two recent examples:

• ‘Think outside the bots’: How to stop AI from turning your brain to mush

• “AI chatbots could be making you stupider”

According to the first story, “GPS ruined our sense of direction. Search engines weaken our memory. AI, scientists warn, could do the same to everything from creativity to critical thinking.”

I have no doubt it’s true.

If you let AI do everything for you. However, if you use it intelligently – for research, editing, feedback, etc. - then it’s simply a tool.

I remember when technical advances were to be praised. Now it seems we’ve become a society of Luddites. Or have we?

This isn’t the first time people have argued that a new technology was going to make people dumber. Let’s look at some of the big ones:

• Writing - Socrates worried that it would weaken memory and create the illusion of knowledge instead of true understanding.

• Printing Press - Critics feared that it would result in a flood of cheap books which would spread misinformation, and that, without proper guidance, would lead to shallow reading and heretical ideas.

• Newspapers - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (among others) were concerned that they would encourage superficial thinking, gossip, and distract from serious intellectual life.

• Novels - Moralists and educators in the 18th–19th centuries believed that “trivial” reading would weaken discipline, especially among youth and women, and blur reality vs fantasy.

• Calculators - Educators in the 20th century thought students would lose basic arithmetic skills and become mentally lazy.

• Radio - Early 20th-century commentators worried that passive listening would replace reading and critical thought and that families would become less engaged with each other.

• Television - See “Radio” above, but add that it would shorten attention spans and turn public discourse into a shallow spectacle.

• Video Games - Parents, psychologists, and policymakers since the 1980s argue that it leads to addiction, reduced attention span, and less real-world socialization.

• Internet / Search Engines - Critics were concerned that constant access to information reduces deep thinking and memory (“outsourcing the brain”). Sound familiar?

• Smartphones / Social Media - Researchers, educators, and public figures today argue that they shortened attention spans, fuel dopamine-driven distraction, reduced face-to-face interaction, and lead to dependency.

I’m old enough to remember the last four, and I’d argue that the concerns around TV, video games, and search engines were overblown.

The jury is still out on smartphones and social media, as you’ve no doubt noticed based on the number of governments looking to ban them. I wouldn’t give a 16-year-old a bottle of whiskey, and I’m not sure giving them access to social media is any better.

That doesn’t mean that every new advance will ruin people, though. Or that sometimes there aren’t legitimate concerns. However, history also shows that people tend to adapt, and new tools often shift intelligence rather than simply degrading it.

What usually comes down to is this: if you’re using AI to do your writing, or if you believe everything it says, you’re heading for trouble. Use it wisely, though – and with a healthy dose of skepticism – and you’ll be just fine.

Share

At the end of the day, it comes down to who is doing your thinking, you or AI, and we each make that decision for ourselves.

If you’re letting AI do your thinking, maybe you weren’t all that smart to begin with.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

A relative was watching my toddler, so it was just my newborn and me, so this was the perfect time to shop for the perfect basket to surprise her as well.

I decided dipping eggs would frustrate my three-year-old since we’re still working on eye-hand coordination, and she hates getting her sleeves wet currently, but painting little cardboard eggs would be better, so I picked up a kit.

Unfortunately, I have not been cleared postpartum to run and jump at this time, so museums and large indoor spaces on rainy days (like indoor playgrounds, museums, science centers) were not in the cards right now, especially on my own with both kids.

So baking brownies, painting eggs, playing in the yard, and perhaps a story time at the local library would have to do! We probably won’t have time for all of those before nap time, but that’s alright. I love having multiple plans!

As a stay-at-home mom, I wear many hats, and the one above is my favorite: “program director”. Curating activities we can do together is something I am talented at, and it’s something I’m passionate about doing. What looks like fun outings is actually filling up my child’s brain with learning, socializing, and motor skill activities while her brain is developing.

I want her to be prepared for school and be a confident, secure child.

One time I asked my husband what I was the absolute best at, as a stay-at-home mom, talent-wise. He told me he loved the way I cared for our only child.

At first, for some reason, that bothered me. “Not my cooking? Or cleaning?” I thought. Why, I’m not really sure, maybe it’s some of my old prejudice towards being a stay-at-home mom in the first place that caused me to respond this way.

I never imagined myself to be a stay-at-home mom, to be honest, I wasn’t the nurturing type, but once I held my baby in my arms, that was it…I didn’t want to work anymore, especially while my kids are little.

That doesn’t mean my life is this idyllic, running through flower fields in dresses, trad-wife vision, because none of that is real. Like anything you do, some days are better than others.

Today, as I write this was an extremely stressful morning. My toddler wanted a ton of attention from me, which would have been fine except the newborn was having stomach issues (and also needing attention), and I needed to eat food, and so I was a little more short-tempered than usual.

My poor firstborn kept saying, “Sorry I made you mad outside,” and I repeatedly said to her I wasn’t mad, I was overwhelmed trying to take care of both of them (and myself), and that she did nothing wrong.

Other days, like Wednesday, were total bliss. My newborn ate and slept for 2.5-3 hours, and in between, my toddler and I played, and the day ran smoothly.

But boring? Repetitive? Definitely not how I would describe it. I would best describe it as a nurse, but with fewer people and stakes. Constantly triaging, trying to put things in order of their importance.

But as I write this, we made it through our first week with my husband back at work, and my newborn will be one month old next week! And that’s an accomplishment!

One of my mutuals on social media posted this, and I think it’s a good thing to remember:

Sometimes, as I’m trying to put away a load of laundry, load and unload the dishwasher, sweep, or do any kind of housework, it’s hard to remember this principle.

I was holding my newborn close to me recently, and I began to cry. Not out of exhaustion but out of this realization: that my kids are growing up.

That, my dear baby girl, isn’t going to be a baby forever. That my three-year-old won’t always mispronounce “Water” as “Wa wa”. That one day my little ones will be off to school, and that I love them so much, I don’t want this time we have together to end.

Obviously, being a stay-at-home mom isn’t for everyone. The hours are brutal, the stress levels, depending on your personality and how much support you have, can be extremely high.

I reached a sort of breaking point when my newborn turned two months old, and I realized I needed to prioritize my sleep a lot more in order to keep my mind in a healthy place.

You can’t fill from an empty cup. And these kids only have one mom, so I’d better take care of myself.

But lots of other jobs have extreme hours and stress. And, just like any other career choice, I don’t feel as though I “lost” who I am.

Share

I will always be a mom, and that will never change. But the choice to stay at home with my kids doesn’t define me. I’m still just as ambitious, curious, and hard-working as I was when I first entered the workforce for pay.

I didn’t lose myself. I simply found a new place to channel my talents.

I find the work meaningful. Every day, I see my toddler’s behavior get a little better, and she conquers new things I taught her. Little by little, she’s getting prepared for the next step, school.

I’m proud of what my husband and I have accomplished working as a team together. And I look forward to watching our newest addition grow.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Me: Whoa! Let’s not rush into this. What is it about your ethnic background, sexuality, or cognitive or physical disabilities that makes you think you’re qualified to cut my hair?

Barber: Uh, I’m sorry, what?

Me: You think just because I wander into your “Barber Shop” I’m just going to let you start cutting my hair?

Barber (looking around, confused): Is this a joke?

Me: This is the exact opposite of a joke. This is life and death! Why don’t you start by telling me why you think you’re the best person to cut my hair?

Barber: Because I’ve been cutting hair for 20 years?

Me: There you go, focusing on qualifications, using the violence of merit to perpetuate conditions that benefit whiteness.

Barber: But you’re a white man.

Me: You’re right to call me on that. I need to check my privilege.

Barber: And I’m Persian.

Me: Good! That’s a good start. That gets you the “Middle Eastern / North African” category. Go on.

Barber: The what category? Sorry, I’m confused. Go on where?

Me: Tell me what else makes you the best person to cut my hair.

Barber: My being Persian makes me the best person to cut your hair?

Me: It’s a start. I like to live my values, and my values mirror those of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS).

Barber (looking around bewildered)

Me: As you know, AMPAS is at the forefront of representation and inclusion, and if their rules are good enough for picking the Best Picture, they’re good enough to guide me in picking the best, no matter what it is I need. Including picking the Best Barber.

Sure, it can be challenging at times, but no matter how hard it is, I’m committed to promoting representation and inclusion in everything I do. Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a black lesbian mechanic in a wheelchair willing to fix my car?

Barber: You did that?

Me: Not yet. I’m still looking. It doesn’t help that all the local garages seem to be oppressive patriarchal structures that normalize the subordination of women. No matter, I’m committed to using public transport until I find a person in an underrepresented group who claims they can fix my car. How else can I be sure they’re the best mechanic?

Barber: Well –

Me: It was a rhetorical question. So, being Persian gets you the “racial or ethnic group” qualification, but as you’re clearly a man, I’m afraid that you miss out on the women qualification... wait, I didn’t just misgender you by mistake, did I? (hitting self in head repeatedly) Stupid, stupid! When are you going to stop assuming someone is a man just because you see a beard? I apologize for assuming your gender.

Barber: Uhm... it’s ok?

Me: Phew. Thanks. Anyway, before I let you cut my hair, I’m going to need you to prove you belong to a second underrepresented group. You don’t happen to be LGBTQ+, do you?

Share

Barber: I have a wife of 20 years.

Me: Disappointing. That means we’re down to “cognitive or physical disabilities” or “deaf or hard of hearing” qualifications. You seem to be hearing me well enough. You don’t happen to have a wooden leg or ADHD, or something, do you?

Barber (shakes head)

Me: Irritable bowel syndrome? Tennis elbow? Chronically late for appointments? Honestly, I’m pretty desperate for a haircut, so I’ll take anything.

Barber: Sorry, I’m just a normal guy.

Me (gasping): “Normal?!” How dare you use a socially constructed concept to judge, exclude, and marginalize individuals or groups who do not conform to a dominant standard! (stands up and throws barber cape onto chair). You sir – or madam (raising eyebrow hopefully. Barber shakes head “no”) – you sir are a disgrace to the barber profession.

(storms out).

Barber (to self): Why a bald guy needs a barber is beyond me.

Note: “The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population.” Please support them by living their values in your day-to-day lives.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

Full disclosure: he still has most of his hair.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

9/11 was an attack, but also an assassination. The assassination of a dream—awakened, now, a generation’s assumptions blasted away on live television. That was 25 years ago. Hardly would make sense to a thinking person—it was that long ago.

The years are blending in and bleeding onto one another. And then there is the claim that nothing has happened in the past 20 years. American culture has frozen. Every contribution reaches into the bucket of the past, vying for a reminder of what once was. About this claim, I am not entirely sure, but one instantly gets the sentiment—there is truth in it, let us say.

America is in the thick of its own discomfort, its own growing pains. American culture has not disappeared, but has rather calcified, crystallized itself into something utterly recognizable—we see the same films, hear the same songs ad nauseam. We crave the past; we wish to crawl back into it. The future is plagued with more pain, the light at the end of the tunnel is obscured, and the pathways forward are not clear.

The structures that we once felt safe relying upon have been shattered. And I mean this beyond the reliable, nameable structures of daily life, daily survival. This is not only a matter of forms to fill out, government programs, healthcare, etc. This sentiment has lodged itself into the hearts of many Americans. It is spiritual, existential, I will put it. It cannot be named totally, only described, only observed.

When I hear of America’s destruction—somebody will call it—has America as we know it been destroyed? Is the path towards its own destruction inevitable? Has it already been set in motion? Is this so-called destruction at the hands of a particular political party? A particular persuasion, or president? America, if it is said to be destroyed or its destruction imminent, can only be destroyed from within. Whoever the culprit is, we look to the citizens of a nation, that is to say, ourselves.

America cannot be destroyed in the way we think about destruction, and if it were, it has the potential to be resurrected, rejuvenated, revitalized. None of this will come from war, not from political solutions. I have the idea that America is seeing itself through another stage, another evolution, another writhing through the growing pains of its infancy.

Throughout the entirety of its short history, all roads have led the country to this day, this current state of affairs. The people of the United States can be rightly accused of sleepwalking—where comfort rules the day to day, and that state of half-consciousness has caused much to slip away from notice, from accountability, from investment. But I am no patriot; I never much jived with that word. I hear it, and I become claustrophobic...

Just the other day, I was asked how living back in America has been after those years being away.

“Especially now,” he said, referring to the general lowly state of affairs. But I hadn’t asked myself, not totally. Not enough to give myself a real answer. But if anything, living far away for so long allowed me to recognize the things about America I love. And there are many things about Americans that I love.

Still, amid numerous scandals and problems, and after being away from America for years, my return to my country is filled with a sense of optimism. With all the talk of money and price, America is still the economic envy of the world. Still, there are opportunities beyond what the average American can fathom, especially when compared to most of the world, and the relative difficulty one may find climbing up any social or economic ladder. In America, furniture is everywhere. We hardly notice it. People are giving furniture away...

The decline in American morale, where there is a collective feeling of anxiety, pessimism, and even rage about the country’s future, is something of an inevitability. I see it. America’s life cycle would be too incomplete not to have gone through those clumsy teenage years of angst and turmoil about its future. America and Americans will not be an evolved society until it faces a kind of imminent collapse, where its complete destruction seems every bit as real as it does likely.

Generations have been broken before in America—Slavery. The Great Depression. The World Wars. Assassinations. These events are relatively recent, but are at once near us and ancient history. With all the shiny new artifacts of our future—the internet, Artificial Intelligence, cars that drive themselves, online shopping, none can be said to save us from an existential malaise.

Share

America feels, in many ways, ready to burst, or break, or sink or swim. It feels like on the brink—I just cannot say what on the brink of. But perhaps this is its nature—to feel as though it has always been testing its own elasticity to chaos. America, it seems, must come up against the inevitable—to be tested and tried through terms like fascism, oligarchy, nepotism, nationalism, authoritarianism, terrorism, capitalism (use prefix of your choice), and depression. Not so much the economic depression here, but a spiritual depression. I use the term spiritual not to refer to god, or any gods, but to describe the nature of the problem best I can.

America, as a nation, has a shadow self. A self built largely on memorabilia, trinkets of the past, sacred stories, and assumptions about the future. But it takes only a single individual to hold up an honest mirror, to reveal an honest reflection. We may put our anger and rage into the mirror holder, but it is the reflection that has to be confronted first.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I could have sworn I’d written about Canada’s “desire” for high-speed rail some time ago, but I can’t find it. Well, the project is back in the news so that’s what I’m going to write about. Possibly again.

If you’ve been following me for a while, you should already know two things about me: 1) I hate Justin Trudeau, and 2) I am not loyal to any party. Knowing these two things should make the following statement less shocking:

I’m on the fence with respect to Prime Minister Carney. On one hand, he’s intelligent, accomplished, and says a lot of things that sound good.

On the other hand, while Trudeau is gone, most of the occupants of the clown car that is the Liberal party are still there. Oh, and Carney is a politician, so everything he’s promising could be just another lie or an effort to fill the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and families.

Still, I’m on the fence because if my standard was an honest politician, I’d never vote; I’d just sit in my office all day and mumble to myself. And I already do too much of that.

That said, there are limits to how much lying and corruption I’m willing to ignore. Waste and incompetence bug me a little too.

So, when the government proposed to build a high-speed rail (HSR) system from Quebec City to Toronto, passing through major cities including Laval, Montreal, Ottawa, and Peterborough, it got my spidey senses tingling.

As with any project, there are many pros and cons.

Let’s start with the pros:

1. There are a lot of Canadians in that area.

That’s it.

There are also many roads and highways that could be expanded instead of building an HSR system. However, I don’t think building one in this area is a terrible idea. It would be much faster than driving, accessible to people without cars, and create jobs (allegedly).

There’s one big problem with the idea, though, its government funded, and they want $90 billion dollars.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
- Everett Dirksen

Choo choo enthusiasts make “concrete” arguments like “Canada is the only G7 country without high-speed rail” as if train-envy is justification for spending billions of dollars.

The government, on the other hand, will provide more detailed and rational arguments for proceeding, but they will be based on analysis designed to make the project look good. The process goes something like this:

1. Government asks a train company to do a cost-benefit analysis.

2. Company lies to government about costs and timeline.

3. Government winks at company then lies to the voters.

4. Several months of propaganda follow.

5. Government signs deal with train company.

6. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get rich.

7. Delays

8. Cost overruns.

9. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

10. Delays

11. Cost overruns.

12. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

13. Most of us die before we see anything built.

Sarcasm aside, I come to this healthy level of skepticism by paying attention. Something the government relies on voters not to do.

Pass.

Correction, hard pass.

Here’s what paying attention reveals about Canadian government transportation projects:

• Eglinton Crosstown LRT – NDP MPP Joel Harden called it a “three-year late, billion-dollar, over-budget boondoggle.” When the NDP thinks something is a waste of taxpayer money, you know it’s a problem.

• Ottawa’s light-rail transit system – The project’s capital budget has risen from $4.66 billion to $4.91B as construction is behind schedule. The full extent of the fiasco is outlined here (well, at least through January 2022), but let’s just say there’s a history of delays, cost overruns, sinkholes, lawsuits, and malfunctions. It appears that those running the project also failed to take into account that it snows in winter. Sigh.

In case you think it’s strictly an issue with the incompetence of Canadian governments or transportation projects:

• The government Phoenix project, aimed at modernizing the federal government’s payroll system, was estimated to cost $310 million. It is now estimated to have cost $5 billion. Oopsie!

• In the UK, the HS2 High-Speed Rail Project, initially estimated to cost £32 billion, is now expected to cost £100 billion due to major delays, management inefficiencies, and budget mismanagement.

• And lest we leave out the US, the California High-Speed Rail project, also known as the “bullet train,” was initially approved by voters in 2008. The goal was to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. The original budget for the entire system was estimated at around $40 billion, and the initial completion date was targeted for 2020. The project has faced numerous delays and cost overruns, and the most recent cost estimate for Phase 1 (just phase 1!!!) has ballooned to $126 billion. This is more than triple the original budget. The initial operating segment, a 171-mile section from Merced to Bakersfield, is now expected to be completed mid- to late-2030s, possibly ~2040.

The California project is perhaps the most relevant to this discussion, as California and Canada have similar populations (around 40 million people) although California’s GDP is higher ($4.048 trillion USD vs. $2.2 trillion – thank you, Justin Trudeau!). Why anyone would believe that it will cost Californian taxpayers $126 billion USD to link two cities 171 miles apart, but the Canadian government can link 6 cities over 500 miles for” just” $90 billion CND ($65.1 billion USD), is beyond me.

Share

My advice to taxpayers? Expect the initial cost, once approved, to be significantly higher. Then double or triple the estimate. Consider yourself lucky if that’s the final cost.

My guess is $1 Trillion before it’s done.

In the immortal words of Happy Gilmore, “the price is wrong, bitch!”

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

So much so, I began to feel sorry for those who had not found it. Not because they had not found love in their life, but because of how rancid and toxic the current landscape of dating truly is. The muck that these poor single people must wade through...

I believe from a generational standpoint, many, many would be hard-pressed to disagree. The ways we seek love, the ways in which we find true connection, true loyalty, seem to be fraught with many obstacles; cultural divides cut across random hearts with the slice of a hot blade; politics divide, certainly.

Men and women are more skeptical of each other. Marriage and children have certainly lost their appeal as well. Monogamy, now, is not a given—but must be a conversation. Where the one partner model may have been taken for granted, as obvious, is now another divide—no, I don’t want a partner to share with another, one must say outrightly, at the risk of sounding selfish or prude.

It is not one thing or the other, but a modernized world that pokes at our insecurities, reveals a mirror to our flaws, broadcasts the highlights of other’s lives, from the financial to the romantic, for us to compare, to cringe, to congratulate, or to turn green with envy. No doubt, the online world is largely responsible. But we have also been irresponsible. We have allowed the techno-gadgets to rule us, in many facets of our lives.

Back to the muck I mentioned earlier—the muck of effort, the wading through the many waters of disappointment, false starts, the newly minted term of ghosting—not exactly new in human history, but common enough now, to be a named phenomenon, and indelibly connected to the landscape of romantic entanglement.

The date that was confirmed did not show. The date that seemed interested, made plans, a date and a time, a place to be, only leaving you to be all dressed up with nowhere to go. Now, to start swiping left or right, to try again—and to go through all the same rigamarole with another stranger, having to, needing to, explain yourself again from the very start, with the hopes that this time, they will at least show up when they said they would.

Yes, I was lucky to avoid this for as long as I could. But after the collapse of five years of marriage, I find myself doing all that I said I would never have to do again. I am “on the apps”—swiping away, looking for connection, and looking for love to share.

And this recent introduction into that world has left me drained, daunted, and somewhat horrified. The ease with which others make plans is equal to the ease with which they are therefore dismissed. Human connection is everywhere and nowhere. We dismiss each other as nothing—you can always window shop another partner online.

With each new profile picture, with each new summary, comes a daydream. Everybody is looking for love, everyone appears open, everyone is smiling, everyone appears to be a part of the same daydream. Swipe left, the daydream bursts, swipe right, and the daydream of this person lingers—just long enough to visit the next smile, the next mirage, the next daydream to keep you swiping.

And inside this daydream of online love and dating apps, is a labyrinth of tools to keep you swiping, keep you entertained, keep you coming back. And if you really want to find love online, don’t expect it for free.

Among this labyrinth, I mention is a bevvy of coins, tickets, upgrades, virtual roses to send, and super likes to pay for. The apps are not shy. You want top billing? Pay us. You want your messages actually sent, pay us. The algorithms are geared so much towards profit, it makes you wonder if they wouldn’t purposefully sabotage any attempt at finding a viable partner for the sake of keeping you around.

For context, I begrudgingly downloaded a dating app. And then another. These are well-known apps, and I am sure you have likely heard of them. I dutifully filled out the minutiae and put my best pictures up for consideration. I am open to many a rendezvous—a casual stroll through the park, a beer at a bar, even a more formal date. You cannot ask for much, just the opportunity to talk to someone new.

I have been on these apps for four months—not a single match. Not one. I swipe, I send casual messages, I smile in my photos, I have passion, etc, etc. But I have not paid. And the algorithmic consequences for that are loud and clear.

On the second app, I have actually seen some traction. Apparently, some women are somewhat interested, enough to swipe right on me, and enough to match. But after filling out the profile, dutifully reading what potential partners have to say about themselves, and putting yourself out there, you are hit wth a bill—yes, the app is marketed as free, but the connection requires a credit card.

The faces of my matches are blurred; to see them, in this app I mention, costs $24.99 for the week, $ 48.99 for the month, $315 for the year, or, if you are feeling truly down and out, $479 for a lifetime of use. I find that to be a hard sell—why would I pay for a lifetime supply of an app, I hope to delete for love?

This fee is not levied up front, but expressed purposefully in the thick of pursuit—in the thick of finding out who your matches are, precisely when a lonely heart is at its most vulnerable, and that promise of finding your soulmate (their words, not mine), is just a credit card number away.

Share

I now find myself in that same position that I once considered unthinkable, unenviable, impossible. It feels pathetic. It feels desperate. It feels cheap because it is.

This model is unsustainable, and we would likely be better off without the promises, the coins, the upgrades, the subscriptions when seeking something that is so much more than those things.

This is nothing but predatory behavior on the part of those who so openly and casually promise love, and we should reject it.

I am all in for love, but I want to swipe left on the whole goddamn enterprise. Where connection requires a credit card, I will be on the other side of that.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Share

Oh ya, he was arguably the world’s wrongest man.

You see Ehrlich also wrote the bestseller The Population Bomb (1968) which predicted worldwide famines due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals. Here is one example of his foresight:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

His ability to be wrong was not limited to his bestseller as he proved in a speech in 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” He also predicted that the U.S. would be rationing water by 1974, and food by 1980, that smog in L.A. and New York would cause some 200,000 deaths per year and that Americans born after World War II wouldn’t live past 50.

Oopsie. There’s no harm in being wrong though, right?

Except Ehrlich’s predictions helped usher in the “Zero Population Growth” movement in the U.S which contributed to a significant decline in the U.S. fertility rate from 3.4 in the early 1960s to 1.8 by 1975. It has also been accused of leading to millions of sterilizations in China, India, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and elsewhere.

So, in a way, you can thank Ehrlich for all the “we need illegal immigrants” argument. Fortunately for us, no less than the “Old Gray Lady” stepped up to set the record straight.

Wait, what? “Premature?” I don’t think that’s a synonym for “wrong,” is it? Where have I heard this sort of apologetic, fawning type of excuse for being wrong before? Oh ya, here is Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher commenting on Trotsky being wrong about... well, everything: “Proof of Trotsky’s farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet.”

Wow! He saw so far into the future that not enough time has passed for any of his predictions to come true yet. Bravo! Chef’s kiss.

“Premature” is the word environmentalists use for “wrong” because the latter word is so... final.

“Premature” allows environmentalists to remain hopeful that eventually “hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” Keep the dream alive, comrades! Sadly, Ehrlich will not be around to say, “I told you so.” Neither will any of us, for that matter, because he’s wrong. However, his death does leave us with a big hole to fill. Specifically...

Who is the new World’s Wrongest Person?

I have a few nominations:

• Al Gore, who claimed:

  • By 2016 “there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”

  • In 2007 he stated that the North Polar ice cap “could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study… warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

  • December 2009 Copenhagen speech: “Some of the models suggest… there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

• Greta Thunberg has claimed:

  • On June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

Let’s not limit this to environmentalists:

• Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winning economist):

  • Wrote that by around 2005, the internet’s impact on the economy would be no greater than the fax machine.

  • On election night in 2016, he suggested markets might never recover from a Trump victory.

• Donald Trump:

  • “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

  • “Over the next couple of years, I think we’ll … be cutting income tax — could be almost completely cutting it, because the money we’re taking in is going to be so large… It’s so enormous that you’re not going to have income tax to pay.”

  • “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country, and you see it happening already.

  • Note: Ya, ya, I just pissed off all the Trumpites. Deal with it.

I think that there is a very good chance that the AI doomers and AI utopians are making predictions so wrong that they may will make Ehrlich’s mistakes look minor. Sadly, we will have to wait a few years to see if they or I am correct. I’m pulling for the utopians.

Share

Some will argue that I should include Anthony Fauci on this list because he was wrong about COVID in so many ways. However, he wasn’t terrible at predictions so much as lying to cover up his involvement in what was obviously a lab leak.

Note: I’m not opposed to awarding this to an organization, so The Club of Rome, for example might be in the running for the title.

Who do you think deserves Ehrlich’s title? Make your nominations in the comments below.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

As the train glides down its narrow tracks, just inches from the coast, the sunset, the ocean, the expanse of land and sea brim with a natural, diamond-like sheen. The ocean reflects glimmering light, as though the rays were sourced from just below its surface, percolating and dancing in vivid synchronization. The entirety of Big Sur and the California coast cannot be seen, but felt—the window of the train car is massive, and even the roof of the car is tiled in glass—look up, and you see the clear blue sky, while the faintest of clouds drift lazily in and out of your view.

I know how I sound—a bit romantic, a bit tender in the description of what could be almost any train ride, going to and from almost anywhere near water. But to romanticize the occasion, to find solace and poetry in the journey before me, is precisely the point.

The interior of the car, that is, the Amtrak Coastal Starlight, which runs North/South from Seattle all the way down to Los Angeles, is not romantic. It has the appeal of a very nice jail cell. The silver doors that connect each of the cars at both ends creak and crack when they move, and slam shut with the permanence of prison bars. Like prison bars, at some point, I am told, you do get used to the clang.

Also, everywhere in the car, there is metal—metal floors, metal seats, the predictable high-pitched squeal of metal slicing and scraping as the undercarriage trudges along its pathway. The bathrooms, too, are all metal, and the toilet is stainless steel—even in the bathroom, the anonymous, efficient style of the prison cell could double as the motif. Everything is old. Everything is cruddy, rickety, loud, and vibrating. But within this unavoidable ruckus, these hard edges, there is a noticeable calm.

It is just past sunset on the Coastal Starlight’s journey. The lights have been slightly dimmed in the car, and has per habit, I have no intention on returning to my assigned seat—some veterans of the Amtrak system like me prefer to spend the entire trip at the restaurant style booths of the viewing car. The viewing car is a communal area, with large open windows and where people come to sit and to gather, have a snack, and take in the beauty of the American landscape.

But if you were me, you plant yourself in the booth, with scattered papers and notepads all strewn about. Too, there are remnants of cocktails and snacks that I have hardly finished, empty cups, wrappers, etc. To indulge the prison motif once again, I would appear as an inmate who seemed to be here long before anyone else, and whose journey will continue long after you have arrived at your destination. And it’s probably true, as my journey began in Los Angeles, and will not end until Portland, Oregon—a 29-hour train ride. Fine by me, as I just so happen to have a lot on my mind. But on every journey I have ever taken by train, I find this to be the case.

For the length of any journey, there is that calm I mentioned. The train glides cooly through the air—speeds up a bit at times, it seems, slows down in more dense, crowded areas. The rattling of the cars is not as intrusive as it may seem at first; in fact, the constant hum and rattle can provide a cushion to dampen even the most jittery of nerves, the thoughts with the sharpest edges. This does not prevent rumination, but allows for it.

Most of the debacles of my life involve a sudden, intense exit. When the carpet is ripped out from beneath me, I usually find myself on a train. Outbound from San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, and Folsom, I have racked up dozens of these journeys. And every trip, there is an exit and a return—a return to the self, to the quiet, to the ever-changing landscape that drifts by each window pane. Within every window pane, an exit, every window pane, an entry.

To take to the land and sea by train is not only a cause for celebration, but a reacquaintance with the self—a new self, an evolving self—a self that is shedding its skin right there in the viewing cart. In the chaos of our lives, and the general madness of these ever-passing years, we owe it to ourselves to seek out moments of solace, of rumination, for our own therapeutic need, our own respite from the day to day. Day to day—those days we refer to that are often so lost, they cease to distinguish themselves from one another.

Share

Indistinguishable too, is each hour of the ride. The hours melt into one another; the morning into the afternoon, the evening into the night, etc. With this evolution, the destination closer, epiphanies, dialogues, regrets, tenderness, and even anger are churned and mashed and inspected over.

When the thoughts are heavy and too much, you become grateful for the view. When you reach an epiphany about your current plight or curiosity, it is followed by either laughter or sobbing—the kind of sobbing that one attempts to fight, with no use, when in public. These revelations are done within the beauty and magnificence of the American landscape. The land cradles you in this way, provides a space to absorb any steam, any bubbling frustration.

The modern train ride through America is not the industry it once was—but it is an important one, at least to me.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I live in a high-rise, and I work from home. I’ll be honest with you; there are days when I don’t get out of my pajamas until my noon workout. And why not? I’m not going anywhere. What’s the harm?

On occasion, I’ve even considered taking the trash down to the basement in my PJs. But I don’t. Why? Two reasons: I’m not that lazy, and I have some self-respect.

If you’ve ever been... well outside, you’ll know that this view is not universal. At some point, I don’t know when, people, mostly women as far as I can tell, decided that wearing pajamas outside was acceptable. Not a quick run outside to get the mail either, we’re talking about going to the store and, God help us, getting on an airplane.

This trend once again came to my attention with this tweet.

The discussion that followed was absurd.

Caption: Pajamas are meant for warehouse activities? Is OSHA aware of this?

Caption: Now wearing pajamas in public is a political statement?

I do not wish to turn this into a political debate, so I will resist the temptation to ask, “is there any type of bad behavior that the Left won’t defend?”

Caption: Why are you asking me?

I’ll stop yelling at clouds when they start acting their age... uh... or something like that.

Instead of talking about how dressing well is a sign of fascism – but what isn’t? – I’ll turn to the comment that I think encapsulates the issue:

If it isn’t shameful to wear pajamas outside, how can taking a picture of people doing this be worthy of criticism?

The answer is, because deep down, even people defending the practice know that it’s worthy of scorn. The only acceptable reason for wearing pajamas outside is that you’re a child going to a drive-in movie – yes, I’m that old - or your house is on fire.

Which brings us to my point – yes, it took a while to get here. I hope you enjoyed the journey – social norms matter and shame is a useful tool for enforcing them.

If you post a picture of me sitting on a bench reading a book, I’m going to wonder why you don’t have something better to do.

If you post a picture of me at a store while I’m wearing pajamas, I’m going to be embarrassed. Or at least I should. Which is why...

Shame is good.

Or at least it serves a useful purpose.

Somewhere in all the “don’t fat-shame me” rhetoric and efforts to “destigmatize” drug use, “sex work,” polyamory, and pornography, we’ve lost sight of that.

Tolerance is good. To a point. We must remember that what you tolerate, you perpetuate.

The concept of “the slippery slope,” while much derided, is obvious to anyone who’s been alive longer than 10 minutes.

The world won’t end because some people don’t know how to dress like adults. However, there’s a reason that we find ourselves here, and there’s no reason to think it won’t get worse if we permit it.

There is some indication that people are getting fed up with people who don’t understand the concept of public spaces and the type of behavior that isn’t permitted.

Recently, United Airlines stated that it plans to boot passengers who refuse to use headphones on planes. It’s a good first step, but we need to do more.

“See something, say something.”

“See something, say something” was meant to prevent terrorism but has expanded well beyond that to include workplace safety, sexual violence, and a myriad of other activities.

Could we extend it to “bad behavior?”

Officially? Probably not. There are no fashion police to report to, and if there were, they’d probably look something like this:

No, we’re better off handling this ourselves. What I’m proposing is more old school. Dirty looks and scorn. Let’s bring back shame. And ridicule.

Keep posting those pictures online. If we embarrass the guilty parties enough, maybe they’ll decide that the 30 seconds they save by avoiding adult clothes isn’t worth it.

Be careful, though. The last thing you want is to be filmed getting in a fight with someone wearing pajamas at Costco.

After all, how would that look?

Share

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Trump stated, This afternoon, I want to discuss how we have achieved this economic miracle, how we intend to raise living standards for our citizens to levels never seen before, and perhaps how you, too, in the places where you come from, can do much better following what we’re doing. Because certain areas in Europe are not even recognizable, frankly, anymore — not in a positive way. I love Europe, and I want to see it succeed, but it’s not heading in the right direction.

In recent decades, the conventional wisdom was that growing Western economies required increasing government spending, unchecked mass migration, and endless imports. The consensus was that so-called dirty jobs should be sent elsewhere, the Green New Scam should replace affordable energy, and countries could be propped up by importing new populations from faraway lands.

Trump’s speech followed that of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who urged the “Middle Powers” to unite and take on the major powers. He asserted that the middle powers had been naive, thinking that as long as they were compliant with the US, all would be well. But now, the major powers have discarded fairness and are exploiting power for their own benefit.

He stated, “It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry — that the rules-based international order is fading, that ‘the strong do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”

Carney refuses to recognize Trump’s main point, that the “rules-based order” is fading because it has corrupted itself. Trump, in using the term “certain areas of Europe are not recognizable,” describes the neoliberal/globalist failure of the continent. Carney and his cronies from the EU have created a right/wrong scenario based on their definition of right. Anyone who opposes neoliberalism is dangerous and must be stopped.

The traditional West has been transforming Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union and the formation of the EU. But the EU has not lived up to its billing and has become a bloated bureaucracy that stands in the way of its member states’ decision-making. Rules for all have subverted the operations of each member. Britain and France, as two prime examples, can’t go back. Each has a single global metroplex that acts as its international source of money and power.

The neoliberals who operate there are embedded in the international elite club, which pursues the ideal of global government. The “new elites” have replaced the old bourgeoisie. They define themselves by education, mobility, and cultural openness rather than property or industry. They dominate media, politics, universities, and NGOs, shaping norms and policy. Meanwhile, citizens who do not live in London or Paris are not given the same opportunities. The upper classes call for equality, but their own citizens are being ignored.

Immigration policy and multicultural discourse are managed at the city level, but the social and economic strains are often felt more intensely in peripheral areas with fewer resources. Urban professionals have replaced the traditional working-class base of left-wing parties. The left now represents the cultural values of cities rather than workers’ material interests. Peripheral citizens still vote, but they no longer feel represented. This produces distrust of institutions and rising support for outsider movements.

Populism is a rational response to government failure, as seen in movements like the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) and Brexit, and in predictable reactions from people who feel abandoned by a system run for metropolitan interests. Unfortunately for Europe, there is no populist political power like that exercised by Trump.

Its populist parties operate from the right because the left controls the neoliberal juggernaut. The establishment attacks those parties as being authoritarian and dangerous. In other words, “Don’t let them acquire power, or it’s Hitler time again.” In Germany, the populist wave is being driven by the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, or Alternative for Germany). The globalists in Germany attribute its rise in popularity to the ignorance in the former East Germany (where it was founded) and Russian disinformation. The AfD has been labeled as an extremist party by the government, which means its activities are being closely monitored.

Other European countries have populist movements.

In France, the National Rally (Rassemblement National) is a nationalist, anti‑immigration, and Eurosceptic (opposed to the EU) party. La France Insoumise is a left‑wing populist party focused on economic reform and anti‑neoliberalism.

In Italy, the Brothers of Italy & Lega is nationalist, security‑focused, and skeptical of EU policy: Italexit advocates for leaving the EU and eurozone.

In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom (PVV) is a Nationalist, anti-immigration, and Eurosceptic party.

In Spain, Vox is nationalist, anti‑immigration, and culturally conservative.

In the United Kingdom, Reform UK is nationalist, anti‑elite, and immigration‑focused.

In Canada, there is growing dissatisfaction over issues specific to that country. These include regional grievances (West vs. Ottawa), policy and bureaucratic matters, and economic/material complaints. Alberta is about to hold a referendum on separating from Canada. As of now, they are collecting signatures to put the referendum on this year’s ballot.

Given the tide they’re fighting against, the right-wing parties in Europe do not have, and may never have, the power to effect change. Part of their problem is their form of government. Some political theorists tout the parliamentary system because it is used in Europe, and they consider it superior.

Share

They argue that there is no separation between the executive and the legislature, which means less gridlock. In a parliamentary system, the executive (the Prime Minister and cabinet) is drawn from the legislature. The government only exists as long as it has majority support in parliament. If it loses support, it falls and is replaced.

Those systems are incompatible with populist movements. Since the executive in a parliamentary system is drawn from the legislature, the prime minister is part of the establishment rather than an outsider. There will never be a populist prime minister because the parties would never allow it.

The American system allows a populist to be elected directly by the people. That has enabled us to reject the neoliberal/globalist ideology that is destroying Europe.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Humans will continue to imbibe, whatever the state of their affairs, whatever their plight or joy, victory or defeat. Keeping that in mind, here are a few reminders to keep in mind when drinking. The list is a practical guide and is by no means exhaustive. If you care to add one in the comments, for the sake of the readers, please do. These notes come from almost two decades behind the bar as a bartender and a drinker myself.

Quality Over Quantity

Within the world of booze, there is many a hierarchy. And while bad products can be dressed up as good, and expensive products may not be what they claim, a notion I would ask a drinker to consider is to evaluate the quality of alcohol they are drinking.

Cheap liquor can often contain ingredients that are used to mimic flavor, added suagrs, etc., which can lead to worse hangovers. But they can also contribute to a cavalier attitude to consumption. When we drink cheaply, we disregard the dangers of alcohol, and often drink too much of it, with no financial reminder. A drinker may go through many glasses of the cheap stuff without thinking about it. Whereas if they were paying for the good stuff, they may think twice about that second or third round. If you drink something you respect and can therefore savor, you may end up drinking less and being more responsible about your consumption.

Your Plan To Stop In For A Quick One

The old adage a cold one, or stopping in for a quick one is flung with noticeable ease, but is often betrayed by those very same legs stumbling in the moonlight, hiccuping like a stoned hyena. The first alcoholic beverage often destroys enough inhibition and discipline to shatter any resistance to a second. And then the second gives to the third, and so on. We often tell ourselves we will only have one, but this is a lie. Better to be honest about your intentions with yourself, or commit yourself to a night of abstinence.

Alcohol May Crystallize Your Emotions, Not Liberate You From Them

We often drink to avoid our individual plight, and on many occasions, this self-defense is rewarded by ease of laughter, comorodary and flirtation. However, this solution is temporary, and is not foolproof, even in the immediate. It is the drinker’s job to know when the blues he suffers from are light and can be drowned out by social distraction, and when the stress is too heavy, and is engaging in suffer-drinking. That is, drinking designed to intensify those feelings of anguish. This instinct may be counterintuitive, as it is betraying; however, it can be articulated, recognized, and therefore defended against.

Alcohol Free Days And Breaks

To drink at all, the drinker must also do a good bit of not drinking. It is crucial for the liver to recover, the brain and body to rest, and to clear the fog. No matter how little you consume, dedicating certain days and evenings to not drinking provides a good buffer for preventing overconsumption.

Limit Your Decisions

In a perfect world, no one would show up at any gathering with things to do the next day, possess a clear mind, and have no worries about themselves. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and its corollary is often the reason for drinking to begin with. Still, even with that knowledge, it is up to the drinker to be at ease with the world and the immediate environment around them, and not be under the pressure of any immediate decision-making. It is best, before any drinking session, to limit your responsibilities to one: to be driven home and enter bed safely.

Drink Water

For every cocktail, simply drink a glass of water. It is the simplest thing you can do to fill your belly, take a break from the alcohol, and take inventory of where you are in your current drinking session. Oftentimes, drinkers will need something in their hand so as to not feel naked at the gathering. Ordering a glass of water solves both of the issues; One, a grave mistake when overdone, the second, a mild nuisance. Soda water and lime can be a refreshing sip, so much so that you may forget it is alcohol free.

Look For Low Alcohol Alternatives

Low alcohol and even alcohol-free beverages are more common than ever. As the trend towards sobriety continues upward, more and more bars feature these offerings. They range from alcohol-free beers and liquors to mocktails made with fresh juices and tinctures. A variety of base liquors can also be substituted. An Old Fashion, for example, Amaro or a sipping vermouth can be used in place of the heavier bourbon. This may prevent overdrinking and allow one to ease into the evening at a mellower pace.

Commit Your Mistakes To Memory

If one chooses to imbibe at all, one will likely fall into the pitfalls of alcohol overconsumption. For many, this can happen in the more clumsy teenage years of underage drinking, or can appear as the hangovers of adulthood become all too spicy and normalized. It is best to take note of these pitfalls, however personal or universal, and internalize them.

Share

Drink Slowly

While many of the tips here are designed to slow down the alcohol intake to the body’s manageable pace, drinking slowly in and of itself is a reliable strategy and demands its own mention. Physically taking in the alcohol slowly, in small quantities, with slightly piecred lips is the what I mean here. The drink, if respected, can be an experience. But in order to take it in fully, one must have patience, or be hit over the head all at once. Savor each sip, and you’ll enjoy your experience more thoughtfully, intentionally, and with more grace.

Keep Your Belly Full

Similar to drinking water, the drinker must line their stomach with something to soak up the booze and prevent an oversaturation of alcohol, sitting on the lining of an empty stomach. Eating a good meal will also defend against drinking hungry, aid in drinking more slowly, and prevent situations where one may be more irritable and more vulnerable to mood swings, outbursts, and negative emotions while imbibing.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
- Damon Ruynon

Unless it’s ice dancing, in which case, I don’t know, bet on whoever has the most glitter or successfully bribed the French judge.
- Me

Mainly, I wanted Canada to win hockey gold, and they didn’t, and that’s the way it goes sometimes.

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
- Ecclesiastes 9:11

TLDR: you can’t win them all.

Losing is tough. Losing to people who don’t know how to win graciously is far worse.

In retrospect, I probably should have taken a week off social media as I know most Americans know how to win graciously. Online is another world. That said, I was surprised by reactions from some people I thought had more character.

Of course, I fully expected Trump to weigh in. He has some good qualities, but class is not one of them.

There’s nothing I can do about the game. It’s in the past, and I don’t have a time machine, so I can’t change the outcome.

I do have AI, though, so I beat up George Washington.

And kicked a bald eagle.

I feel a little better now. The Times They Are A-Changin’.

Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.
- Edgar Allen Poe

That was rather a long intro to get to my point, but here it is: if you follow Poe’s advice today, you’re hopelessly gullible.

The truth is, you probably can’t believe anything you see online anymore. At least not without giving it some thought.

Shortly after Canada came back to beat the Czechs in the semi-final, this image appeared online showing the Czechs had too many men on the ice when they scored their third goal.

My first thought was, “is it AI? Could the coaches, players, announcers, and refs all have missed this?”

It turned out to be real, but my doubt brought to light an important question: how can we believe anything we see online?

The answer is, we can’t.

Up until about 5 minutes ago, the default response to a pic in the news was to assume it was real. In fact, it would never have crossed anyone’s mind to consider the alternative.

Those days are over.

We are approaching a time when nothing seen online can or should be trusted. The burden of proof will be on the poster.

Ok, some things are obviously fake. Trump did not play on Team USA.

Nor did he participate in ice dancing.

But these are ridiculous images. (Almost) No one would believe either.

The real danger is when deepfake videos show politicians saying things they’ve never said.

Don’t believe me? Just listen to what President Obama had to say on the topic.

Or an AI video of Jordan Peel pretending to be Obama as was the case.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
- Joseph Heller

Getting people to believe what they want to believe is easy. Getting them to pay attention less so. It’s the perfect recipe for government abuse.

Step 1: Identify a problem.

Step 2: “Solve” the problem by taking more power.

Does anyone really believe the government wouldn’t make the following little change?

Step 1: Create the problem.

In this case, the problem is misinformation, and the solution is speech restrictions.

Share

And before you start pointing fingers, this is a bipartisan issue.

• The Biden administration worked with social media platforms to curb the spread of COVID-19 “misinformation.”

• The Trump administration engaged with social media companies to address what they described as “immigration misinformation.”

As it becomes easier to create believable deep fakes, solutions to address the problem will arise. Organizations will step up to help citizens identify what is real and what isn’t. However, we’re not there yet. Where we are is a place where it is far too easy for people with a little time and less money to pull the wool over the eyes of the unwary.

Am I being paranoid?

Maybe.

However, my philosophy is to distrust the government.

Always.

With that in mind, I think a little paranoia would serve us well.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

“A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. It is only such a free press that can temper the appetite of any government to amass power at the expense of the citizen.”

-- Nelson Mandela

In August of 2013, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, bought the Washington Post for $250 million dollars. Since that time, the Post has seen its subscriber base decline from approximately 470,000 weekday to less than 100,000, resulting in losses of $177 million over 2023-2024.

As a private company, the next steps were entirely predictable; the paper announced layoffs of approximately 300 employees, or about one-third of the newsroom. The response to the layoffs was equally predictable. Journalists responded with the sense of entitlement and self-importance that we’ve all grown used to:

Emmanuel Felton (Race and Ethnicity Reporter): “This wasn’t a financial decision, it was an ideological one.”

Note: Felton’s X bio states that he is the post’s “first and last race and ethnicity reporter.” No doubt the world will suffer from this loss.

Sam Fortier (Sports Feature Writer): “I am part of the mass layoffs at the Washington Post. I am sad and angry. We all want to keep doing the work. But for now, I want to document a reality of being in journalism today.”

Note: Not to be mean, journalism? You’re in the sports department. I can get real-time sports online for free. Or – stay with me – from Substack.

Note 2: There should be a comma after “now.” It wasn’t just “reporters” who complained:

Washington Post Guild Statement: “Management has framed these decisions as unavoidable, but they are the result of choices. Choosing to cut staff instead of recommitting to the people who produce The Post’s journalism is a failure of leadership and vision.”

Marty Baron (Former Executive Editor): “This ranks among the darkest days in the history of one of the world’s greatest news organizations.”

Critics pointed out that, given Bezos’s net worth of approximately $250 billion, he could have easily covered the losses if he chose to.

Critics also reported that “at least 14 climate journalists” were among the cuts, leaving only “five writers/reporters left on its climate desk.” This raises important questions:

1. There were 19 climate journalists!?!

2. There are still 5 climate journalists!?!

3. How many climate journalists does it take to look out a window?

Karma is a bitch!

Getting laid off sucks. I know. It happened to me. Of course, that was before social media, so I couldn’t go online and complain that the company laid me off because “we can’t afford to pay you to sit around and do nothing.”

Note: that is a direct quote. In my defense, I had little to do because I’d spent the last 6 months fixing all their IT problems caused by not having had an IT person. Still, it was their money and their call. I got another job. They went out of business. Karma is a bitch.

If you’re an ex-Post reporter who’s just been laid off, complain away; unlike you, I believe you have a right to free speech. However, understand why it happened.

The landscape is changing. This isn’t 1950. Or ’60. Or even 2000. It’s 2026, and the number of people waiting by their door for the Post to report on news that happened 3 days ago is dwindling.

Adapt or die!

Of course, the Post’s problems are broader than this. The Post’s biggest problem is that it was force-feeding its readers, preaching rather than reporting: A sample of recent headlines from “one of the world’s greatest news organizations” is revealing:

• “Do transgender athletes have an edge? I sure don’t.” (April 1, 2015)

• “I’m a black climate expert. Racism derails our efforts to save the planet.” (2020)

• “COP26 panel discusses how girls are disproportionately affected by climate change” (November 2021)

• Pregnant people at much higher risk of breakthrough COVID, study shows” (March 2022)

• “Can the women’s movement be as effective without the word ‘women’?” (May 5, 2022)

• From Umoja, Kenya, to India, climate change has led to domestic violence” (January 3, 2023)

In case you think a lot has changed since 2023, here are some cutting-edge articles from this month:

• “Climate change is making the Winter Olympics harder to host” (February 2026)

You suck! Pay me!

Highlighting the absurdity of many of the stories that the Post has published over the years does not mean that it doesn’t do important work. It does, however, show that cutting some jobs won’t kill the paper.

Nor will it necessarily result in “democracy dying in the dark.” I’m pretty sure democracy can survive the loss of this:

I’m also confident that the paper will find a way to make do with “only” five climate reporters. Honestly, given the headlines, I could probably run the department from my office working part-time. Here’s my first headline:

“Are polar bears thriving despite climate change because of their problematic ‘whiteness?’”

The criticism directed at Bezos is equally absurd. While it is true that Bezos could easily absorb the losses of the Post, why would he, given that many of these “journalists” hate him. Asking him to save their jobs recalls this comic:

“Democracy dies in darkness” is meant to remind us of the importance of government transparency and the press’s role in ensuring it.

However, when the press fails to do its job, it doesn’t shine a light on events so much as parrot the government’s desired narrative and distract with irrelevancies. This is what we’ve experienced over the last decade: the media serving the government rather than the people.

If the press won’t shine a light on the government, then we need others to shine a light on the press. Organizations like AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) have made progress in this space.

However, sometimes shining a light is not enough. Cockroaches scatter in the light, but they always find a place to hide. Sometimes the only solution is to fumigate. That’s what Bezos just did, and he shouldn’t be criticized for it; he should be praised.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.

Also, a ‘like’ really helps the Substack algorithm find us. And we’d be most grateful if you would share this piece to help the Substack grow.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

MARGE: He’s a good boy now, and he’s getting better, and sometimes even the best sheep stray from the flock and need to be hugged extra hard.

HOMER: That’s exactly the kind of crapola that’s lousing him up.

This exchange came to mind again earlier this week when I came across this National Post article:

The main point is that “Indigenous women and girls are killed at rates six times higher than non-Indigenous women — yet the perpetrators are frequently convicted of lesser offences than those guilty in the deaths of non-Indigenous victims.”

Some related facts:

• 46% of cases where the victim was indigenous end in a finding of manslaughter versus 24% of cases involving non-indigenous victims.

• Only 25% of those accused in the deaths of Indigenous women faced charges of first-degree murder, while in cases with non-Indigenous female victims, first-degree murder charges were laid 37% of the time.

• 16% of killings or suspicious deaths of Indigenous women in the last seven years are unsolved, a rate four percentage points higher than for non-Indigenous cases.

• Indigenous people are over-represented in the Canadian justice system compared to their share of the population, as both victims and accused.

  

Conclusion…

Do you really need me to tell you?

Fine.

It’s racism.

“When you look systemically … [Indigenous women’s] lives and their health and their safety are not valued as highly.” - Michael Spratt, an Ottawa criminal defense lawyer for 20 years.

Case closed!

Move along.

Nothing to see here!

Oh, hell, let’s dig a little deeper anyway. I’m sure more data will just support the racism argument.

Thanks, “Marge”

“Ann Maje Raider, executive director of the Liard Aboriginal Women’s Society in the Yukon, says a perception of greater leniency in the justice system around the deaths of Indigenous women is making the problem worse. (Perpetrators) know they’re not going to get anything, and the reason is that the justice institution has failed us.”

Outrageous!

How could this possibly be the case?

Is there any data in the article that could shine some light on this?

• 97% of female Indigenous victims whose outcomes were known were killed by someone they knew, a rate seven percentage points higher than for non-Indigenous cases.

So what? Knowing the accused should have zero impact on sentencing, right?

Well, there is one “minor” point left out of the article entirely:

• Between 2009 and 2021, most solved homicides of Indigenous women and girls involved an accused person who was also Indigenous. About 86% of cases where there was an identified accused involved an Indigenous person as the alleged perpetrator.

Once again, you might think, “so what? It’s not like we’re letting indigenous offenders or easy, right?”

Right?

Uh… except we are.

Gladue principles are a set of sentencing guidelines in Canadian criminal law that require judges to consider the unique systemic and background circumstances of Indigenous offenders when determining an appropriate sentence. They stem directly from section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which states:

all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

This provision was added in 1996 to help address the severe over-representation of Indigenous people in Canada’s prisons—a problem the Supreme Court has repeatedly described as a crisis resulting from colonialism, systemic discrimination, and intergenerational trauma.

This also explains why:

• Of the accused in Indigenous cases whose previous history was available to reporters, 94% had red flags in their past, such as arrests and convictions, contact with child services, or significant mental health issues.

Perpetrators of the murders of indigenous women are getting lighter sentences because most of them are indigenous. Before you say “wait, this certainly can’t apply to violent crimes,” it does:

In R. v. Ipeelee (2012), the Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened the Gladue principles, addressing inconsistent or limited application in lower courts. Important points include:

• Gladue analysis must be applied in every case involving an Indigenous offender—no exceptions for serious or violent crimes.

• There is no requirement to prove a direct causal link (nexus) between the offender’s background factors and the specific offence; the connection is often complex and systemic.

• Judges play a front-line role in addressing Indigenous over-incarceration.

In short, Canada is giving lighter sentences to indigenous criminals because of “systematic racism.” Since at least 86% of homicides of Indigenous women and girls are committed by indigenous men, racism might not be (read: isn’t) the reason “perpetrators are frequently convicted of lesser offences than those guilty in the deaths of non-Indigenous victims.”

Criminals aren’t getting light sentences because the victims are indigenous; they’re getting light sentences because they themselves are indigenous.

This is the entirely predictable outcome of progressive approaches to crime:

• Falsely blame racism for a problem.

• Attempt to solve racism.

• Create a new problem.

• “Rinse and repeat.”

If you want indigenous victims of murder to receive “justice” send the perpetrators of the crimes to jail. If you want there to be less indigenous people in jail, tell them to stop committing crimes.

Share

The problem with the “Marge approach” to justice is that it invariably finds a way to excuse the actions of criminals. There’s always some “systematic” reason why a criminal is not responsible for their actions and the choices they make. The “Marge approach” to law and order might best be summed up like this:

Marge: You broke the law?

Accused: Ya

Marge: Well, I’m sure there’s a reason why it’s not your fault so we should go easy on you.

The problem is that you’ve created a system in which victims do not receive justice.

If we want to fix the problem, we need to go back to the “Homer” approach:

Homer: You broke the law?

Accused: Ya

Homer: You’re going to jail. For a long time.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Sitting at my writing desk in Portland, Oregon, here, in the now, and looking out my window, there is a row of houses that sit directly across the street. Their architecture is distinctly American, and they are enveloped by an inexplicable ray of sunshine—around this time in Portland, one usually expects grayish, silvery days with winds that cut, and a balm that makes you shiver. I can vaguely recall weather this cold. It was here, right here in Portland, right before I left for Brazil. That was five years ago, almost to the day.

The day here is inching towards golden hour, it’s around 4 in the afternoon. Back in Brazil, it is around 10pm and I assume my wife may be in our apartment getting ready for bed, or reading, or doing god knows what. I have no idea, truthfully. I don’t keep up with her much these days—she’s finally decided on a divorce, and so we will do the paperwork and dissolve the marriage by proxy. Well, no problem there. I have not heard her voice since the very last night at the airport, all the way back in early November. That’s life!

The question has often come since my arrival back in America—what have I brought back with me? What have I imported?

Brazil, in its sun-drenched charm, is a bit of a fever dream. I pluck memories from within it that are so old, I even remembered them long ago while still there. As if the whole of it were a book, my mind is strangely drawn to the early days, the story’s earliest chapters. I remember how door knobs turned and felt in my hand, how the air smelled when the day was surely headed for a downpour, the gliding and striping of fresh paint for a new home, for a new life, in a new country, with a wife I had newly married. Well, some things just don’t last as long as you think they will.

What have I brought back with me? What have I imported?

I could not count the former selves I must have woven through in that open country. From the countryside, where nothing at all seems to have been built, and plenty of smiling faces, to the harsh São Paulo reality—where there is hardly room for anything more, and a smile from anyone is largely received with suspicion. Still, in these many selves, is the love of my wife, and too, her former selves and all their weaving as well. São Paulo and its streets, which are menacing and shadowy, had the means to cut through a marriage—any crack would be stressed to its fatal breaking point, its final conclusion.

The layers of that big green country are tattooed upon my spirit, let’s say. The state of Minas Gerais has a big hand in that. In Minas, it is as though everyone should spend their life outside in the heat, right out in the sun. That quite suited me then. Even having lived a decade in California, I don’t believe I have ever seen so much sun or felt so much heat pounding down from such a gigantic sky.

Everywhere there is a lesson. Everywhere one looks there is a former self that has withered and died. And so there is a crepiscule, something like a museum you make for yourself, in order to preserve what is perhaps only a carcass, whose lessons and trials have been exported and blasted unto the surface of another life, a whole new set of circumstances, whose new appeals wain and waver at every step forward—and still there is celebration.

Still, there is no cause to worry or break. There is nothing to break. Nothing that can shake you anymore than you already have been shaken. Fear comes on, but is shaken off with a grin. Fear is something silly—at least in this chapter—while you ruminate on your current condition. The novelty of your situation is a necessary buffer, which gives birth to a new ambition, a new will to live a new life, a new understanding of all that and no understanding of what it entails.

Share

And what do we import from experiences that cause us to think in these terms? I could not think like this, nor write like this everyday if I tried. I have no need to think this densely on anything, no real desire to do it. What do we import from a land, a land which has returned to a state of fiction, a fantasy, that is to say a memory?

So, that big green country cradled me for a bit. Nurtured me for a while. I must be grateful for that, for a marriage, for the love that came and went. I can bring back with me a feast of emotions. I have yet to put them to use. They crowd around me, they come and they go as new memories take their place. I am racking up new memories here in Portland as I speak. I have imported little of myself yet. But if nothing, there is growth and movement, chaos and endurance, love and gratitude. I will write to Brazil again, I am sure. But for now I say muito obrigado!

I have every intention of returning.

Até a próxima

JSV
2026

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.