Tumbler Ridge - Pain and Prevention

                                            CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

I've been contemplating the whole Tumbler Ridge situation. Such a tragic event—one doesn't quite know how to digest it. One wants to examine the situation and try to find causation. What drives a young person to engage in such a violent act? Where did they come up with the intellectual capacity to conceive this act? And what should we do to prevent it from happening in the future?

A wise man once said, “One should avoid giving voice to what causes oneself pain.” While this may be debatable on a personal level, I think it holds firmly true on a societal level. I think the degree of attention given to the events by the press may be feeding the beast. It is my perception that the people committing these hideous acts of violence are looking for their 15 minutes of infamy. The widespread dissemination of every detail of the event serves to both inspire and inform future actions of the disgruntled and/or resentful perpetrators.

Firearm Legislation - Open Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

It is a lot to expect that media contemplate proportionality, particularly when they have a carnal combination of political motivation, clickbait (a readily triggered negativity bias)—the combination of which drives even a coddled media toward increased viewership. The tragedy in Tumbler Ridge requires attention, just the correct attention. By contrast, every day in recent years in British Columbia, several people—including some youth—have died of drug overdoses. Where’s the outrage? In recent reports, thousands of Canadians have died while on medical waitlists—where’s the outrage? Estimates vary; a recent National Post article held that preventable medical errors and delays contribute to many thousands of deaths each year—where’s the outrage?

The people of Tumbler Ridge deserve to be cared for; no parent should ever have to witness the violent end of their child. The press attention is unhelpful. Political leaders going to Tumbler Ridge is a good thing; making a display of it on national television is unnecessary and unhelpful. The press’s role in a democratic society is to inform in a manner that drives a narrative consistent with reality. When the press sensationalizes events like Tumbler Ridge in a way that generates fundamental attribution errors, over time society’s map of reality becomes distorted.

I fear that we have fed a contagion with this outburst of attention to this event—but assuming I am wrong—we still have to face the likelihood of this occurring again. The Tumbler Ridge RCMP’s response was excellent: two minutes from the first report of shots fired to their presence on the scene is remarkable—faster than the national average for such events. The RCMP have no means to stop an event like this from occurring in the future. The only way for events like these to be prevented or at least mitigated is to empower people on the site to respond. So, safe rooms that double for other uses—a safe place for a teacher to lock themselves in with the children. We should also consider training school personnel to be able to respond to such an event. My neighbour is a janitor in our local school district; he is an avid hunter and sport shooter—if asked to volunteer to be trained by the RCMP on how to respond to an event like this, he would answer the call. I know several teachers of the same ilk who would be honoured to answer this call. The largest gap in our response to civil order is the appropriate empowerment of the citizenry—with the citizenry actuated properly, we have “a bobby on every corner.”

 

Rank	Cause of Death	Approximate Rate (per 100,000)	Notes / Number of Deaths (2023)
1	Malignant neoplasms (Cancer)	~211 (crude) / 176 (age-std)	84,629 deaths
2	Diseases of heart	~144 (crude) / 118 (age-std)	57,890 deaths
3	Accidents (unintentional injuries)	~51	20,597 deaths
4	Cerebrovascular diseases (Stroke)	~34 / 28 (age-std)	13,833 deaths
5	Chronic lower respiratory diseases	~32	12,994 deaths
6	COVID-19	~20–30 (variable)	Included in top 10 (declining)
7	Diabetes mellitus	~15–19 / 15 (age-std)	~7,300 deaths (approx.)
8	Influenza and pneumonia	~15–20	Included in top 10
9	Alzheimer's disease	~10–11 / 10 (age-std)	Included in top 10
10	Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis	~10–15	Included in top 10
11	Gun homicides (firearm-related homicides)	0.72	289 incidents (not in top 10; a small fraction compared to leading causes, e.g., ~300x lower than cancer)

 

 

Mr. Carney, being offensive is unhelpful in Canada - US relations.

 

                                    CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In analyzing Mr. Carney's actions over the course of the last few days, one wonders if he isn't gleeful at the decline and fall of the Western world order. He seems rather eager to embrace it. He also seemed quite willing to reference the "new world order" at his meeting in China. He then intimated that we might take up arms against our longtime ally in the form of the United States—a proposition that seems to me to be nearly delusional. It certainly is in practical military terms; it's just bad in business terms when you’re about to renegotiate a trade agreement.

I take a dim view of anyone that's willing to walk away from the most prosperous relationship in human history. Canada, having been the US's neighbour, has enjoyed a standard of living that is at the pinnacle of human existence. The US hegemony has effected unparalleled increases in living standards the world over. It's foolhardy in the extreme to bite that hand, in any way, shape, or form. Are we running through a rough patch with the US right now? We are. But we should be careful not to conflate the entire United States with one administration. I dislike the damage the present US trading policy is doing to world trade generally and to Canada. There are many in the United States who were happy with Canada’s favoured status; they may be less likely to come to our aid if our leader indicates that we would actually be willing at some point to take up arms against their country. At least we can take some comfort in the fact that the present US administration repeatedly seeks to effect peace, speaks of peace, sets up a UN-sanctioned Peace Board, and constantly refers to the horrible loss of life in human conflict—no threat of Article 5 from them or threat of violence against us.

Mr. Carney's assessment of the world's present trading circumstance is overly dire. Pessimism has had him head down the path of being destructive toward what was a grand arrangement for all. It's certainly the case that we need to diversify markets. It's also wise to seek friends in times of stress. The middle-power initiative as he went about it is likely seen as threatening to the established order. When they asked Mr. Trump about the China deal the first time, he said “that’s what Mark had to do” and expressed no hostility—after Mr. Carney’s Davos speech and Mr. Carney’s rhetoric around the Greenland issue, Mr. Trump’s tone changed. The rules-based trading environment is in no way gone; it's just challenged at this time—the WTO is there, the IMF is there, and the UN is there. Efforts should be made for the maintenance and enhancement of international institutions that have served us so well, as opposed to abandoning them.

The Greenland issue could have been handled better than to threaten the actuation of NATO’s Article 5. We have been partners in Arctic defence with the US for generations and we have had success. We should be eager to continue this relationship—or at a minimum avoid doing things to threaten it. Rather than taking such an offensive stance on the issue, we should have stepped up as an intermediary and attempted to broker an agreeable deal. We could have offered some of our territory for a location—Baffin Island or some other Arctic location. It is a very agreeable proposition to team up with the Scandinavian countries for Arctic security; it's foolhardy in the extreme to exclude or worse threaten conflict with our long-standing partner the US. The United States spends on its military around $850–900 billion (recent figures vary by source and fiscal year), an expenditure that exceeds all other countries in the world and an expenditure that has provided a security umbrella for Canada since the 1960s. The Scandinavian countries' total spending is far lower (in the tens of billions combined), while Canada spends around $40–55 billion (depending on the exact year and NATO definitions). The numbers and our shared history speak for themselves.

Reenforce friendships with “middle” powers? Yes. Diversify markets? Yes. Partner with Sweden on military procurement? Yes. Build a stronger relationship with Scandinavia? Yes. Offending the entire United States because you’re feeling “bullied” by one man? Stupid in the extreme.