Letters: Hey Jordan Peterson — lay off the boomers this election

While I agree with most things Jordan Peterson writes, as a boomer I am a wee bit insulted by the fact that he lumps us all together as unconcerned old people who long for the old days.

The only days I long for are in the future. The old days were just that. They are done, never to return, and I for one am thinking only of the future for me, my husband, our children and grandchildren. I am sorry that Peterson thinks all old people are so uninformed about politics that they would consider voting for Mark Carney.

My husband and I are Conservatives. Always have been, always will be. We wish Pierre Poilievre all the luck and strength it will take to win the upcoming election and turn Canada into the great country it is meant to be. My hope is that any boomers who usually vote for the Liberals will see the error of their ways and do the right thing for this country.

So, yes, Mr. Peterson, I am voting to secure the futures of our whole family.

Valerie Boyd, Woodbridge, Ont.

The NDP debased themselves to the Liberals in the past Parliament to the point where they became de facto Liberals, indistinguishable from the Liberal Party of Canada. Look at what it’s got them.

Keith Brady, Empress, Alta.

The NDP are drowning in their own missteps and missed opportunities. The only way for their survival now is probably a change of leadership and a rebuild to introduce a fresh new party in the future. Perhaps even a new name. How about the NINDP (New and Improved NDP)?

As a former professional geoscientist who worked in a male-dominated world for my entire career, I do not consider myself a feminist but I do believe in equal opportunity for all. Canada has always been a place that rewards honesty, sincerity, hard work, experience and commitment in business, industry, academia etc. — in other words, a place where you can achieve your dreams regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Like columnist Amy Hamm, I am greatly disturbed by the constant Danielle Smith-bashing going on at all levels of federal politics in Canada. Smith is doing what she was elected to do — represent and defend the interests of Albertans in her role as elected premier of Alberta. It’s a job that she appears to be doing admirably and to the fullest extent of her abilities.

When former premiers Peter Lougheed and Ralph Klein did the same, standing up for Alberta and providing the resources needed for Alberta to withstand constant attacks from within our own “ federation,” they were hailed as heroes. When I see the top officials in our federation (premiers and prime minister-unelected, mind you) engage publicly in this kind of sport, especially when faced with a domestic economic crisis, not of our making, I think Hamm is right; when it comes to feminism, our leaders might talk the talk about equal opportunity for women but they don’t walk the walk.

As a woman who enjoyed working in a traditionally male environment and had the respect and support of all male colleagues throughout my career, I am saddened that in this day and age, this is not reflected in highest and most visible elements of our own government.

If Rex Murphy was still here, he would be saying exactly what I have just said but people would be listening! I hope they are listening to Amy Hamm, and that Danielle Smith gets the respect she deserves. She is doing what our male politicians are afraid to do, with dignity and the respect of Albertans.

As a committed member of the Conservative Party of Canada since 2011, I feel compelled to speak up as I watch history threaten to repeat itself. The recent tensions between Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s circle and Pierre Poilievre’s federal campaign are deeply troubling — and dangerously familiar.

Conservatives have been down this road before. In the 1990s, the right was fractured between the Reform (and Canadian Alliance) and the Progressive Conservatives. That split kept the Liberals in power for over a decade and crippled our ability to deliver real change for Canadians. The cost of division then was steep. It would be catastrophic now.

Canadians are desperate for competent leadership. They’re struggling with inflation, housing affordability, rising debt and a federal government that seems more concerned with identity politics and photo ops than with delivering results. There is a real opportunity for the Conservative party to earn a mandate for bold, necessary reforms — if, and only if, we are united.

Pierre Poilievre has galvanized millions by focusing on real issues — affordability, economic opportunity and restoring common sense. Whether or not every provincial Conservative agrees with his approach, now is the time to support the national campaign, not undermine it with backroom jabs or media-friendly infighting.

Doug Ford and others need to understand that this is bigger than any one strategist or premier. It’s about giving Canadians a credible, coherent alternative to the status quo. Undermining the federal party now only helps the Liberals — and alienates the very people we claim to represent.

We cannot afford to relive the politics of division. Conservatives must stand together — or risk falling apart, again.

Louis-Philippe Noël, Montmagny, Que.

Underneath that fresh coat of red paint the Liberal Party of Canada has put on the car, it is the same old jalopy that Canadians were happy to send to the junkyard only months ago.

Perhaps the only thing that has changed is that it steers even more left than before given the significant tinge of orange in all that red. We forget at our peril.

Andrew D. Weldon, Calgary

Sharon Kirkey’s report about a new Canadian guideline that recommends that, in addition to advice on diet and exercise, doctors consider offering weight-loss drugs to children as young as 12, was startling.

Having been an obese kid myself, I would like to protest the fact that many individuals’ problems are now considered to be the responsibility of the government. They are not. There is a degree of responsibility that must be assumed by both the individuals and their parents.

At the rate we are going, people will soon be expecting medical professionals to solve all their problems. This will exacerbate the need for more physicians and hospitals, neither of which we have.

Thanks to Jamie Sarkonak for her explication of Donald Trump’s predatory mindset — laid bare in White House economic adviser Stephen Miran’s grievance logic justifying tariffs — because it is a master class in how a bully claims victimhood to absolve his abuse of others. Miran and Trump’s twisted logic — that cheating by others forced America to be cruel — is transparently absurd. Its pitifulness would be funny if it didn’t inflict so much economic pain on the world. The injustice is glaring: America, already reaping outsized rewards, demands even more through tariffs, cheating the global system by expecting returns it doesn’t deserve.

In theory, their argument might sound convincing, but in practice, it fails. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs flopped. They didn’t set America free to grow deservedly richer; instead, they backfired in the markets, where merit decides outcomes. The U.S. mislabelled its tariffs as “reciprocal,” but the targeted nations didn’t line up to kiss Trump’s hand as he claimed — they retaliated. The blowback made America poorer. Investors lost trillions, and soon, spiking costs and rising economic strain will hit American wallets hardest.

Unfortunately for the world, win-win isn’t Trump’s predatory style — his is a zero-sum game where others must lose everything. This economic crime stings deeper when the top dog claims victimhood. The exploiters cry that they’re the exploited, all while tariffs squeeze poorer nations and distort global markets, disproportionately harming developing economies reliant on exports.

Canada is right not to negotiate with a tariff terrorist like Trump, a man who is clearly not true to his word.

The CBC was established in 1936 to counterbalance American radio and push Canadian identity. With today’s social media and podcasts, that reasoning no longer exists. In actual fact, without the CBC, the Liberal party could no longer rely on its tax-funded propaganda machine. That is why Liberal Leader Mark Carney is doing everything possible to preserve the CBC forever.

Chris Shelley’s column covered the issue of the continued existence of dairy and poultry supply management in Canada. What was missing, and what I and I would imagine a number of Canadians would like to know, is exactly what leverage the dairy lobby has over our political leadership.

Selley notes the small numbers of dairy, poultry and egg farm workers, however he doesn’t indicate how that group is able to exert such overwhelming influence on political decision-making regarding their industries.

Canadians deserve to know how this ridiculously unacceptable situation — which is hampering our trade status and causing all of us to pay more than necessary — is permitted to continue.

“Operation Fear,” which was Mark Carney’s campaign against Brexit (Britain leaving the EU) while governor of the Bank of England, describes to a “T” the electoral strategy used by the Liberals after Justin Trudeau’s team abandoned its original “Sunny Ways” approach.

Since then, Operation Fear has been their campaign standard, first the fear of Premier Doug Ford (2019) and then the fear of COVID (2020). This time it’s a fear of U.S. President Donald Trump that is the focus of their campaign. The only good thing about it is that the Liberals don’t have to run as strong a fear campaign against Premier Danielle Smith and Alberta, which they can keep in their back pocket for another time.

John L. Riley, Mono, Ont.

Re: When ‘being clever’ crowds out the joy of the game — Dave Sheinin, April 7 (print)

In his article about baseball analytics, Dave Sheinin credits American Bill James as being the “godfather of sabermetrics” in baseball in the late 1970s. He did not mention that a Canadian, Dr. George Lindsey, was the real pioneer. Lindsey was the Chief of Operational Research and Analysis Establishment at the Department of National Defence. He had worked in radar in WW2, was a member of the Order of Canada and had a PhD in nuclear physics.

In 1963, he published “An Investigation of Strategies in Baseball” in the journal Operations Research, which followed other works. Globe and Mail journalist Sandra Martin noted in an obituary for Dr. Lindsey that “Sportswriter Alan Schwarz called Lindsey the Darwin of the Diamond for his painstaking compilation of baseball statistics.” An obituary in the Ottawa Citizen referred to him as the “’father’ of baseball statistics.”

His data source was his father, Col. Charles Lindsey, who after his retirement followed baseball frequently on TV and the radio and in newspapers, filling out thousands of detailed forms covering almost 1,800 games, along with George himself. Lindsey, on weekends, transcribed these into computers. He analyzed every detail such as intentional walks, base stealing or substituting a batter or pitcher of opposite handedness. He quantified how values of these managerial decisions changed by inning. He evaluated an expected number of runs matrix that is now central to sabermetrics. He proved that good baseball managers were often scoring in the high 90 percentiles in their decision making.

His work was shared with the Montreal Expos, who gave him free seasons passes to all games. Lindsey’s contribution to baseball was only eventually acknowledged. A book, “The Selected Works of George R. Lindsey,” is available from the University of Toronto Press.

His wife June Lindsey (née Broomhead) was similarly overlooked. Her PhD dissertation at the Cavendish Labs at Cambridge significantly aided James Watson to recognize the double helix structure of DNA, for which he and Francis Crick received the 1962 Nobel Prize. Her work was only referenced in a later paper.

National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (200 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email [email protected]. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.