Monday, April 25, 2005

London pesticides!



June 15, 2006



I, for one, do not welcome our new insect overlords, June 13, 2006
London city council last night voted 13-6 in favour a ban on the residential use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. The outcome of the vote could not really have been said to have ever been in doubt. Once the jurisdiction over private property and private interests had been settled in favour of municipal governments, the exercise of that jurisdiction has been almost entirely at the discretion of the city, a discretion that yields more easily and more often to temptation than to forbearance.
Just imagine, London, June 13, 2006
...The vehicle which conveys away the demons may be of various kinds. A common one is a little ship or boat. Thus, in the south-western part of the province of Ontario, in the city of London, when a whole community suffers from the pains of hypochondria, a small ship is made and filled with canned food, water, enough social assistance cheques and lottery tickets to provide a dignified life, and so forth, along with several canisters of a substance chosen by the wise men of the city to represent sickness, doom, and the tribe's curious, self-destructive sense of shame about Man's dominion over nature.
On pest removal in council chambers…, June 12, 2006
Arthur Majoor, candidate for Mayor of London in November's municipal election:

"Tonight's City Council vote on a pesticide bylaw is a further example of how time and energy is being diverted from core issues which are the true business of municipal government."
These pests have developed a resistance…, June 11, 2006
In anticipation of a close vote on Monday on London's proposed pesticide bylaw, the anti-pesticide activist lobby is again reminding council again that while prohibition is not really suggested with evidence or reason, it is more convenient to treat the issue as a simple one of perception.
June 11, 2006


The Luddite road to riches, May 9, 2006
One of the great Canadian values is a failure to understand the fallacy of the broken window. But seldom does this appear in such pure form as in this letter to the editor from today's London Free Press. Lawn firms should pick weeds by hand
Imagine London soon to seek dihydrogen monoxide ban, April 27, 2006
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Impoverish London, April 27, 2006
According to the London Free Press, mayor Anne Marie DeCicco and some members of city council are trying to pre-empt a perceived vulnerability on the subject of pesticides bans with a proposed law of their own before the upcoming November election, in response to Imagine London making it the centerpiece of their latest public incarnation as a municipal power-broker.
Divide & Rule, April 19, 2006
I have previously referred to Imagine London, the activist group behind the division and redistricting of London's seven two-councillor wards into fourteen smaller single-councillor wards, as Imagineering London. In truth, organizations may spend as much vigour and passion on promoting democratic reform, as their public calling card says, but an organization that confuses electoral systems with democracy is engaged, not in the resolution of the source of authority in government, but in its apportionment — in other words, in a task of political engineering of government.
Pest infestation, April 2, 2006
London city council took the first step last night toward a bylaw controlling cosmetic use of pesticides by 2008.
London Central Authority, March 21, 2006
For those unsuspecting adults who do not sell permanent markers or spray paint, simply imagined crimes will be attributed to each and every one of you. To that vocal minority that imagines that something must be done and troubles not over questions of the imperative, the something, the doing, or the doer, something will always continue to must be done until it is done — after which, of course, they can move on to the next something that must be done. That's right — sooner or later, London will have a pesticide ban.
If ya don't have yer bylaw, ya can't have any pudding!
How can ya have any pudding if ya don't have yer bylaw?
, February 22, 2006
To many, existence is apparently unconscionably precarious in the absence of a law or regulation.
The problem with pesticides is that they are not ambitious enough, February 14, 2006
Freedom is not a participant in any battle against tyranny. Tyranny exists materially in the use of force. Freedom, on the other hand, has no substantive form — freedom is literally nothing, the simple absence of tyranny. So far as a battle between the two can be described, it is a battle that cannot be won by the absence of one participant. And so, to those who value the imposition of obligations on others, something that has not yet been done will always remain something to be done.
Pests, February 9, 2006
What does the fashionable activist aspiring to regulate and restrain peoples' peaceful pursuits of happiness do these days if prohibition is not suggested with evidence or reason? When leaving the decision up to the sound-managerial-practice dirigiste fantasies of city council fails, he needs only to substitute his lack of argument with massaging councillors' democratic neediness to be perceived to be governing by consent.
The London Coalition Against Pesticides — sanctimony beats reality, November 23, 2005
Politics is the art of compromise, it is said, but what use is a compromise between right and wrong to anyone but politicians? Nothing is being done now, but don't regard this as any more than a temporary reprieve — council agreed to leave the issue with the environment and transportation committee for next year, when amateur authoritarians will try to get council to wield the hammer again.
Somebody needs to invent a pesticide that works on these kinds of pests, November 18, 2005
Of course they applaud — the moral authority of their activism is now theirs by default, acclaimed by the force of legislation instead of by promoting its merits.
You can't follow council without a programme, September 27, 2005
At a glance, council's economy with policing resources on this issue may seem an instance of doing the right thing for the assorted right or wrong reasons. And I was amused by the bone tossed to the prohibition crowd in the form of public advocacy education, an always popular precursor to more disciplinary measures once the citizenry fails to govern itself in the prescribed fashions as well as a testament to council's inability to do nothing at all, indifferent to its competence. But it takes a bylaw to forbear already permitted usage?
Only five more years of closed door meetings before council makes a decision, April 25, 2005
I doubt it took them this long to make a decision regarding the smoking ban and they surely didn't care about jobs when they decided in favour of it.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like lawn-care professionals (and there seem to be plenty in London) need to adapt or become extinct. There is room for some leadership here and plenty of money to be spent on good-quality horticultural services. (Ever been to Vancouver?)

On the other hand, the idea that it's OK to poison the groundwater and give the neighbour's dg cancer just to kill a few dandelions really needs to change.

Anonymous said...

Since local governments can now change federal laws as with federally approved and provincially regulated pesticides, I propose that we ignore other federal laws. How about the GST? No more GST to be paid in London Ontario Canada. Oh, and nobody from London Ontario will go to Afghanistan.