One Step Closer…

Picture the scene.

It’s Friday evening, I just got home from a long week at work and I’m sitting on my couch with my feet up, reading the daily paper. I had already glanced through the headlines earlier and read the ‘big’ news items. Reality Catches Up With Spitzer, Sacrifice to Afghanistan Extended til 2011 and Tragic Explosion at Local Car Dealership, when I come across 4 column inches on page A5.

It seems that another province has decided to try and sue Big Tobacco, this time in the name of “people whose health has been harmed by tobacco products, families who have lost loved ones to tobacco-related illness and taxpayers who have borne the added costs to the health-care system.”(bold mine)

This last part is what frightens me. It sets a precedent that the government can go back to the producers of goods and hold them responsible for the health care costs of willing, non-coerced consumers who used their products. Who is next? Keith’s & Captain Morgan? Coke & Pepsi? Mr. Christie and my Mom?

There is another level to this government meddling. It sets the framework to follow in Britain’s footsteps down the road of heath care rationing. If individual citizens are defying the government decrees that certain acts and products could be harmful to their health, then they get no ‘free’ treatment of their health issues.

That is bad enough, but lets take this a step further.

The government has proof that you have made poor health choices. Say during some routine blood-work your blood was tested, without your knowledge, for nicotine and trans-fats, and the results were positive. The next week you get a registered letter from the ‘Ministry of Health’ with an itemized bill for health care procedures they say you needed due to your poor choices. At the bottom of the bill it says if you don’t pay in 30 days the government will sue you for the costs, in the name of your neighbors who paid for the procedures.

I know it sounds far fetched right now, but with the rising costs of health care in this province, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Nova Scotia jumping on this bandwagon shortly. And then it is a slippery slope down to a socialist democracy, where individual rights are only upheld if they have no real or perceived negative impact on society.

Why we should remember.

I wrote this one to post on my Facebook page, Sunday, Nov 11, 2007. I tagged my grandfather as a person in this note.

I like to think that all of those soldiers, living and dead, did not sacrifice their lives for us. But that they made a choice, in full consciousness, to place their love of freedom ahead of their personal safety.

I like to think that these courageous soldiers made the decision that they would rather die than live in a world controlled by evil and then went out to do their best to stop their worst fear from happening.

I like to think that if people of today stopped thinking of the veteran’s courage as a sacrifice and saw it for what it truly is; Man responding to the highest values possible, love for his self, his family and friends and his freedom, they would be able to celebrate this day in a manner proper to that of remembering fallen heroes. Instead of feeling a vague guilt that these men and women died for us so many years ago, people would feel a sense of gratitude to those who had the courage to follow their convictions to their own end; to those who had the honour to put their lives in the path of a horrible spreading evil; to those who had the ability to see that the only way to have a world of happiness, justice and peace is to fight evil to the death, where ever it shows it’s ugly face.

I like to think, as I take my own personal time to remember those who put their lives into defence of this great country, where we are free to make our own choices of who and what and when to remember, that if it were necessary, I would be able to make the kind of choice my grandfather made and put my body in the path of evil for the defence of freedom.

Letter to the Editor Oct 20, 2007

I can’t stand hearing people whining about the government not taking care of them well enough.

Every time I read a paper or watch the news there is a socialist agenda being promoted.

Throw away soldiers lives and billions of dollars into a desert half the world away in the name of democracy building.

Take away Nurses right to strike and make them slaves to the sick.

Give more money to the “needy” and make them more dependant on Big Mother.

Dump more money into schools and continue indoctrinating rather than educating.

Steal people’s land to widen a road that everyone pays for and a small percentage use.

Ban smoking in private cars when children are present to “save” them from their uncaring parents.

We need to open our eyes here and see that very soon government regulations will invade even further into our private lives. Next we will see legislation permitting only licensed, non-smoking, non-drinking couples to have children.

We need a shake up. A person or group to stand up to the government and take back our rights. A political party founded on the unalienable rights of an individual to decide what is best for themselves and the idea that the government’s only job is to safeguard the power of force in society.

No right to live?

This is a letter to the editor I wrote Thursday, Apr 26, 2007

I have come to the conclusion that Kenneth Taylor should adopt a diet and lifestyle strictly adhering to his principle that he does not “have the right to kill any living creature of any species for whatever reason.”

I will, however, miss reading his asinine moral pronunciations after he succumbs to self-inflicted starvation. After all, plants are living creatures too.

The ability to come to any conclusion after questioning a theory and thinking rationally is what makes humans special. As individual rational animals, our own individual lives should be most important, not the life of every rodent, insect and vegetable.

What Kenneth has concluded is not that we have “No right to kill”, but that we have no right to live.

I emphatically disagree.

* I wrote that as a letter to the editor in response to this letter;

No right to kill

After much thought, I came to the conclusion that I must Adopt a vegan diet and lifestyle to the best of my ability. As a human, I do not believe I have the right to kill a living creature of any species for whatever reason.
What is so special about humans that gives us an attitude of superiority and domination over other species? I concluded that other species are equally important as us humans.
They are entitled to life, kindness and respect – as are we humans.
Kenneth Taylor
Halifax

Letter to the Editor April 3rd 2007

David Rhodenhiser is so close to naming the problem and hence the solution.

It’s not a lack of civic pride that is the problem.

It is a lack of accountability for an individuals actions and expressions.

From all sides we are bombarded with the message not to judge people:

• Multiculturalism teaches that all cultures and their ideas about life are equal.
• Christianity teaches to ‘love the sinner and not the sin’, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
• The public school system teaches that you don’t have to be able to do the work to pass a grade.
• The prevailing social theory dictates that the criminals are a product of their environment and cannot be held accountable for their actions.
• The government teaches that you don’t have to be responsible for up your life, if you need welfare, health care, education or any number of other ‘essentials’ they will give it to you and make someone else pay.

This all filters down to people, young people in particular, not feeling any need to make responsible choices. Why would they when there is someone there to pick up their slack and fix their mistakes.

The solution is not just to “stand up and say what behaviour is unacceptable… again and again…”

The solution is a philosophical shift that will take generations to achieve. Politicians, parents, business leaders, educators and journalists need to start holding themselves and others accountable for their actions.

The article I am responding to :
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=20626&sc=157

Innocent Civilians

I wrote this a while ago, but it seems that this issue is always at hand.

As the Israeli – Hezbollah conflict continues, there is much outrage concerning the climbing number of innocent civilian casualties. Blame is being placed, mostly on Israel, for a “disproportionate response” to the terrorists continued attacks.

Lets look at some facts of the situation;

1) Hezbollah is a democratically elected part of the Lebanese government. They have 13 seats in parliament and hold 2 cabinet positions. This shows that there is popular support by the civilian population for Hezbollah’s actions.

2) Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and has repeatedly launched unprovoked random attacks against Israeli citizens. Even after Israel voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon, following UN Security Council’s resolution 425, Hezbollah’s militia continued with the terror attacks.

3) UN Security Council resolution 1559 “Calls for the disbanding and disarming of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” and “calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council.” This was in 2004 and so far the Lebanese government has not even tried to disarm Hezbollah’s terrorist army.

4) Hezbollah terrorists intentionally hide behind the Lebanese civilian population. They use civilian infrastructure to launch attacks and store weapons, they have used UN ‘ambulances’ as troop transports and have non-uniformed personnel launch rocket attacks from suburban areas. Both are obscene violations of the Geneva Convention.

So, who is responsible for the carnage in Lebanon?

Hezbollah, all their ‘innocent civilian’ supporters and complicity the Lebanese government and all the innocent civilians who did not stand up to the thugs in their own country and demand that they cease and desist their disgusting actions.

Israel has the moral right and obligation as a free country to use all available means available to defend themselves against a terrorist organization launching unprovoked attacks against truly innocent civilians.

Now tell me. Who is guilty of a disproportionate response?

And for all you people who still don’t get it, an analogy.

A burglar breaks into you home in the middle of the night, vandalizes your property, attacks your children and threatens to kill your whole family with a knife. You have a loaded gun and shoot him.

Is this a disproportionate response?

No, it is self-defence and it is the morally correct response.

August 2^nd 2006