Did you hear on the news last eve that a trucker, here in Ontario, has been fined $150 for smoking in his own truck? What nonsense.
The rationale put forward by big government (add intrusive) is that the truck is his "work place" and hence, he is forbidden to smoke in it. From what I know about big trucks is that they are also the trucker's home when on the road.
This is just one example, among countless, of governments invading the privacy of individuals when those governments get too big for their britches.
The other day I was walking past the local Legion when I noticed 4 - 5 older legionaires sitting on the main steps smoking. I took a moment and went up to them to commisserate on the fact that as veterans they are not even entitled to smoke in their own private club.
They agreed with me but voiced the opinion that there really isn't anything that they could do to change it. I didn't disagree, but told them that in my opinion the Royal Canadian Legion had let them down by not negotiating an exemption for Canada's veterans. They nodded their agreement and went on puffing away.
In the case of our veterans you have a history of our government handing our free cigarettes to our troops during war time and then making them available at very favourable prices throughtout their military service generally. Then when they are older and good and hooked on the weed, they make it illegal for them to enjoy a smoke in the comfort of their own premises. How low can one go?
And it is not due to the deleterious affect of second- hand smoke. Smoking rooms can now easily be equipped with proper ventilation. Rather it is once again due to Big Brother Government believing it knows best for its children - I mean citizens.
I remember at the start of the government's campaign to target smokers telling my wife Anne that the day will come when Big Macs will also come within their sights. I really thought to myself, it quite unlikely - but the day did come.
In my mind, it all started with seat belts and it has been down hill from that time forward.
More lately, government is looking to regulate the amount of salt in our diets. We'll soon have the Salt Police. Here in Ottawa, we are prohibited from cutting trees on our own property without a permit - a permit that requires an arborist's report. Herbicides to control weeds on our own lands are forbidden. Vasts tracts of property can be rendered worthless by various environmental designations with the land owner receiving no compensation but still expected to pay realty taxes on the useless property. The list goes on and on.
What will they target next? Alcohol? Probably. But when that's accomplished, there will be something else and then something else again.
This is all being done in the guise of Big Government protecting you, the helpless individual.
We have all heard of the 'bubble child" - the child who has so many allergies that he or she cannot leave their homes without being wrapped in some protective bubble. If we do not start to push back soon, the day will come when we all will be placed in bubbles by our government for our own protection of course.
A novel thought to leave you with - who is better placed to protect you, than you yourself.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
What are the Provinces Smoking?
Four of our Provinces have come out with law suits against the Tobacco Companies totalling billions of dollars for alleged costs to their health care systems due to cigarette smoking.
Ontario alone is seeking some $55 billion for smoking related illnesses dating back to the mid 1950s.
What hypocrites.
Not only have they known for several decades - and indeed we've all known - that cigarette smoking affects one's health, the Provinces have partnered in the tobacco trade by way of their horrendous tax levies. Ontario today is collecting over a billion dollars annually in tobacco taxes.
Plus the trade in tobacco is legal and it is the politicians who have allowed it to be so. Maybe they should be included in their own law suit writs.
Many I know have said they support the government in its efforts to squeeze money out of tobacco because smokers are a drain on the health care system. But are they?
A chap I used to work with - Del - was and probably to this day is a heavy smoker. He used to say to me that he, as a smoker, was deserving of a medal. First because of all the taxes he was paying for the privelege of smoking (i.e. he was overly supporting the tax regime) and Second, because of the nature of smokers' diseases, they died more quickly than most and thereby spared the system countless millions in lingering care.
He might be right. If you ask health care experts where the bulk of health care dollars are spent they readily admit it is on the elderly and their chronic conditions that can linger for years. By then, the smokers are long gone.
So maybe the Dels of this country do deserve a medal for their patriotic smoking.
But the Provinces do not deserve one penny in the efforts to extort money from their Tobacco partnership buddies.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Ontario alone is seeking some $55 billion for smoking related illnesses dating back to the mid 1950s.
What hypocrites.
Not only have they known for several decades - and indeed we've all known - that cigarette smoking affects one's health, the Provinces have partnered in the tobacco trade by way of their horrendous tax levies. Ontario today is collecting over a billion dollars annually in tobacco taxes.
Plus the trade in tobacco is legal and it is the politicians who have allowed it to be so. Maybe they should be included in their own law suit writs.
Many I know have said they support the government in its efforts to squeeze money out of tobacco because smokers are a drain on the health care system. But are they?
A chap I used to work with - Del - was and probably to this day is a heavy smoker. He used to say to me that he, as a smoker, was deserving of a medal. First because of all the taxes he was paying for the privelege of smoking (i.e. he was overly supporting the tax regime) and Second, because of the nature of smokers' diseases, they died more quickly than most and thereby spared the system countless millions in lingering care.
He might be right. If you ask health care experts where the bulk of health care dollars are spent they readily admit it is on the elderly and their chronic conditions that can linger for years. By then, the smokers are long gone.
So maybe the Dels of this country do deserve a medal for their patriotic smoking.
But the Provinces do not deserve one penny in the efforts to extort money from their Tobacco partnership buddies.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Results so far re the Libertarian Test
Approximate %:
40% Libertarian
40% Centrist
10% Liberal
10% Conservative
0% Statist (NDP)
If these per centages change signifcantly in the days ahead - I will let you know.
In the meantime, there are 2 questions under the Economic Section of the Test that I would like to comment on.
The First is the question that asks if government's role in welfare should be replaced by the private sector?
It is easy to see here that the Libertarians would hope for a 'yes' answer to this question - but they would be wrong. As I said in the very beginning of my Blog - what I am putting forward is the concept of 'Humane Libertarianism'. In other words, making help available for those truly in need. This is a responsibility of government and not the private sector. Indeed, all citizens are entitled to some very basics, things such as food, clothing, proper shelter and health care and this is the sole responsibility of a nation's government.
So my answer to that question was 'No'.
And, if Libertarianism is to take hold, here in Canada or the United States, the movement must get a firm handle on that very important issue.
The Second Question I would like to highlight is the one which asks if you support the concept of a 50% reduction in taxes and government spending. I answered in the affirmative.
From my 25 years in government I have come to the conclusion that upwards of 20 - 25% of the bureaucracy could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice. But that is not the main reason I believe a massive reduction in the size of government / amount of taxes is doable.
The main reason is twofold: first, government is trying to do way too much. For example - bailouts to business. Here I agree with former NDP Leaders David Lewis and Ed Broadbent when they stood against corporate welfare. It not only offends the principle of capitalism (i.e. propping up failures), it is unfair to those taxpaying competitor companies which do not share in the largesse.
Another example is government financial assistance for the Arts. If the private sector should not be involved in welfare - they should be involved in the arts. Government should not be.
Second, at least 50% of what Government does, can and should be done by the Private Sector. And, rather than look at what those areas are, let's consider the smaller list - the one that includes those areas government should concern itself with, including:
40% Libertarian
40% Centrist
10% Liberal
10% Conservative
0% Statist (NDP)
If these per centages change signifcantly in the days ahead - I will let you know.
In the meantime, there are 2 questions under the Economic Section of the Test that I would like to comment on.
The First is the question that asks if government's role in welfare should be replaced by the private sector?
It is easy to see here that the Libertarians would hope for a 'yes' answer to this question - but they would be wrong. As I said in the very beginning of my Blog - what I am putting forward is the concept of 'Humane Libertarianism'. In other words, making help available for those truly in need. This is a responsibility of government and not the private sector. Indeed, all citizens are entitled to some very basics, things such as food, clothing, proper shelter and health care and this is the sole responsibility of a nation's government.
So my answer to that question was 'No'.
And, if Libertarianism is to take hold, here in Canada or the United States, the movement must get a firm handle on that very important issue.
The Second Question I would like to highlight is the one which asks if you support the concept of a 50% reduction in taxes and government spending. I answered in the affirmative.
From my 25 years in government I have come to the conclusion that upwards of 20 - 25% of the bureaucracy could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice. But that is not the main reason I believe a massive reduction in the size of government / amount of taxes is doable.
The main reason is twofold: first, government is trying to do way too much. For example - bailouts to business. Here I agree with former NDP Leaders David Lewis and Ed Broadbent when they stood against corporate welfare. It not only offends the principle of capitalism (i.e. propping up failures), it is unfair to those taxpaying competitor companies which do not share in the largesse.
Another example is government financial assistance for the Arts. If the private sector should not be involved in welfare - they should be involved in the arts. Government should not be.
Second, at least 50% of what Government does, can and should be done by the Private Sector. And, rather than look at what those areas are, let's consider the smaller list - the one that includes those areas government should concern itself with, including:
- defence
- external affairs
- immigration
- police / fire
- welfare
- regulatory oversight of the private sector
I think if Libertarians can articulate these two positions to the public there may be hope for us yet. The alternative is one of bigger and bigger government and that is in no one's interest other than the bureaucracy it serves.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Saturday, October 3, 2009
A Very Short 'Libertarian' Test
I would encourage each of you to take the f0llowing test to determine whether or not you fit within the Libertarian spectrum.
My own score was 90% libertarian personally and 70% libertarian economically.
If you are agreeable, I would be interested in receiving your respective scores. Just use the e-mail reply function at the top of the Blog page.
"Galagher"
The test site - http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/
My own score was 90% libertarian personally and 70% libertarian economically.
If you are agreeable, I would be interested in receiving your respective scores. Just use the e-mail reply function at the top of the Blog page.
"Galagher"
The test site - http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/
Friday, October 2, 2009
Guest Author - Value of Real Money and Kids Today
Following is an e-mail I received earlier today from a life-long friend which I thought you would find interesting.
"Galagher"
"Galagher,
You and I are a couple of good old boys from Brighton. I feel that we both grew up in families that really understood not only the concept of money, but also the true value of money. What I mean by 'true value' is how it is earned and the means by which it is earned. This being Men and Women such as our parents and Ourselves going out working hard during tough times.
This made me think of the days our our youth when we would scour the ditches for empty pop bottles and take them to Bonisteel's little grocery to get our two cents or treats in return. The many of cold night we worked together after school or on Saturdays deliverying the Stedmans' flyers all over town for half a cent a flyer. We both knew and understood the idea and value of money. We had coins in our pockets and sometimes even bills in our wallets.
Sadly, this is not always true of kids today. Too often kids think that money is magical and comes from plastic cards, be it Visa or MC or even a Bank Debit Card. They see their parents pulling out these plastic cards and getting merchandise without any actual currency changing hands. They are not being taught the importance of having actual funds in their own pockets or wallets, nor do kids today really grasp the value of the services or the merchandise their parents are buying. Kids simply do not get it. It is magic for them; they never see the items actually being paid for by real money.
I have often wondered why when I purchase something, the young student at the cash does not count my change when handing it to me. This simply does not happen in today's society with kids working in the various retail outlets. It is due to the fact that they are ignorant (not their fault) as to how to count change. Schools and retailers do not teach them that, plus they do not completely understand what cash in hand is. The older cashiers still count the money back for the most part since they have been trained and they understand it.
Linda and I got into a discussion today on this very subject and we both agree with an article that was in the paper early this week. This article basically said what I have just said, Kids today do not know, grasp or understand how money is earned. The cashless society and all those credit / debit cards are taking away a vital knowledge from our children.
Thank god, we grew up in the age when we did."
Thank you John.
P.S. John mentioned Bonisteel's grocery. It brought back a memory to me. Right beside their grocery store was a pop bottling works. They would throw out, back of their building, damaged pop bottles - i.e. ones they believed could no longer be refilled. As kids we would scour through those 'damaged' bottles and pick out the ones that were least 'damaged'. And then it was off to Bonisteel's to cash them in for 'real' money. I have wondered how many times some of those damaged bottles got recycled due to our efforts. G
"Galagher"
"Galagher,
You and I are a couple of good old boys from Brighton. I feel that we both grew up in families that really understood not only the concept of money, but also the true value of money. What I mean by 'true value' is how it is earned and the means by which it is earned. This being Men and Women such as our parents and Ourselves going out working hard during tough times.
This made me think of the days our our youth when we would scour the ditches for empty pop bottles and take them to Bonisteel's little grocery to get our two cents or treats in return. The many of cold night we worked together after school or on Saturdays deliverying the Stedmans' flyers all over town for half a cent a flyer. We both knew and understood the idea and value of money. We had coins in our pockets and sometimes even bills in our wallets.
Sadly, this is not always true of kids today. Too often kids think that money is magical and comes from plastic cards, be it Visa or MC or even a Bank Debit Card. They see their parents pulling out these plastic cards and getting merchandise without any actual currency changing hands. They are not being taught the importance of having actual funds in their own pockets or wallets, nor do kids today really grasp the value of the services or the merchandise their parents are buying. Kids simply do not get it. It is magic for them; they never see the items actually being paid for by real money.
I have often wondered why when I purchase something, the young student at the cash does not count my change when handing it to me. This simply does not happen in today's society with kids working in the various retail outlets. It is due to the fact that they are ignorant (not their fault) as to how to count change. Schools and retailers do not teach them that, plus they do not completely understand what cash in hand is. The older cashiers still count the money back for the most part since they have been trained and they understand it.
Linda and I got into a discussion today on this very subject and we both agree with an article that was in the paper early this week. This article basically said what I have just said, Kids today do not know, grasp or understand how money is earned. The cashless society and all those credit / debit cards are taking away a vital knowledge from our children.
Thank god, we grew up in the age when we did."
Thank you John.
P.S. John mentioned Bonisteel's grocery. It brought back a memory to me. Right beside their grocery store was a pop bottling works. They would throw out, back of their building, damaged pop bottles - i.e. ones they believed could no longer be refilled. As kids we would scour through those 'damaged' bottles and pick out the ones that were least 'damaged'. And then it was off to Bonisteel's to cash them in for 'real' money. I have wondered how many times some of those damaged bottles got recycled due to our efforts. G
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Ignatieff Will Say Anything
Just after completing the Blog about Quebec's Representation in Parliament, I read where our esteemed Leader of the Opposition also believes that Quebec is being grossly short changed when it comes to the receipt of infrastructure monies.
If true, it would be a first, since Quebec has proven itself to be rather adept at acquiring its share and more whenever federal money was to be handed out.
In fact, it is not true and Ignatieff is well aware of that.
He sees his dream of becoming Prime Minister quickly fading away and he has now shown that he will do anything - including lying - to try to keep his dream alive.
But it is worse than lying. It is once again an attempt by one of our politicians to seek to divide Quebec from the Rest of Canada for his own petty political purposes. In a real sense, such politicians are prepared to gamble the future of our country, for their short term gain.
Too many Quebecers have grown up hearing from their leaders how the Rest of Canada has short changed them in Confederation. They are too ready to believe the Leader of Her Majesty's Government when he says that once again they are not receiving their fair share. I saw Bloc Leader Duceppe on television last eve and he was smiling.
As an aside, several years ago I flew into Jonquiere and during the taxi ride in the driver, noticed that I was English, and apologized to me that they would soon be leaving Confederation. The reason. He told me that Canada was holding them back financially and that they were better off going it alone. I didn't argue with him since I could see he had his mind up - that he fully believed the tripe he'd been fed.
If you have any doubt about the incorrectness of Ignatieff's statement, please go to the Government of Canada Web Site to see all of the infrasture projects approved for Quebec. One in particular stood out for me and that was the allocation of some $40 billion to Quebec City's Davie Ship Yards for the construction of Government ships over the coming years.
So no, Quebec is not being short changed.
But yes, Ignatieff is in deep political trouble and like most politicians in that situation, he is prepared to say anything at the expense of the truth.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
If true, it would be a first, since Quebec has proven itself to be rather adept at acquiring its share and more whenever federal money was to be handed out.
In fact, it is not true and Ignatieff is well aware of that.
He sees his dream of becoming Prime Minister quickly fading away and he has now shown that he will do anything - including lying - to try to keep his dream alive.
But it is worse than lying. It is once again an attempt by one of our politicians to seek to divide Quebec from the Rest of Canada for his own petty political purposes. In a real sense, such politicians are prepared to gamble the future of our country, for their short term gain.
Too many Quebecers have grown up hearing from their leaders how the Rest of Canada has short changed them in Confederation. They are too ready to believe the Leader of Her Majesty's Government when he says that once again they are not receiving their fair share. I saw Bloc Leader Duceppe on television last eve and he was smiling.
As an aside, several years ago I flew into Jonquiere and during the taxi ride in the driver, noticed that I was English, and apologized to me that they would soon be leaving Confederation. The reason. He told me that Canada was holding them back financially and that they were better off going it alone. I didn't argue with him since I could see he had his mind up - that he fully believed the tripe he'd been fed.
If you have any doubt about the incorrectness of Ignatieff's statement, please go to the Government of Canada Web Site to see all of the infrasture projects approved for Quebec. One in particular stood out for me and that was the allocation of some $40 billion to Quebec City's Davie Ship Yards for the construction of Government ships over the coming years.
So no, Quebec is not being short changed.
But yes, Ignatieff is in deep political trouble and like most politicians in that situation, he is prepared to say anything at the expense of the truth.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Ignatieff Seeks to Lead Two Nations
The Leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, made a statement last week that garnered little attention in the media. But it should have.
In complaining about the extra seats Ontario and the West will eventually realize as a result of the last census, he called for the current seat distribution between Quebec and the Rest of Canada to be maintained.
In doing so, Michael Ignatieff opposes one of the prime aspects of a free and democratic society, namely, representation by population.
In fact, I suspect if anyone took the time to do the math, Quebec's representation should decline from its current 75 seats to something in the neighbourhood of 60 seats.
The danger inherent in Ignatieff's position is that it leads to a demand on the part of Quebec that it have equal representation based upon is nation-state status, a status that even our Prime Minister has seen fit to acknowledge.
We are now well down the road in many respects to two separate and distinct nations within Canada and Ignatieff's recently stated position only furthers the divide.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
In complaining about the extra seats Ontario and the West will eventually realize as a result of the last census, he called for the current seat distribution between Quebec and the Rest of Canada to be maintained.
In doing so, Michael Ignatieff opposes one of the prime aspects of a free and democratic society, namely, representation by population.
In fact, I suspect if anyone took the time to do the math, Quebec's representation should decline from its current 75 seats to something in the neighbourhood of 60 seats.
The danger inherent in Ignatieff's position is that it leads to a demand on the part of Quebec that it have equal representation based upon is nation-state status, a status that even our Prime Minister has seen fit to acknowledge.
We are now well down the road in many respects to two separate and distinct nations within Canada and Ignatieff's recently stated position only furthers the divide.
As I see it.
"Galagher"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)