I was going to do my next Blog on the important issue of the future of Health Care but given that Canada's Refugee System has been topical of late, I thought it best to deal with that now.
Quite simply, our Refugee System is broken and has been since the mid-1980's.
As is happens, I worked in Legal Services with Canada's Refugee Board and as such have first hand knowledge of what I speak.
Recently I read that a liberal commentator had said that the favourable rate for refugee cases was a mere 6 to 7%. I am not sure what he was smoking but when I was there in the late 80's the acceptance rate was upwards of 70% and that did not include the 40% or so of refugee applicants who went 'missing" before their cases were even heard. Nor does it take into account the fact that seldom did applicants leave Canada after having received an unsuccessful decision.
I won't even deal with the appeal process used so effectively by 'immigration' lawyers to line their pockets while delaying final decisions indefinitely.
The figures I have quoted from personal knowledge may have declined somewhat under the Tories but from what I have read in the meantime, I suspect not.
From my perspective, for every 100 applicants perhaps 5% and more likely 1 to 2 % are legitimate refugees escaping persecution. The balance some 95% are merely shopping for a new home. In short, they are queue jumpers and make mockery of those law abiding people who apply for access to Canada through the normal immigration process.
Often those queue jumpers come without identity papers and little to nothing is known about them. The Refugee process is a non-adversarial one and hence, in most cases, there is little to nothing before the deciding Refugee Judge that would lead to a negative decision.
In a high per centage of these cases, the refugee applicant really is trying to enter the United States - hence the 40% that disappear before their cases are even heard. No wonder the US is concerned about its northern border.
A former head of the Refugee Board pointed out recently that it was the Tories and in particular, Barbie McDougall as Immigration Minister who brought in the Board by way of legislation in the late 1980s. She purposely pulled a provision before passage that would have given Canada the power to refuse applicants who came here from a safe-haven country. In other words, if an applicant originated in Asia and travelled to Canada via England, that applicant could be immediately be returned to England for their processing.
We therefore have the Tories of the 1980s to thank(?) for our disfunctional system.
This is another reason why I believe the current Progressive Conservatives / Conservatives are not 'realconservatives'. They are just another shade of red.
Having said that, Harper is finally on record as saying he will deal with this matter on an urgent basis and we have for the first time in memory a Minister - Jason Kenney who has the courage to follow through. I suspect though that Libs, NDPers and Blocists will join to defeat them.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Time to Axe the Reserves
In an earlier blog I called myself a liberal libertarian - I have had a rethink, primarily because the term 'liberal' no longer means what it once did. It used to be more or less synonmous with the term 'libertarian'. Today it connotes those who favour government intervention and are prepared to accept ever less freedom.
So - from henceforth on I will refer to myself as a 'humane libertarian'. 'Libertarian' in the sense that I believe the individual should look to himself first for help in improving his lot and 'Humane' in the understanding that in some instances an individual is simply not physically or mentally able to do that.
Modern western governments have subscribed to the belief that bigger is better and that freedom of the individual must be sacrificed for the 'benefit' of the majority. And, of course it is the government which decides what that 'benefit' may be.
What is lost in all of this is individual independence and our society is the poorer for it.
No where is this more evident than in the case of the Aboriginal. He or she is confined to a Reserve System that never made any sense. Politicians have been paralyzed from taking action for fear of being branded rascists. There is also a strong element of guilt attached to this issue as a result of the Indian's culture and way of life having been absolutely destroyed some 200 years ago.
But it is the native who has suffered and continues to suffer through Society's inaction.
Reserves are rife with alcoholism, drug and family abuse, suicide, poor health and diet.
Added to this is the ever growing problem of illegality. Smuggling in cigarettes, alcohol, guns and even in humans is an every day occurence - especially in those Reserve which border the USA. All seem to have casinos and on a per capita basis there are far more natives in our jails than any other race.
Their Leadership calls out for more money to be spent - yet billions are thrown at the problem yearly with no result. We know and they know that more money is not the answer.
The Reserve System must come to an end.
Imagine living in a reserve where nothing of substance occurs and where your main source of legal income comes from the government. You too would quickly be brought down to despair.
If I had the power, I would announce that systematically over a ten year period the reserve system in Canada would come to an end. Funding for natives living off the reserve would continue but for those on the reserve the funding would decline over the ten year timeframe.
At the end of ten years, the Reserves would be sold and the monies placed in trust for all natives
to be used to help them integrate into society. At some point, the funding for even those natives living off the reserve would come to an end as well.
Tough love - you bet, but sometimes tough love is all you are left with.
There would be a hue and cry from the native leadership and from our left of centre politicians but at the end of the day, the individual aboriginal would be so much better off.
Even more important, if we do not axe the Reserve System where government plays the tune through its funding and keeps people dependent, we will be all headed for our own Reserve System.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
So - from henceforth on I will refer to myself as a 'humane libertarian'. 'Libertarian' in the sense that I believe the individual should look to himself first for help in improving his lot and 'Humane' in the understanding that in some instances an individual is simply not physically or mentally able to do that.
Modern western governments have subscribed to the belief that bigger is better and that freedom of the individual must be sacrificed for the 'benefit' of the majority. And, of course it is the government which decides what that 'benefit' may be.
What is lost in all of this is individual independence and our society is the poorer for it.
No where is this more evident than in the case of the Aboriginal. He or she is confined to a Reserve System that never made any sense. Politicians have been paralyzed from taking action for fear of being branded rascists. There is also a strong element of guilt attached to this issue as a result of the Indian's culture and way of life having been absolutely destroyed some 200 years ago.
But it is the native who has suffered and continues to suffer through Society's inaction.
Reserves are rife with alcoholism, drug and family abuse, suicide, poor health and diet.
Added to this is the ever growing problem of illegality. Smuggling in cigarettes, alcohol, guns and even in humans is an every day occurence - especially in those Reserve which border the USA. All seem to have casinos and on a per capita basis there are far more natives in our jails than any other race.
Their Leadership calls out for more money to be spent - yet billions are thrown at the problem yearly with no result. We know and they know that more money is not the answer.
The Reserve System must come to an end.
Imagine living in a reserve where nothing of substance occurs and where your main source of legal income comes from the government. You too would quickly be brought down to despair.
If I had the power, I would announce that systematically over a ten year period the reserve system in Canada would come to an end. Funding for natives living off the reserve would continue but for those on the reserve the funding would decline over the ten year timeframe.
At the end of ten years, the Reserves would be sold and the monies placed in trust for all natives
to be used to help them integrate into society. At some point, the funding for even those natives living off the reserve would come to an end as well.
Tough love - you bet, but sometimes tough love is all you are left with.
There would be a hue and cry from the native leadership and from our left of centre politicians but at the end of the day, the individual aboriginal would be so much better off.
Even more important, if we do not axe the Reserve System where government plays the tune through its funding and keeps people dependent, we will be all headed for our own Reserve System.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Needed A Truck...Bought A Cadillac
My wife and I live with our cat Snick on a small hobby farm where having a truck is most handy.
My current truck a 2007 Ford Ranger is on lease and the lease expires at the end of this month. It has been a good vehicle and my only complaint is that it is very hard on gas. This is the second pick-up truck that I have owned or leased.
And, they have certainly come in handy. Our kids and friends have found them to be most helpful as well.
Just yesterday, I went to town with my son-in-law to purchase lumber for a deck my son-in-law is kindly building us. Some of the boards totalled 16' and the truck to them without complaint. Anyway, they always seem to come in handy.
That is why I started several months ago to find a replacement truck to my Ranger.
I looked at several "used" models but could not seem to find the 'right one'. One used car dealer was so honest with me that he suggested I buy new since new trucks were selling for about the same price as older models. I started looking at new.
And, I found the perfect one. It too was red - a colour I get teased about from time to time due to my right-wing bent. It too was a Ranger but had more features than my current truck and sold for the same price as under my current lease. It was a no-brainer - this new Ranger was made for me.
Rather than tell the dealer I'd buy it then and there, I told him I would think about it over the weekend and let him know "first thing on Monday".
Then I got thinking. I did not want another truck regardless of how convenient it was around our farm; I wanted a car - and I wanted one with all the 'bells and whistles'.
Saturday I was off to see the local cadillac dealer. I picked one out and he let me take it home over night. My wife loved it too but she was quick to point out that I was so much like my late father who also loved nice cars. A week before he died, he told me that he was thinking of buying a new buick. This despite the fact that he was living in a nursing home and that his doctor had taken his licence away some five years earlier.
So I asked my father the obvious question: "what would you do with a new car that you were not allowed to drive?" Without missing a beat, he replied: "I'd sit in it".
You know, I understood what he was saying, there is nothing in life better than sitting in a new car - with that new car smell. It even beats driving it. I told my father he should go for it and he might well have done so if his worn out heart had gone on a little longer.
The next day, I took the cadillac back whereupon I broke all rules - I told the salesman immediately how much I loved the car. No hard sell for me.
So here I am, with a car that I really don't need and I truck that I do need but will be returning to the ford dealer in a matter of days. It really makes no sense, but life is often like that.
Did I mention, my cadillac is the colour 'blue'.
"Galagher"
My current truck a 2007 Ford Ranger is on lease and the lease expires at the end of this month. It has been a good vehicle and my only complaint is that it is very hard on gas. This is the second pick-up truck that I have owned or leased.
And, they have certainly come in handy. Our kids and friends have found them to be most helpful as well.
Just yesterday, I went to town with my son-in-law to purchase lumber for a deck my son-in-law is kindly building us. Some of the boards totalled 16' and the truck to them without complaint. Anyway, they always seem to come in handy.
That is why I started several months ago to find a replacement truck to my Ranger.
I looked at several "used" models but could not seem to find the 'right one'. One used car dealer was so honest with me that he suggested I buy new since new trucks were selling for about the same price as older models. I started looking at new.
And, I found the perfect one. It too was red - a colour I get teased about from time to time due to my right-wing bent. It too was a Ranger but had more features than my current truck and sold for the same price as under my current lease. It was a no-brainer - this new Ranger was made for me.
Rather than tell the dealer I'd buy it then and there, I told him I would think about it over the weekend and let him know "first thing on Monday".
Then I got thinking. I did not want another truck regardless of how convenient it was around our farm; I wanted a car - and I wanted one with all the 'bells and whistles'.
Saturday I was off to see the local cadillac dealer. I picked one out and he let me take it home over night. My wife loved it too but she was quick to point out that I was so much like my late father who also loved nice cars. A week before he died, he told me that he was thinking of buying a new buick. This despite the fact that he was living in a nursing home and that his doctor had taken his licence away some five years earlier.
So I asked my father the obvious question: "what would you do with a new car that you were not allowed to drive?" Without missing a beat, he replied: "I'd sit in it".
You know, I understood what he was saying, there is nothing in life better than sitting in a new car - with that new car smell. It even beats driving it. I told my father he should go for it and he might well have done so if his worn out heart had gone on a little longer.
The next day, I took the cadillac back whereupon I broke all rules - I told the salesman immediately how much I loved the car. No hard sell for me.
So here I am, with a car that I really don't need and I truck that I do need but will be returning to the ford dealer in a matter of days. It really makes no sense, but life is often like that.
Did I mention, my cadillac is the colour 'blue'.
"Galagher"
Friday, August 7, 2009
Shareholders Can Also Vote
Soon I will devote one of these 'blogs' to the matter of capitalism and liberal distain for it. But today, I would like to reflect on how corporate shareholders, in common with election voters, are also ignored.
In earlier blogs, I have mentioned the fact that as a result of voter apathy, the voting % in democracies is in steep decline save for Australia where voting has been made mandatory and which I do not subscribe. I attribute much of this apathy to politicians ignoring the wishes of their electorates and I believe much the same can be said in the case of corporations.
In the latter case, you have officers (cabinet) that run the company, a board of directors (read Parliament) that appoint the officers and of course the shareholders (read voters) that elect the board. I guess you could even extend this analogy to say that the minions working for the corporation mirror the government's bureaucracy.
As in the case of democracies, the shareholder on paper is king. He or she has the power to replace the Board of Directors. In practice, the number of shareholders is huge and widespread in public corporations, and as a consequence, a few major shareholders can control everything despite the fact that % wise they do not hold a majority of the outstanding sahres. They do though decide the make-up of the Board and thereby decide who is hired to be the key Officers. The ordinary Shareholder, like the ordinary Voter is disregarded.
What's the result?
I am glad you asked.
Millions of dollars get syphoned off in outlandish salaries but even more in unearned bonuses. The figures are simply staggering, even in the case of companies which have failed to realize profits.
This is unadulerated greed then leads to other sinister ventures like the asset-backed paper fiasco. Money, money, money and to hell with who gets hurt.
Do you see the link?
In the case of democracies, too many politicians spend the taxpayers' money without regard. Corporations do the same thing with their shareholders' money. In both cases our way of life is adversely affected.
If Capitalism gets undermined so to does Democracy.
Solutions?
I am not sure what the total solution is but I do know that it does not involve government taking ownership positions in our companies.
Here though are some thoughts:
In earlier blogs, I have mentioned the fact that as a result of voter apathy, the voting % in democracies is in steep decline save for Australia where voting has been made mandatory and which I do not subscribe. I attribute much of this apathy to politicians ignoring the wishes of their electorates and I believe much the same can be said in the case of corporations.
In the latter case, you have officers (cabinet) that run the company, a board of directors (read Parliament) that appoint the officers and of course the shareholders (read voters) that elect the board. I guess you could even extend this analogy to say that the minions working for the corporation mirror the government's bureaucracy.
As in the case of democracies, the shareholder on paper is king. He or she has the power to replace the Board of Directors. In practice, the number of shareholders is huge and widespread in public corporations, and as a consequence, a few major shareholders can control everything despite the fact that % wise they do not hold a majority of the outstanding sahres. They do though decide the make-up of the Board and thereby decide who is hired to be the key Officers. The ordinary Shareholder, like the ordinary Voter is disregarded.
What's the result?
I am glad you asked.
Millions of dollars get syphoned off in outlandish salaries but even more in unearned bonuses. The figures are simply staggering, even in the case of companies which have failed to realize profits.
This is unadulerated greed then leads to other sinister ventures like the asset-backed paper fiasco. Money, money, money and to hell with who gets hurt.
Do you see the link?
In the case of democracies, too many politicians spend the taxpayers' money without regard. Corporations do the same thing with their shareholders' money. In both cases our way of life is adversely affected.
If Capitalism gets undermined so to does Democracy.
Solutions?
I am not sure what the total solution is but I do know that it does not involve government taking ownership positions in our companies.
Here though are some thoughts:
- First, make it mandatory that Officers and their families be precluded from holding shares in the companies they run;
- Bonuses should have a know cap and, in the oridinary course of events, only be paid when the company shows an annual profit;
- Bonuses must be submitted to the annual meeting of shareholders for their approval;
- Membership on a Board be time limited - e.g. no more than 5 years.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Ottawa's Mayor Larry O'Brien - Ciminal or Victim
The subject for today's Blog is a no brainer given that tomorrow at 10 a.m. the verdict comes down on whether our Mayor is guilty of influence peddling and conspiring to adversely influence the outcome of an Election. Not exactly the wording from the Criminal Code but in essence this describes the two charges against Mayor O'Brien.
A little history.
Shortly after he was elected Mayor 3 years ago, the above charges were laid against O'Brien. The complaint came from one of the Mayor's competitor's for the Mayor's Chair - a light weight by the name of Kilrea. Kilrea and O'Brien represented the right wing of the spectrum so the two met where it was alleged that O'Brien offered the former a spot on the National Parole Board if he would drop out of the race and leave O'Brien to collect all the right of centre votes. Interestingly enough, when questioned about this in Court - Kilrea denied that such a deal was even offered to him by O'Brien.
Also of interest is the fact the Union representing the City Workers pressed for the charges to be laid as well as the fact that the first Prosecutor asked to prosecute the case turned it down saying there was no case to prosecute.
Enter Liberal Queen's Park to press for prosecution which then eventually leads to tomorrow's expected verdict.
I voted for O'Brien, but am not a fan of his so my comments are not at all biased in his favour. He campaigned on a "zero tax increases" and then promptly voted along with his left wing leaning Council to have them increased. Be that as it may, he did not deserve - but more importantly, his voters did not deserve having these charges laid.
I have been involved in politics since I was 11 or 12 years old. Even then I think I knew that if a politician was doing his job, he would enter into such arrangements, as are being alleged.. It comes under the heading of 'Just Doing His Job'. Indeed, countless policitians have done just that on many, many occasions, one of the more recent being Harper's offer to a Liberal MP from BC to become his Industry Minister.
In his particular case, O'Brien denies having made such a promise to Kilrea and, as mentioned, by Kilrea's own testimony he supports O'Brien's position.
Most with an IQ of over 100, with even minimal interest in Ottawa City politics, expect a not guilty verdict tomorrow. But regardless, the damage has been done and what might otherwise have occurred on the municipal scene - as voted for by Ottawa's citizens, has been lost forever.
The only winners here are the City Union and Queen's Park.
I heard someone call in to a radio talk show to say that 'yes, charges should have been laid: against all of those who insisted that O'Brien be charged."
Amen to that.
"Galagher"
A little history.
Shortly after he was elected Mayor 3 years ago, the above charges were laid against O'Brien. The complaint came from one of the Mayor's competitor's for the Mayor's Chair - a light weight by the name of Kilrea. Kilrea and O'Brien represented the right wing of the spectrum so the two met where it was alleged that O'Brien offered the former a spot on the National Parole Board if he would drop out of the race and leave O'Brien to collect all the right of centre votes. Interestingly enough, when questioned about this in Court - Kilrea denied that such a deal was even offered to him by O'Brien.
Also of interest is the fact the Union representing the City Workers pressed for the charges to be laid as well as the fact that the first Prosecutor asked to prosecute the case turned it down saying there was no case to prosecute.
Enter Liberal Queen's Park to press for prosecution which then eventually leads to tomorrow's expected verdict.
I voted for O'Brien, but am not a fan of his so my comments are not at all biased in his favour. He campaigned on a "zero tax increases" and then promptly voted along with his left wing leaning Council to have them increased. Be that as it may, he did not deserve - but more importantly, his voters did not deserve having these charges laid.
I have been involved in politics since I was 11 or 12 years old. Even then I think I knew that if a politician was doing his job, he would enter into such arrangements, as are being alleged.. It comes under the heading of 'Just Doing His Job'. Indeed, countless policitians have done just that on many, many occasions, one of the more recent being Harper's offer to a Liberal MP from BC to become his Industry Minister.
In his particular case, O'Brien denies having made such a promise to Kilrea and, as mentioned, by Kilrea's own testimony he supports O'Brien's position.
Most with an IQ of over 100, with even minimal interest in Ottawa City politics, expect a not guilty verdict tomorrow. But regardless, the damage has been done and what might otherwise have occurred on the municipal scene - as voted for by Ottawa's citizens, has been lost forever.
The only winners here are the City Union and Queen's Park.
I heard someone call in to a radio talk show to say that 'yes, charges should have been laid: against all of those who insisted that O'Brien be charged."
Amen to that.
"Galagher"
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Where Have All The Libertarians Gone...long time passing
As a self-professed Libertarian, I often wonder what it will take to have people reclaim responsibility for themselves. Too many blame others for their circumstance and look to government for solutions rather than starting with themselves.
North America was founded by Libertarians although that term did not exist at the time. They were self-reliant and if they did need help from others, they looked to their neighbours or to family.
That was then.
Today, the ties that bound family have broken or frayed and neighbours too often are distant or entirely anonymous.
The former self-reliant citizen now depends completely on the system for his or her welfare. The State has become omnipotent.
Europe has succumbed entirely, - as has Canada, where I suspect 2/3 rds of our population finds itself in the dependent category. Only the USA remains the battle-ground between the two approaches and it is currently split evenly - 50/50, with the dependents in ascendancy.
There are a host of reasons for this outcome including urbanization, universal social programs, breakdown of the family, decline in religion, and, most important, the never ending growth in government.
Why is this bad?
With dependency comes apathy. Is it any wonder that voting levels are in steep decline? More important though, it replaces the need to think. Indeed, why bother thinking when the government will and does do it for you?
The government tells you the ozone layer is disintegrating, that global cooling and / or warming is occurring, that climate change is upon us or whatever the flavour of the month is and you - the citizen must immediately do whatever is asked, without giving it thought. And most of us do.
We are regulated and legislated to death. Soon you will need a permit or licence to breathe. And the public response - zilch. All the while government continues to grow.
Being on the heavy side I used to joke that some day government would tell McDonald's how much fat they could put in their hamburgers. I thought that a bit off the wall but now it has happend.
Even more bizarre, in Europe they have imposed a tax on cow flatulence and I have read where the tax is likely to be levied here in North America soon. Who'd want to be the enforcer of that tax?
If America loses in its fight to retain a semblance of liberatianism, and it looks as though it will, we will have lost.
If that occurs, the future will not be worth experiencing.
"Galagher"
post script: in my blog about a new way to calculate civil servant salaries, one of my readers commented that my suggestion was "terrible". She of course was married to a civil servant. When I asked her if my analysis was correct- she quickly admitted it was. Kudos for her honesty. (I was thinking though - another possible approach to determining government salaries would be to establish a % of its private sector equivalent e.g. 60 - 70% - more on that later... G)
North America was founded by Libertarians although that term did not exist at the time. They were self-reliant and if they did need help from others, they looked to their neighbours or to family.
That was then.
Today, the ties that bound family have broken or frayed and neighbours too often are distant or entirely anonymous.
The former self-reliant citizen now depends completely on the system for his or her welfare. The State has become omnipotent.
Europe has succumbed entirely, - as has Canada, where I suspect 2/3 rds of our population finds itself in the dependent category. Only the USA remains the battle-ground between the two approaches and it is currently split evenly - 50/50, with the dependents in ascendancy.
There are a host of reasons for this outcome including urbanization, universal social programs, breakdown of the family, decline in religion, and, most important, the never ending growth in government.
Why is this bad?
With dependency comes apathy. Is it any wonder that voting levels are in steep decline? More important though, it replaces the need to think. Indeed, why bother thinking when the government will and does do it for you?
The government tells you the ozone layer is disintegrating, that global cooling and / or warming is occurring, that climate change is upon us or whatever the flavour of the month is and you - the citizen must immediately do whatever is asked, without giving it thought. And most of us do.
We are regulated and legislated to death. Soon you will need a permit or licence to breathe. And the public response - zilch. All the while government continues to grow.
Being on the heavy side I used to joke that some day government would tell McDonald's how much fat they could put in their hamburgers. I thought that a bit off the wall but now it has happend.
Even more bizarre, in Europe they have imposed a tax on cow flatulence and I have read where the tax is likely to be levied here in North America soon. Who'd want to be the enforcer of that tax?
If America loses in its fight to retain a semblance of liberatianism, and it looks as though it will, we will have lost.
If that occurs, the future will not be worth experiencing.
"Galagher"
post script: in my blog about a new way to calculate civil servant salaries, one of my readers commented that my suggestion was "terrible". She of course was married to a civil servant. When I asked her if my analysis was correct- she quickly admitted it was. Kudos for her honesty. (I was thinking though - another possible approach to determining government salaries would be to establish a % of its private sector equivalent e.g. 60 - 70% - more on that later... G)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Anti-Power - A Rant
Last evening my wife and I were out for dinner with two other couples during which my wife mentioned to one of the fellows that I had started a Blog. His response, I think understandably, was 'a place for him to rant'.
My wife tried to assure him that I tried to avoid ranting but I suspect it fell on deaf ears.
That aside, my note today is pure, unadulterated rant.
In our local city paper today appears a column by one of its notorious left-wing loons. Today she wastes her space by villifying nuclear as a suitable power source. In so doing she mentally adds nuclear to the dustbin of history along with the fossil fuels as perveyors of power to heat and light our homes and run our industries.
What's left?
Well the usual suspects - solar, wind, and water, but of course these are nowhere near sufficient to meet the demand.
What would they have us do?
Reduce our 'greedy' need for power by spiking the cost of power to unimaginable heights.
And what would this accomplish?
Less employment and a severe reduction in our standard of living. In short, less enjoyment of life.
Indeed, I believe these Loons are not a very happy lot - the only thing they take pleasure in is making the rest as unhappy as they are.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Give the free market its head. If one source of power gets too expensive, market mechanisms will kick in to find affordable alternatives. This may or may not entail nuclear, but let the marker decide the proper route to go. This is how things have worked so well in the past and will continue to work unless the politically correct get to decide otherwise.
And Government has a very important role in this. It must ensure that any potential damage to our environment is kept to an absolute mininum.
Progress and protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive.
"Galagher"
My wife tried to assure him that I tried to avoid ranting but I suspect it fell on deaf ears.
That aside, my note today is pure, unadulterated rant.
In our local city paper today appears a column by one of its notorious left-wing loons. Today she wastes her space by villifying nuclear as a suitable power source. In so doing she mentally adds nuclear to the dustbin of history along with the fossil fuels as perveyors of power to heat and light our homes and run our industries.
What's left?
Well the usual suspects - solar, wind, and water, but of course these are nowhere near sufficient to meet the demand.
What would they have us do?
Reduce our 'greedy' need for power by spiking the cost of power to unimaginable heights.
And what would this accomplish?
Less employment and a severe reduction in our standard of living. In short, less enjoyment of life.
Indeed, I believe these Loons are not a very happy lot - the only thing they take pleasure in is making the rest as unhappy as they are.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Give the free market its head. If one source of power gets too expensive, market mechanisms will kick in to find affordable alternatives. This may or may not entail nuclear, but let the marker decide the proper route to go. This is how things have worked so well in the past and will continue to work unless the politically correct get to decide otherwise.
And Government has a very important role in this. It must ensure that any potential damage to our environment is kept to an absolute mininum.
Progress and protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive.
"Galagher"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)