Dwarf-Tossing: A Canadian Dilemma: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
2

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Until just recently, I was blissfully unaware of the ethical challenges posed by “dwarf-tossing”. In fact, I was blissfully unaware that such a sport existed, in Canada or anywhere else. Part of the reason for not being up-to-date on the latest in “competitive bar sports” is that I don’t hang around bars and spend very little time following the latest weird fads on TV.

However, I was shocked to discover – as are many – that tossing little people across the room could be considered a sport. Even recognizing that these little people give permission to be tossed and make a little money at it still does not dispel the sinking feeling that somehow their dignity and personhood are being assaulted. True, many of our gladiator sports – football, hockey, boxing, wrestling – put participants at risk of physical injury. However, the idea of Big People displaying their manhood and power by throwing Little People around as a public spectacle, still leaves me feeling uneasy about the direction of our society.

But wait! It suddenly dawned on me! In this country, Big People toss Little People all the time! They do it at abortion clinics. They do it for money. And even worse, they do it without asking the Little People for permission! In the bars, after a dwarf is tossed (presuming he is not badly injured) he can get up, collect his pay and have a beer with his “tosser”. Not my idea of a fun night but hey! Whatever floats your boat…?

Not so with the 100,000 babies “tossed” each year in Canada. After being salt-poisoned or dismembered or vacuumed into fragments, these Little People are literally tossed into the trash bin.

Although they have never agreed to being tossed, never signed a contract with the abortionist, who grows wealthier with every toss, never had a chance to give their opinion – they are tossed once-and-for-all. They don’t get a second chance. They will never read a newspaper article about dwarf-tossing or abortion; nor will they ever have a chance to vote for a politician, pro-dwarf-tossing, prolife or otherwise.

A lot of things are made to be tossed: salads, grenades, parting comments over your shoulder and bad laws. But people are not a thing to be tossed – for money, pleasure or convenience.

Republican Race Could Go the Limit: David Krayden

Posted on by
Reply

By David Krayden

The last time that the Republican Party went to its presidential nomination convention without the nominee already decided was in 1940. Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate in the federal election that year. He lost to Franklin Roosevelt, who had already defeated two previous Republican challengers and would go on to pummel a forth in 1944. Willkie was an unlikely candidate for president. A Wall Street businessman and former Democratic Party supporter, Willkie was the compromise choice for GOP supporters who could not stomach the isolationism of Congressional leaders like Robert Taft or feared the relative youth and foreign policy inexperience of Thomas Dewey, a whiz kid DA from New York.

Well, here we are, 72 years later, and the Republicans could well meet this summer with a deadlocked nomination race, after what has proven to be an erratic and see-saw primary campaign that is leaving everyone wondering. Congressman Ron Paul is certainly an isolationist, 21st century style, but he does not command the prestige and party loyalty of Taft. But to Paul’s credit, he does have a worshipful crop of libertarian kids to cheer him that would have been an impossible dream for Taft, never a folk hero of the young. Romney would seem to bear the greatest resemblance to Willkie, a successful businessman who sometimes suggests that his venture capitalist career makes him a Washington outsider, if only people would forget that he was governor of the most liberal state in the Union and the father of Massachusetts health care.

The similarities end there. Newt Gingrich, a former House Speaker, is anything but an unknown quantity but would seem to possess an unknown potential for being president. He has journeyed all over the political map over the years in an effort to stay both well connected and well paid, written some very good historical novels about the Civil War and continued to admit they he has made mistakes and backed the wrong horses. His behaviour as what was essentially the Republican leader and spokesman during the Clinton era defies simple categorization. At times, when leading the Contract with America and the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994, Newt seemed both cognizant and in control of his place in history, relishing the opportunity to tell Americans that being “middle class is a state of mind. Lest we forget, he was Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1995. But when the Speaker ride was over for Newt, he lacked friends and confidence in Congress, and some of his colleagues speak of his leadership in terms that are anything but inspiring, flattering or reassuring.

One of those former colleagues is the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, also in this race. Santorum, who in one candidate’s debate almost described Gingrich’s work style as bordering on crazy, was a distant third place runner last week. But then he won primaries in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri and overtook Gingrich for second place.

So who to choose? It is important to choose a conservative, who is both principled and capable of beating Barack Obama. Romney may be able to beat Obama but anyone who governed Massachusetts can hardly brag about his conservative record. Paul is a libertarian and not a conservative; moreover, his isolationism is a dangerous repudiation of the commitment to global intervention that the Republicans first made in 1952, with the candidacy and presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, and then maintained ever since. In the very unlikely eventuality that Paul should win the nomination, the subsequent election campaign would be a repeat of 1964 when Barry Goldwater was obliterated by Lyndon Johnson.

The choice, barring any last minute compromise candidate, is between Gingrich and Santorum. Though both profess conservative principles and point to a conservative record, it’s the Gingrich private life of three marriages that leaves many conservatives nervous. Santorum, at least, as a proud family man would seem to walk as he talks.

Gingrich is a crap shoot, a fascinating political gamble to take at a time in history when it is necessary to bet on the unknown and to make that calculated risk. Few thought Winston Churchill could ever be prime minister of Great Britain in 1939. But by 1940, he was probably the only leader who could envision ultimate victory against the Nazis and the only prime minister with the brazen moxy to take the fight to Hitler and never accept defeat. The establishment choices for prime minister, like Lord Halifax, would probably have sued for peace and taken the best deal possible from Germany.

With the world economy poised on the brink and American influence evanescent, these may be the times for a Newt Gingrich.

 

It is certainly not the time for anther four years of Obama.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Post-secondary education a privilege, not a right

Posted on by

The St. John’s Telegram – February 2, 2012
Post-secondary education a privilege, not a right
By Paul Hussey

Us university lot are pampered pretty well here in Newfoundland and Labrador, if I do say so myself. Dirt-cheap tuition, a government that bends over backwards and falls to their knees at the students’ command, and Harvard-like admission averages of 65 per cent or better to get into Memorial University out of high school. (That last tidbit of information is sure to make all the Ferris Bueller-types at high schools from Bishops College to Burgeo Academy clean up their acts and hit the books extra hard to get their As in the final stretch, I’m sure.)

Now, we’re not lucky enough yet to receive free passes to the Spa at the Monastery just for showing up to classes each day – although, come to think of it, I’d love a MUN-sponsored massage right about now. But the way things are going, we may not have to wait until the next provincial election before all three parties start throwing around those types of promises.

In the meantime, yesterday marked the National Day of Action in this country, where student activists in this province rallied at Memorial University and other post-secondary institutions in protest of the federal government’s stance on post-secondary education. They want a collective vision for a well-funded post-secondary education system that builds a fair society, while combating corporate greed, and proclaiming that “education is a right.”

And it’s true – education is a right. It even says so in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to education.” However, if you read a little further, it adds a little more detail on the subject: “Education shall be free, at least at the elementary and fundamental stages. … Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on basis of merit.” Key words: generally available.

While it’s admirable for activists from the student movement to proclaim that education is a right, post-secondary education isn’t a basic human right – it’s a privilege. And in Canada, any students that meet the standards of merit to gain entry into post-secondary institution – on the basis of scholastic achievement, or athletic abilities they can offer in the school’s environment – can do so while paying for it themselves, receiving student loans, non-repayable grant money and scholarships.

That’s the beautiful thing about Canada. Anybody can go to a post-secondary institution, no matter what socio-economic background they come from. But according to the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the rest of the student activists across the country, this isn’t enough. In their minds, the value of post-secondary education should be held on the same level as other basic human rights, as something that no person should have to live without. And in all reality, they don’t. Any student in Canada that wishes to attend a post-secondary can do so, by paying – yes, young people have to pay for things, too – and not indebting the federal government on something that is worth its weight in gold. It might sound like a good idea at the time, but it’s more tax dollars that you and your grandchildren will be burdened with at another time.

If the CFS had its wits about it, it would spend less time arguing what is and isn’t a right, and spend more time communicating a stronger and more realistic message to Canadians on student issues. Either way, this province’s student activists have been holding our province’s governments at their mercy for quite some time now. If anyone’s going to convince the federal government that post-secondary education is a right, then it may as well be them. But with Harper still in power, there’s a better chance of hell freezing over.

Paul Hussey is an English and political science student at Memorial University, and news editor of The Muse.

Lady Thatcher Deserves Better Than This: David Krayden

Posted on by

By David Krayden

Liberals love to depict the lives of conservatives on screen. It is especially helpful when the subject is suffering from debilitating mental health and their lives can be seen as coming to the finish line with the gracelessness with which liberals like to endow conservatives. Such is how the life of conservative icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has translated onto the screen in The Iron Lady.

It is perhaps worthwhile to acknowledge at the start that this film would hardly be; worth watching if not for the talents of Meryl Streep. It may be difficult to praise Ms Streep because not only is she an avowed Hollywood liberal who loathes and despises conservatives, she has actually gone on the record as describing her antipathy towards Lady Thatcher. But unlike a Tina Fey, who is not only an annoying, verbose liberal but also a terribly unfunny comedian, Streep is an undeniably great actress and, at least for extended periods of this film that focus on Thatcher’s present state of mind, the grand dame of the cinema does an eerily  and uncannily effective portrayal of this great woman.

Unfortunately, far too much of the film is encumbered in this time period and beset by this depiction, where Thatcher is shown to be so unaware of reality that she chats at length with her deceased husband Denis when she is not throwing uncaring comments to her children or mistakenly writing her maiden name when she autographs a book for an admirer. The film is constantly moving back and forth from the very unflattering world of the present to the historical record – or Thatcher’s actual life. This directorial method may pass for artistic but it is frankly jarring, confusing and counterproductive to the creation of any feeling for the storyline. This, combined, with the mania in current film-making for the absence of any narrative to place historical events and personalities in some sort of frame or context, makes some of the movie bewildering or at least slightly incomprehensible and certainly out of reach for any in the audience who have neither lived through the era described on the screen nor read the history of the times.

In discussing the film with a friend post-viewing, I quipped that this treatment of Thatcher would be the equivalent of interpreting the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s life from the portal of a Boston pub, where, seeking to pick up twenty something girls, he reminisces of past political triumphs that are shown as flashbacks on the screen. Not so, my friend responded:  in the Ted Kennedy Story, one should be confronted with a terminally-ill cancer patient whose flashback memories would be of pub crawls and skirt chasing.

But that is not how any liberal filmmaker would choose to tell the story.

Kidding aside, Lady Thatcher deserves better than a film where about 70 per cent of the activity depicts a confused woman wondering around her house, emptying closets, viewing television and trying to read a mystery novel.  Her life and legacy as the longest serving British prime minister of the twentieth century is almost an afterthought. We are rushed through the great historical episodes of her life – her election as leader of the Tory Party, the seminal coal miner’s strike, the Falklands War – with the same reckless disregard as a real estate agent providing a quickie tour of a less than desirable house.

There is nothing in this film to outrage conservatives but nothing to inspire us either. Her legacy is vaguely presented as being something noteworthy, positive and lasting. Her will to govern is somewhat depicted as bold, decisive and courageous. But nowhere in the film do we even learn why Thatcher earned the moniker of “iron lady,” the very title of the film. We are not apprised of why Thatcher stands beside Ronald Reagan as the greatest conservative success stories of the latter twentieth century.

Ultimately, it is something of a mystery as to why this film was produced, except perhaps to provide another Oscar opportunity for Streep, who, with 16 other nominations in her acting portfolio, arguably didn’t urgently require further Academy Award recognition.

The Iron Lady will compel you to yearn for the moviemaking of the past where films focussed on the great deeds performed by a personality, the great deeds that justified the remembrance of this life and the production of a film in the first place. Unfortunately, the producers of this Thatcher biopic just didn’t seem to realize that the story of a great life is worth telling and worth telling well; that the decisions and actions that produced greatness must take precedence over the banality of everyday life.

Thank God that Winston Churchill was remembered in an era that could still tell a coherent story. Otherwise we might be alone with a celluloid memory of an octogenarian, drunken and drooling Churchill with only misty memories of inspiring a nation and indeed an entire world to “never surrender.” Somehow, it’s not quite the same.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

The Poor 1% in Ottawa: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Isn’t it ironic that some of the loudest voices in Ottawa who are supposedly standing up for the rights, dignity and betterment of the poor are themselves members of the top 1% of wage collectors in the country? I speak, of course, of the NDP MPs who were swept to power last year by disillusioned voters in Quebec and other pockets across the country.

How do I figure? The top 1% of Canadians, by income, receive annual compensation of $169,000 or more. While base salary for a backbench MP is “only” $157,000, when you add in the $248,668 (!) average that taxpayers contribute each year to an MP’s pension plan (currently about $23.30 for every $1 contributed by the MP), the total compensation for the year comes to $405,668. This places the entry-level MP well above the $169,000 threshold of entry into the “1% Club”; in fact, it puts them ABOVE the average $404,000 received by others in that club, including the much-maligned CEOs of successful businesses.

Of course, the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Committee Chairs, etc. do even better. Stephen Harper, if he were to retire at the next election, would be eligible to begin receiving—at age 55—an annual pension of $223, 517. In fact all MPs—who qualify for the platinum-plated pension after a mere 6 years in Ottawa—can retire with a full pension at age 55, unlike their fellow Canadians in the private sector who put them in office. Recent discussions about the demographic and funding challenges of the Old Age Pension have many seniors and soon-to-be seniors wondering how old they will have to be before they can stop punching a time clock and settle back for a well-deserved rest…if they make it that far.

Canadians—especially those concerned about the wage discrepancies between Joe Lunchbox and the CEO of his company—should also be asking themselves whether the men and women they sent to Ottawa really have their best interests at heart. Why should government employees (MPs and other public servants) be drawing a wage and accumulating a luxurious pension so much greater than that of the hard-working, tax-paying public whom they claim to represent?

Now would be a great time for the NDP leadership hopefuls to throw their lot in with the working families they claim to love and push the government to lower the wages and perks of all MPs. The pension plan would be the place to start. Proposing dollar-per-dollar matching contributions from the MP and the taxpayer would be a noble gesture. After that, the question should be asked: why should a back-bench MP be making $157,000 per year? Most of us would be happy making $100,000. Surely the NDP leadership hopeful who suggests a reduction in MP salaries would receive a round of applause from his or her fellow MPs? After all, they are for the little guy, are they not?

Of course, Mr. Harper and his fellow Conservatives could pre-empt this action and introduce and pass legislation reducing their own salaries, their own pensions and their own perks. This would be a good will gesture, signalling Canadians that they “feel our pain” and that they are leading by example. Canadians would be much more willing to help salvage Canada’s economy if they saw this kind of servant-leadership.

I’m not holding my breath but I will be watching to see if any MP has what it takes to set a new standard of personal sacrifice for the good of the country.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

Devotional: Do you put yourself above others or do you esteem others?

Posted on by

February 2, 2012

By Dr. Larry Bray

And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”‘ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:11-24)

The selfishness of the prodigal son is seen in his words “give me.” Though this was a natural son of the father, he didn’t love his father. Now when I use the word “love” I use it in the sense that God uses it, not in the way that the world does. The world tends to call love that warm fuzzy emotional feeling that we can have for something or someone. God’s Word uses love in the sense of giving oneself to another. That’s why God doesn’t just tell us to love those who evoke that emotion from us, but to even go so far as to loving our enemies. Clearly if we are to love our enemies, love is not some emotion that happens to us but rather a willful act of putting another above ourselves.

The prodigal son saying “give me” shows that his concern was for himself above his father. We have very similar signs of selfishness in today’s Church.

In marriages that are falling apart we hear things like “I want this from my spouse” or “I want this out of my marriage,” but we rarely hear “I need to do this for my spouse” or “I need to do this for my marriage” or “in what ways can I do more to put my spouse’s interests above my own.”

In church membership we hear things like “how can this church bless me” and “what programs are in this church for me”. When what we should be hearing is “how can I bless this church” and “how can God use me here.” The Scriptures are where we get God’s idea of what a Church is supposed to be, and I don’t think He mentions programs at all. A Church is really about the communion of the saints, the preaching of the Word of God, and the administration of the sacraments.

As parents many of us have witnessed selfishness in our children. They are very bold to make selfish statements like “I want”, “give me”, and will even throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. Let’s not fool ourselves, adults aren’t much different – we just hide it better. It’s really only as we grow in God’s grace that we’re able to be less interested in our own desires, and more interested in the desires of God and others.

As we look at how the prodigal son was selfish and the results of that mindset, let’s take a close look at our own hearts and see where in our lives we are still like the prodigal son.

So we know this selfish mindset led the prodigal son to want things other than the Father’s love. Instead of saying to the father, “give me your love” he said, “give me my inheritance.” And because this son took the inheritance and left the father to go spend it on himself and his lusts, he also said “give me my independence.” How many times do we fall into this same pattern with our heavenly Father? How many times do we ask our Father for things so that we can spend them on our lusts? How often do we approach our glorious heavenly Father with worldly requests? Instead of being transformed by God’s presence so that we seek His holiness and piety in our lives we try to pull God down to our worldly level. In James 4 we have this warning…

You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:3-4)

This prodigal son was not only selfish, but he was also rude and unkind. He didn’t say “please give me” or “may I please have”, he simply said “give me.” As a matter of fact, he told the father to give him the inheritance as if it was his right. He said, “Give me the share of property that is coming to me.” The idea behind what he’s saying here is basically, “give me what belongs to me.” As if the father had no right to the son’s inheritance before his death. Some commentators have even gone so far as to say that the son asking for the inheritance in this way is tantamount to saying that he wished his father was dead so that he could have his share in the inheritance.

This rudeness is a direct result of a selfish mindset. When we are consumed with ourselves we treat others as mere objects in our quest for self-satisfaction. We use them and think of ourselves and our own interests as being more important than theirs. This self-centeredness is evidence of a worldly mindset. The selfish are interested in what the world has to offer. They are consumed with coveting and lusting after what the world seems to offer them. The Scriptures have many things to say about this kind of self-centered, worldly mindset:

It chokes out the Word of God that’s planted in our heart:

but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. (Mark 4:19)

It gives the wrong idea of what our lives are all about:

And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (Luke 12:15)
It is the root of all kinds of other evils:

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

These passages are a strong warning for us against such a mindset. We’re not to be worldly minded, but spiritually minded. We’re not to put ourselves above others, but others above ourselves.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. (Romans 8:5)

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. (Philippians 2:3)

So the Scripture doesn’t leave us wondering what mindset God desires us to have, He tells us quite plainly in His Word. So the question we should ask ourselves is, “how are we conforming our lives to the Word of God in terms of our mindset?” Are we setting our minds on the things of the flesh or of the spirit? Are we putting ourselves above others or do we esteem others as more significant than ourselves?

Let me point out that the term “conceit” in Philippians 2:3 is really “empty conceit” and the term “humility” is really “humility of mind.” The only reason that I point this out is to show that whatever conceit we have is empty, there’s nothing in us that deserves to be exalted. We are just fooling ourselves when we are conceited and think of ourselves above others. And that’s why we are called to have humility of mind. If we don’t understand our true state of lowliness any humility that we acted out would be just that, an act. But when we truly understand how lowly we are, our humility is naturally manifested. This is only done through a work of God as it is only in the light of His countenance that we can be truly mindful of the nature of our own lowliness.

Going off the reserve – My pro-choice conversion: Tom Bartlett

Posted on by

By Tom Bartlett

Many who know me will be shocked to learn that I have gotten my mind right (sorry, left) on the merit of the “pro-choice” position. The impetus came from a highly unlikely source – interim leader of the Federal Liberal Party, Bob Rae.

It is probably fitting in that Mr. Rae has already undergone his own transformation from the extreme NDP socialist positions of those espoused by the reasonable and centrist concepts held by the Liberal Party. Known for their gradual move toward a socially liberal, but fiscally conservative orientation, the practical implications of this world-view joined with my compassionate social conscience.

The profound challenges experienced by women (or men) in such difficult circumstances of poverty or other high risk realities naturally feel like there is nowhere to turn. They simply run out of socially acceptable options. While social welfare solutions can go quite far to remedy much of what ails society, sometimes love can best be demonstrated by protecting the vulnerable from the detrimental and toxic realities of their situation by pre-emptively keeping them from inevitable pain. Furthermore, social costs can be reduced by a simple procedure that can spare a life from a life of pain of their living conditions or facing a future of being unwanted.

So what argument compelled me to abandon my staunch defence of pro-life advocacy for the nuanced logic of the “pro-choice” position? Well, the illustrious Mr. Rae was delivering a speech on issues of social justice couched in the trademark liberal notions of compassion. He rightly vilified Prime Minister Harper for his beliefs that aboriginals, seniors, the homeless and the mentally ill must “make it on their own.” Such a heartless view clashed with the pragmatism that Rae so readily espoused. Admitting that liberals aren’t guided by a specific ideology that would limit their options (unlike conservatives who are constrained by values and principles), I have found how liberal concepts can be adapted to fit broader social maladies. To that end, I believe we should abort the homeless and other disadvantaged citizens of our nation. The criteria fits:

Reduces poverty – check

Cost effective (fiscally conservative) – check

Consistent with other compassion-based core liberal positions (socially liberal) – check

To hear the hard-luck stories of those trapped in dire straits, my heart goes out to them. Like the unborn, the homeless are clearly not wanted or big-hearted liberals would certainly have welcomed them into their homes.

Like the unborn, seniors are a huge social burden and vastly increase health care costs – only more so. Roughly 80% of health care costs are spent in the last years of life. Consequently, even euthanasia needlessly delays the inevitable. It’s time to step things up to unburden our system.

And why would aboriginals want to accept a life of squalor in their decayed and impoverished communities with dirty water, rampant alcoholism, and a lack of hope? Anyone with compassion should spare them from such misery and needn’t be wasteful spenders in the process.

The added benefit is that such an approach will be environmentally beneficial. Fewer people means less waste and thus a decreased environmental impact. Eliminating the aboriginals would then free up land that could be turned into wind farms. No vagrants or mental patients roaming the streets would reduce traffic congestion and allow more room for bike paths.

It is well known that the homeless and drug addicts are a huge demographic when it comes to criminal activity. Once again, Bob excoriated the Harper government for the needless expense of pouring more money into the criminal justice system. Instead he wants to see more money funnelled (sorry, directed) into education. I can see the slogans now – “Spare an addict or educate a child – Hello!” After all, we’ve seen the profound academic gains achieved through dumping (oops again – steering) money into our schools. What with full day Kindergarten and even smaller class sizes, academic success is certain to skyrocket.

I know this involves some “outside the box” thinking, but that is exactly what my new BFF Bob advocates. Turning pro-choice has opened my prospects up to a level my constrained conservative mentality would never have permitted. His old socialism views would have involved further bankrupting our nation by wasting money on the dregs of society. Once you free yourself from the view that all people have value and worth because they are a unique creation of God, it’s amazing how much you can adapt solutions to address even the greatest challenge.  It is all about choice.

Click here to read Tom’s bio.