.

Preston Manning and the "Extremism" Smear [Published in the Ottawa Citizen on June 4th or 5th, 1998] Dear Editor, Re: "Herr Manning?" -- Editorial -- June 3, 1998 -- The Ottawa Citizen The Ottawa Citizen does not deserve the criticism it received for including with my article (Praise Goldwater, bury ["]extremism["] -- June 2) a photo of Preston Manning juxtaposed with photos of Hitler, the Unabomber and a Ku Klux Klansman. My article chastises leftists (such as the many who appear regularly on the CBC) and "moderates" (such as Hugh Segal et al) who deploy the term "extremism" to smear people like Preston Manning -- people perceived as enemies of Big Government -- by packaging them with dictators, racists, and fanatical killers. The photos merely reflect the irrational juxtaposition that takes place in many people's minds when the term "extremism" is deployed. Anyone who would interpret the photos as an attempt to smear Manning are guilty of context dropping. Those sympathetic to Manning who were outraged by the photos -- fearing that others will misinterpret them -- are victims of the "extremism" smear. Their fear indicates the degree to which "extremism" has become an effective weapon in viciously smearing principled defenders of individual rights. Their outrage should properly be directed at those guilty of perpetrating the smear. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Michael Kesterton on Ayn Rand Dear Editor, Re: "Libertarian Utopia" -- by Michael Kesterton -- June 4, 1998 -- Globe and Mail According to Michael Kesterton, Prince Lazarus Long "draws intellectual sustenance from ... turgid novelist Ayn Rand." I know of the brilliant, enlightening, prophetic novelist Ayn Rand (author of We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) but never heard of the "turgid novelist Ayn Rand." My guess is that poor Michael Kesterton just had another I-can't-answer-her-so-I'll-smear-her fit. [Note: Kesterton published a thoroughly dishonest piece on Ayn Rand on March 13, 1995.] Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Apology to Preston Manning [Published in the Ottawa Citizen sometime after June 5th.] Dear Editor, Re: "Apology" -- Editorial -- June 5, 1998 -- The Ottawa Citizen In my letter ("Extremism becomes a weapon" -- June 5) I shamefully neglected an important consideration -- Preston Manning's right to his own face. (Mr. Manning's photo appeared June 2nd juxtaposed with Hitler, the Unabomber and a Ku Klux Klansman in connection with my "extremism" article.) Morally speaking, I don't think newspapers should publish someone's photo in a controversial context without the permission of that person -- especially if it can objectively harm that person's reputation and livelihood. I think it was appropriate for the Ottawa Citizen -- despite its noble intentions to defend Mr. Manning against the vicious "extremism" smear -- to apologize to Mr. Manning, and I also apologize to Mr. Manning for neglecting that point in my letter. However, real moral blame still lies with those leftists and "moderates" who deploy the "extremism" smear against defenders of individual rights. If anyone should apologize to Mr. Manning, they should. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Why the United Nations Supports The "War on Drugs" Dear Editor, Re: "UN Wages Harmful War on Drugs" -- by Terence Corcoran -- June 9, 1998 -- Globe and Mail (ROB) Terence Corcoran's informative piece on the United Nation's entrance into the "war on drugs" reveals plenty about the real motives of the UN. The attempts to date by governments to stop the use and sale of drugs has wasted billions of dollars, expanded organized crime tremendously and increased -- not decreased -- drug usage. Experience with liquor prohibition decades earlier should have taught us a lesson. If curtailing drug usage was the goal, then the "war on drugs" has been a total failure. But for political power lusters it has been a total success. It has handed more power to the government at the expense of individual rights -- including more government welfare schemes at taxpayers expense to deal with the war's destructive consequences. That's precisely why the UN wants a piece of the action. As with the Kyoto Protocol, the "war on drugs" will expand UN powers to undermine the sovereignty of individual countries and thereby push the world closer to being one gigantic collectivist state. It is no surprise that the UN issued what amounts to a call to governments to censor those who express opposition to the destructive "war on drugs." Censorship is a distinctive characteristic of any political power luster and an essential ingredient of any dictatorship. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Time's Coverage of Teenage Sex Dear Editor, Re: "Where'd You Learn That?" -- Ron Stodghill II -- June 15, 1998 -- Time Magazine Here's my solution to teenage sex: Teach teenagers that sex is good, too good to be treated mindlessly and promiscuously; teach them that a fulfilling romantic relationship based on strong, profound values and full of fabulous sex is the reward for living a rational and productive life; teach them that great sex is a product of true self-esteem which is a product of being efficacious in thought and action. Unfortunately, today's teenagers are offered the diametrically opposite message by our education system and nihilistic culture. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Dump the Minimum Wage Dear Editor, Re: "Raising the Minimum Wage a Sound Investment" -- Don Martin -- June 17, 1998 -- Calgary Herald Don Martin gave invalid reasons for raising the minimum wage: 1) other provinces did it, 2) workers need it, 3) welfare recipients make more. What if the labour isn't worth the minimum wage to the employer? After all, it's his money. Or are property rights defunct? What about the right of someone willing to work for less in order to gain valuable experience and demonstrate his value? Is he not free (or considered intelligent enough) to say no to a "low" wage? If need supersedes property rights and liberty then why not seize everyone's property and re-distribute it according to need? The same socialistic principle underlies minimum wage. Minimum wage is a main cause of high unemployment (along with coercive union legislation and compulsory employment taxes/benefits) because it provides a barrier for employment and makes companies less productive/competitive. It primarily harms young people and other unskilled workers in their attempt to gain precious work experience and self-confidence -- driving them into welfare and depression. The efficiency of the free market increases the productivity of labour which increases real wages via competition for labour. Government intervention hands some people some short-term gains at the expense of others. That's immoral and destructive. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Chretien and the Sinking Canadian Dollar Dear Editor, Re: "Canada Should be a Currency Haven" -- Terence Corcoran -- July 14, 1998 -- Globe and Mail (ROB) Terence Corcoran shouldn't be surprised at Prime Minister Jean Chretien's "It's great for tourism" response to the collapse of the Canadian dollar. Like many people today, our Prime Minister takes a compartmentalized approach to economics. Who cares about all those people who are harmed by a de-valued dollar? Who cares about the fact that a low dollar means low value? If you stick your nose close enough to a tree you don't have to look at the destruction of the forest. For example, the government can throw money at economic losers in the name of "economic growth," and perhaps watch them recover (temporarily) while ignoring the fact that the money is essentially stolen from those who would have invested it in economic winners. And when investors and currency traders flee the country to greener pastures, the compartmentalized "thinker" will just smile and say: "It's great for tourism." Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Yes to Human Cloning Dear Editor, Re: "Of Mice and Men" -- Mark Nichols -- Aug. 3, 1998 -- Maclean's Magazine Clone Humans? Absolutely! Why shouldn't people be born with healthier genes? Why should we be denied the knowledge and benefits generated? The clone would still be a human being with free will and individual rights protection. The legal system could properly deal with abuse of the technology. To those shivering doomsayers who can only imagine Hollywood-style horrors from cloning technology, I say: be men, not mice! Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn The Pay Equity Sham Dear Editor, Re: "Pay Equity Bill at Least $3-Billion" -- Headlines -- July 30, 1998 -- Globe and Mail So the so-called Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has -- in accordance with the 1978 Canadian Human Rights Act -- ordered Ottawa to pay over 3 $billion to roughly 200,000 people, mostly women, in the name of pay equity. What about the rights of employers to negotiate salaries with employees on an individual basis according to individual characteristics -- not sex? These people were not physically coerced into working for their employer. What about the employer's right to determine what is "work of equal value"? (A government that dictates value is a dictatorship.) What about the rights of taxpayers who will be forced to pay for this policy of sexism called "pay equity"? Human rights? It is an intellectual and moral obscenity to use the term human rights to refer to a policy of sacrificing the rights of some to the wishes of others -- a policy of collectivism and statism. The only legitimate human rights are individual rights. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Feminism and Pay Equity Dear Editor, Re: "Radical Feminism's Absurd Legacy" -- Terence Corcoran -- July 31, 1998 -- Globe and Mail (ROB) In addition to Terence Corcoran's refreshing critique of the multi-billion dollar pay-equity settlement ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I'd like to point out that this settlement is a perfect illustration of tribalism in action. A group defined by a biological characteristic claims the "right" to be paid according to this characteristic -- not self-made individual characteristics like ambition, skills, performance. This "right" annuls the legitimate rights -- liberty and property -- of the employer and "shareholders" (taxpayers in this case). It's a perfect invitation for other "tribes" to seek special favors at others' expense -- all leading to pressure-group or tribal warfare. To use the term "human rights" for the sacrifice of some to the demands of others is intellectually and morally obscene -- the only legitimate human rights are individual rights. Those workers were not physically forced to work for their pre-settlement wage -- their legitimate rights were not violated. To call this ruling a victory for anti-discrimination is worse than obscene. It forces the employer to be a bigot and pay the worker according to sex -- not merit. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Pay Equity vs. Taxpayers Dear Editor, Re: "Pay equity versus the taxpayer?" -- Editorial -- Aug 7, 1998 -- Ottawa Citizen I was shocked to read the following in a Citizen editorial: "It is on behalf of all citizens that the government raises taxes, and once it has done so, it is no longer the taxpayers' money but the public's. If it is paid out for this or any other purpose, it is not 'taxpayers' but the public who will be short the money." This is communism. Are not taxpayers individuals with property rights? If money is forcibly taken from individuals, it's still belongs the individuals. By what right does it belong to the looters or their agents? Communism is based on the collectivist notion that individuals are interchangeable cells of some super organism called "the public." And if some cells must be sacrificed for the "public good" -- as determined by the ruling clique -- then so be it. But there is no "public" apart from its individuals, and there is no "public good" apart from the good of each individual. The gimmick behind this vicious theory -- which drives Canadian politics (and, consequently, investors away from the Canadian dollar) -- is to hand to some the power to declare themselves "the public" and sacrifice others to their beliefs and desires. One is accustomed to getting communist propaganda from the CBC (at taxpayers expense) and the Globe and Mail -- but not the Citizen. I guess the defenders of individual rights on your editorial board are on holidays. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Pay Equity is Egalitarianism [Published in the Calgary Herald on Aug. 17, 1998.] Dear Editor Re: "We're all guaranteed to get the shaft. Equally" -- by Peter Menzies -- Aug. 7, 1998 -- Calgary Herald With perhaps one exception, I agree with Peter Menzies' criticisms of the egalitarian philosophy underlying the 7$ billion "pay equity" settlement for 200,000 government employees. I disagree with his claim: "In the end, we're all guaranteed to get the shaft. Equally." This massive money grab from taxpayers by a "special interest" group will not be grabbed equally. It will be grabbed according to the Marxist-Leninist principle -- from each according to his ability to each according to his need -- that is built into our progressive taxation system. By "the end" does Mr. Menzies mean after the settlement, or after everyone gets sacrificed to the neediest under pure egalitarianism? If the latter then yes, in the end we all get shafted equally. But, in the words of that dreadful so-called economist, John Maynard Keynes, in the end we are all dead. That's the only state of "equality" that the vicious egalitarian philosophy achieves. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Pay Equity Certainly is Divisive Dear Editor, Re: "Pay Equity" -- letter by Amy McConnell -- Aug.17, 1998 -- The Globe and Mail (ROB) Amy McConnell claims to be "at a loss to understand why pay equity, a fundamental component of equality, should be viewed as divisive." (Letter -- Aug. 17) It's rather simple. Pay equity forces employers (shareholders in the case of corporations, taxpayers in the case of government) to pay employees not according to individual characteristics (ambition, ability, performance) but according to an unchosen, biological group characteristic, such as ethnic blood, skin colour or sex. The individual gets treated as an interchangeable member of the group (which is the essence of tribalism and bigotry). The rights of individuals (employers, shareholders, taxpayers) get sacrificed to the state. Consequently, people stop improving their performance, and join pressure groups (or "tribes") to lobby the government for special favours and handouts -- in the name of equality -- at the expense of others. This leads to divisive pressure-group warfare (and economic decline), which is what we now face thanks to collectivist-statist schemes like "pay equity." Worse, with "equality" as the moral standard (i.e., egalitarianism), productivity gets punished as the "haves" get sacrificed to the "have nots" -- until everyone is equally a miserable "have not." In the long run, borrowing the words of that dreadful "economist," John Maynard Keynes, we will all be dead. I'll concede this much to Ms. McConnell: dead people aren't divisive. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn United Nations' Assault on Individual Rights [Published in the Ottawa Citizen on Sept. 8, 1998.] Dear Editor, Re: "Balancing rights: My culture trumps your freedom" -- Christina Spencer -- Aug. 29, 1998 -- Ottawa Citizen Christina Spencer's column rightly debunks the so-called "social, economic and cultural rights" (such as a right to a job or to force one group's culture onto others) imbedded in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now that socialism and communism are in ill repute, and "rights" are once again in vogue, leftists are busy pushing pseudo rights as a gimmick to undermine basic individual rights, particularly property rights. The right to a job, or free education, or to hear one's "minority" language spoken on TV violates the basic rights of those forced to provide it. These leftists are cashing in on the fact that, thanks to modern intellectuals and educators, most people today do not understand what individual rights are or what they are based on. The time to remedy this situation is long overdue. Cheers! Glenn Woiceshyn Tax Cuts are un-Canadian [Published in the Globe and Mail on Sept. 2, 1998.] Dear Editor, Re: "A Taxing Time for the Economy" -- Editorial -- Aug. 31, 1998 -- Globe and Mail Tax cuts? But we're Canadian. Tax cuts reward personal ambition, ability and productiveness, which breeds self-interest and causes "inequality." That's un-Canadian. Tax cuts would shrink the size of the welfare state and thereby "force" people to be more responsible for their own lives. Furthermore, a smaller government might reduce the incentive for "special interest" groups to lobby politicians for special favours and handouts at others' expense. That's un-Canadian. Tax cuts would attract more investment into Canada and thus boost our productivity and our loonie (the name given to the Canadian dollar). That, obviously, is un-Canadian. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Michael Enright Needs Lesson on Environmentalism Dear producer of This Morning, Re: Michael Enright's Interview with Molly Ivans -- Sept. 2, 1998 -- CBC's This Morning radio program. During Michael Enright's interview with liberal commentator Molly Ivans, Ms. Ivans reported that a U.S. Republican (Rep. Tom DeLay) had suggested that the insecticide DDT be once again used to control mosquitos. Michael Enright laughed at this suggestion as if it was utterly ridiculous. Is Mr. Enright aware that before the U.S. government banned DDT in 1973, DDT was credited for saving the lives of millions of people in Third World countries from malaria and other diseases caused by mosquitos and insects? Is Mr. Enright aware that since DDT was banned in 1973 the incidents of malaria deaths rose dramatically and that roughly 2-4 million people now die of malaria each year? [See New York Times of Jan. 8, 1997.] Is Mr. Enright aware that the Environmental Protection Agency conducted extensive hearings on DDT and that the hearing examiner, Edmund Sweeney, recommended strongly against a ban on grounds of the ominous threat to human life. However, his boss, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, who had neither attended any of the hearings nor studied any of the transcripts generated by the hearings, decided to overrule Sweeney and ban DDT because it allegedly was causing a few bird species to become extinct, and is allegedly toxic to humans. [For stomach-turning details see: "Toxic Terror" by Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D, M.P.H, president of The American Council on Science and Health.] Is Mr. Enright aware that since the DDT ban, a number of scientific experts have debunked these allegations, which came from environmentalists. [For example, see Aaron Wildavsky's book -- "But is it True?") Is Mr. Enright aware that Ruckelshaus was primarily listening to those nature-worshiping environmentalists -- particularly from the Environmental Defense Fund -- who are notorious for scaremongering and for their utter disregard for human life. In fact, when reporters expressed concern about the millions of people who would die of malaria as a result of the ban, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Charles Wurster, responded as follows: "this is a good way to get rid of [people] as any." (See "Toxic Terror" by E. Whelan, pg. 100) This was at the time when environmentalists were pushing their doomsday claims about overpopulation, or what environmentalist Paul Ehrlich called the "Population Bomb." In summary, millions of people in Third World countries have died needlessly of malaria thanks to a dishonest environmentalist campaign against DDT -- and Michael Enright's response is to laugh at the suggestion that DDT be used once again to combat malaria. If Mr. Enright doesn't take action to investigate this issue and issue an apology, I will throw up the next time I hear him pour out his bleeding heart for the poor, sick, weak and helpless people of the Third World. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn p.s. Given that the CBC is notorious for reporting on stories of human tragedy in the Third World, I strongly recommend that they investigate -- objectively (i.e., without the typical CBC bias in favour of environmentalism) -- the tragic DDT story. Who's to Blame for Our Dollar's Collapse? [Published in the Financial Post on Sept. 5, 1998.] Re: "Blame C$ Crisis on Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien" -- by Diane Francis -- Aug 29-31 -- Financial Post I agree with Diane Francis that Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien bear blame for our sinking dollar and decline in prosperity. But these politicians merely applied ideas that most Canadians -- particularly our "intellectuals" -- hold dearly. For example, many believe that "public interest" (or "group rights") supersedes individual rights. Since there is no "public" apart from the individuals that make it up, this can only mean that the "interests" of some individuals (or group) supersede the interests and rights of others. This breeds pressure-group warfare where "special-interest" groups lobby politicians for special favours and handouts at others' expense -- all in the name of "public interest" -- leading to economic decay and national disunity. Furthermore, many Canadians believe that one person's need is an automatic claim on another person's paycheque. If so, then surely the government's job is to sacrifice the "haves" to the "have nots" via high taxes and skyrocketing debt. Since Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien merely put into practice ideas held dearly by many Canadians, they faced little resistance. If such Canadians are now outraged by the sinking dollar and the "don't worry, be happy" attitude of Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin, they have primarily themselves to blame. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Why Kids Can't Read Dear Editor, Re: "Why Kids Can't Read" -- Robert Sheppard -- Sep. 7, 1998 -- Maclean's Magazine Ever since the phonics method of learning to read was replaced by the "whole word" (or "look-say") method, the percentage of schooled children exhibiting reading and learning difficulties has been rising. Why? The phonics method reduces thousands of words into a few dozen sound-symbol associations for the child to memorize and automatize. It is one of the child's first lessons in reducing the complex many into the simple few -- which is the essence of learning by (or thinking in) principles. Mastering it gives a child pleasure and induces self-confidence, the ability to focus and the desire to go on and learn other skills in the same fashion. The "whole word" method "forces" a child to memorize countless whole words, which induces mental pain, and automatizes self-doubt and a resistance to focus and learn. (A child who doesn't focus is at the mercy of random subconscious feelings which leads to hyperactivity. Modern educators apply the same anti-principled approach to other subjects such as math, science and history. Mental automatization is essential to learning, and automatizing the wrong method is difficult -- though not impossible -- to correct.) Rather than abandon the anti-principled approach to learning, modern educators apply labels such as "dyslexia," "learning disability," and "attention deficit disorder" to children who were crippled by destructive methods of learning. Such terms serve to evade the fact that consciousness is volitionally self-directed, and they shift blame from the teaching methods to the child's genetic make-up. (The reported fact that "brain activity" is concentrated in different areas for a "dyslexic" is not proof of a birth defect -- it merely indicates that the "dyslexic" has automatized a different method when trying to read. Furthermore, we all know that neurological structure is affected by usage so structure by itself is not proof of a birth defect.) The real issue in education is this: How long are modern educators going to cripple the minds of children with their anti-principled methods of teaching? Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Robert Fulford on "Faction" Dear Editor, Re: "Novelists Embrace Faction, The Stuff Of Real Life" -- Robert Fulford -- Sept. 6, 1998 -- Globe and Mail -- Books Robert Fulford confuses the crucial distinction between art and journalism, and invents a destructive concept called "faction." "Faction" refers to novels that "borrow characters and events from real life," such as Keneally's *Schindler's Ark,* and novels that contain "detailed descriptions of reality." The primary function of art is not to present a detailed account of reality or history -- leave that to journalists and historians -- but to translate an abstract idea into concretes. The artist qua novelist selects only those characters, events and "descriptions of reality" that best serve to convey his theme, while omitting that which is irrelevant and inconsequential. If an artist wanted convey his concept of a hero but adhered meticulously to an actual person, such as Oscar Schindler, the artist would be forced to include character traits and events that obscure or contradict his theme. He'd be sacrificing art to journalism. A great work of fiction, with fictional characters and events, will contain factual descriptions of reality (albeit essentialized and stylized) and even historical information -- when they serve to convey the artist's theme. (It's called Romantic Realism.) However, it would be insane to obscure an interesting theme or interrupt an exciting plot -- such as in Alexandre Dumas's *The Count of Monte Cristo* -- to provide meticulous descriptions of Paris, or a detailed history of prisons, pirates and poisons. What "faction" does is attempt to categorize novels according to their degree of journalism, which is a non-essential criteria. If this were taken as the standard of a good novel it would discourage great works of fiction -- such as Ayn Rand's *Atlas Shrugged* -- on grounds of not being realistic enough because of their fictional characters and fictional events -- and encourage novels full of journalistic detail that one can get from an encyclopedia. (This latter is called Naturalism -- a boring form of literature.) Worse, "faction" would beget "non-faction" -- novels filled with pure fantasy and no correspondence to reality -- a branch of nihilistic literature that would be synonymous with the unintelligible smears on canvas we see in art galleries under "modern art." Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Health Care Should be Privatized Dear Editor, "For Profit Health Care Doesn't Make Sense in A Caring Society"-- Joe MacGillivray à Sept. 8, 1998 -- Calgary Herald Joe MacGillivray's attack on private medicine is classic leftist (evasive-emotionalistic) "thinking." He erects a straw man for capitalist medicine where a man, robbed and beaten, is left to die on the street because he can't pay for medical services -- as if that represents daily existence. What about legal responsibility, private insurance and charity? And what about the millions slaughtered by socialist regimes? He then argues that it's inhuman for doctors to accept payment from patients for "medically necessary" services. Why? Because the essence of being "human" is to serve others selflessly. If true, then why does he (qua socialist) believe governments must force humans to be "human"? If Canadians are as compassionate as he claims, why is force mandatory? MacGillivray doesn't say -- nor explains why selflessness is synonymous with "human." Why is it immoral to benefit from the fruit of one's own ambition, effort and achievement yet moral for others to receive it? Is it because one has earned it while others have not? If earning wealth is sinful, and lacking it virtuous, then what incentive is there to be productive and self-responsible? None under socialism -- which is why it always begets poverty. >From food to computers, capitalism continuously provides more and better products/services at ever-lower prices. Why? Because capitalism leaves individuals free to pursue their own lives and happiness rather than render them selfless serfs to governments or the masses. We could be enjoying many benefits of private medicine were it not for the evasive-emotionalist "thinking" of socialists like MacGillivray. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Tax Cuts vs. Health Care -- a False Alternative Dear Editor, [Published in the Globe and Mail on Sept. 11, 1998.] Re: "A Dilemma For Martin: Tax Cuts V. Health Care"-- Edward Greenspon and Shawn McCarthy à Sept. 9, 11, 1998 -- Globe and Mail (ROB) According to the article, Finance Minister Paul Martin's dilemma is tax cuts versus more spending on health care. In other words, the choice is between giving people back some of their own money versus pouring it down the drain of a socialist scheme in order to give some people the illusion that socialism can somehow work in medicine when it has been a total failure everywhere else. The moral and practical thing to do is cut taxes and begin privatizing health care so that we can begin benefitting from the same self-interest motives and free-market forces that continuously provide us better products and services at ever lower prices. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Clinton's Evil Appeasement of North Korea [Published in the New York Times on Sept. 17, 1998, in a condensed form. ] Dear Editor, Re: "U.S. To Send North Korea Food Despite Missile Launching" -- David E. Sanger -- Sept. 10, 1998 -- New York Times As a Canadian, I'm horrified that the Clinton administration once again plans to send aid to a murderous regime hostile to America and its allies -- this time to North Korea in the wake of its recent missile launch over Japan. To say that the U.S. "rewards North Korea for bad behavior" is putting it mildly. More accurately, the U.S. is aiding and abetting its enemies. When North Korea threatened to build an atomic bomb with plutonium from its old nuclear reactors, the Clinton administration helped it to build two nuclear reactors in exchange for agreeing to dismantle its old reactors and not build the bomb. Since then, North Korea refused to allow inspections and there are reports of a secret underground nuclear facility. Then when North Korea faced severe food shortages (thanks to its communist practices) and again issued threats, the Clinton administration gave it food in exchange for "peace talks." Clinton has dealt with Iraq and China in a similarly craven and appeasing manner. Clinton's job is to protect the rights of his country's citizens -- not rob them to help feed and arm murderous dictatorships hostile to America and its allies. The moral and practical response to foreign threats against America and its allies is moral condemnation and military punishment, not appeasement and economic rewards. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Global Warming Scare is Another Environmentalist Myth [Published in the Calgary Herald on Sept. 16, 1998.] Dear Editor, Re: "Chaotic Weather Proves Consumption Changes Needed" -- James P. Bruce -- Sept. 14, 1998 -- Calgary Herald Like a typical environmentalist, James Bruce recites some "facts" that allegedly support the global warming scare and advocates a major shift away from fossil fuels -- the lifeblood of industrial society, and has the effrontery to suggest it will be economically painless. Selecting only those "facts" that appear to support one's pet theory while ignoring a wealth of evidence contradicting it constitutes skullduggery -- not science. Here are just a few considerations reported by climate scientists which Mr. Bruce conveniently neglected: 1) Balloon and satellite data -- the most reliable means of measuring average atmospheric temperatures -- show a gradual cooling trend over the past two decades. 2) The oft-cited 0.5 degree (centigrade) rise over the past century occurred prior to 1940 when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically. 3) There was a warming period about 900 years ago when global temperatures were almost two degrees higher than they are today -- without apocalyptic consequences. 4) There is no scientific evidence that El Nino -- responsible for this year's unusual weather -- is a man-made phenomenon. 5) More than 80 climate scientists signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration (which states that "we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty action"). They did so in protest to the blatant attempt by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which Mr. Bruce co-chaired) to manufacture a "scientific consensus" where none existed. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn How Clinton's Mind Works Dear Editor, Re: "What He Hasn't Done" -- Editorial -- Sept. 15, 1998 -- Globe and Mail Your editorial suggested that Bill Clinton could have avoided his downfall had he asked himself: "What am I doing?" Excellent as advice, but this question would not arise in the mind of a politically powerful leader totally convinced that he can get away with virtually anything, especially when he has done so in the past and has many sacrificial lambs at his disposal to absorb consequences. What many forget is that Clinton became president because he carefully monitored public opinion and is a master at "becoming" the person people want him to be. But we know that success at fooling others generates a perverted sense of power over reality, which, according to criminal experts, breeds recklessness. Nobody should be surprised that what many (wrongly) consider to be a "good president" is unbelievably reckless. A mind that develops on the premise "What can I get away with?" loses the capacity to ask "What am I doing?" Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Reform Party Should Stick to What's Important Dear Editor, Re: "Chrétien's Senate Appointment for Alberta" -- News Report -- Sept. 18 -- Globe and Mail This Albertan doesn't share the Reform Party's outrage at Jean Chrétien's screw-you-Albertans Senate appointment. It's like being outraged at a burglar for not wiping his feet when he looted your house. Outrage at Jean Chrétien and his Liberals should be reserved for their continuous disregard for basic individual rights, such as the right of each individual -- not lobbied bureaucrats in Ottawa -- to decide how to spend the money he or she has earned. Whether or not we elect senators is a secondary issue; we elect our parliamentarians and look what happened to us in terms of prosperity decline and national disunity. The fundamental issue is: should our government protect our individual rights or continue with the Chrétien-Liberal (and Mulroney-Conservative) policy of using us as milch cows for their (screwball) social-engineering schemes and pet lobby groups? Reform should focus on the principle of individual rights protection -- not the principle of "let the majority decide whatever is right." What, heaven forbid, if the majority is wrong? Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn Nelson Mandela's Reception in Canada Dear Editor, Re: "Mandela's Reception in Canada" -- News Report -- Sept. 24, 1998 -- Globe and Mail Nelson Mandela received a hero's reception in Ottawa for his life-long fight against apartheid -- against a country's unjust-racist treatment of some of its own citizens. Canada helped Mandela by participating in global sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime. What about the monstrous treatment of Chinese people by their communist government -- which makes the treatment of blacks under apartheid seem tame by comparison? Why haven't countries like Canada denounced China or Cuba as an evil dictatorship and placed economic sanctions on it? Smells like a double standard to me. Could it be that the moral code underlying communism (which Mandela is sympathetic to) -- the belief that the individual is a selfless serf of society -- is still cherished by our liberal-minded elite and practiced by the Liberals in Ottawa? Just asking. Sincerely, Glenn Woiceshyn John Crispo on Bank Mergers [Published in the Globe and Mail on Oct. 3, 1998.] Dear Editor, Re: "Why We Must Say No To Bank Mergers" -- John Crispo -- Oct. 1, 1998 -- Globe and Mail John Crispo first refers to himself as "a long-time champion of capitalism, free trade and globalization, not to mention deregulation and privatization," and then has the effrontery to urge the government to behave like dictators and block the planned mergers of the big banks. Under true (laissez-faire) capitalism -- the social system upholding individual rights, including private property rights -- corporations are not property of the state. They are free to merge according to company rules that the shareholders consent to when purchasing the shares (rules that violate nobody's legitimate individual rights), not according to that elastic thing called "public interest." It invites hordes of pressure groups to lobby the government for special favours at others' expense, particularly at the expense of the legitimate rights of shareholders whose investment makes possible the products and services that "the public" wants. When are alleged champions of capitalism, such as Mr. Crispo, going to be real champions of capitalism by defending individual rights? (And when is the Globe and Mail going to publish something from real champions of capitalism?) Cheers! Glenn Woiceshyn © 1998 Glenn Woiceshyn. All rights reserved. This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw.

Home . .Design: Integrate Interactive