Your Ad Here

PTBC banner       ProudToBeCanadian

Your right.

The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:

Click here to see more of our columns or use the drop-down menu atop this stack)


Advertisement


Advertisement


PTBC PUSH-BACK

Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
socialism-reliant CBC:
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• CIBC
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• Monster.ca
• National Post
• Neutrogena
• Nutrisystem
• Quicktax
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• ScotiaBank
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
• Travelodge
• Vonage
• WeightWatchers
• Westjet
• Working.com
• Zip.ca

Please read more here.


PTBC Columnist Team

Columnists -- with bite! We feature conservative-friendly writers from Canada and the U.S. who help clarify the difference between liberals and conservatives. All have personally agreed to be a part of our team here at PTBC.

Salim Mansur

Salim Mansur

Don’t break faith with veterans’ legacy

Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005
Bio/Email | Salim Mansur Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

The memorable lines of the most famous war poem penned by a Canadian, Lt. Col. John McCrae serving in France during World War I, read, “If ye break faith with us who die/We shall not sleep, though poppies grow/In Flanders fields.”

On the 60th anniversary of the end of the last most bloody war in human history, as Canadians find themselves in grave distemper and politics in the country risks becoming an endless winter of discontent, McCrae’s poem rings with irony, poignancy and rebuke.

Those Canadians who responded to the bugle call of arms in defence of democracy and freedom twice within a generation are mostly gone.

The few remaining heroes from our greatest generation of brave soldiers, sailors and airmen are rarely seen or heard from, and only briefly remembered in the bustle of our lives.

But without their courage and sacrifice, few among us can imagine what sort of world we would be living in—a world arranged in the ranking of master race and slaves, where those who are weak, deemed inferior, or unwanted, get regularly pruned from life as weeds from gardens.

Canada itself was relatively young when those men and boys, barely showing whiskers, left for battles across oceans and their women, with similar courage, filled their spaces at home.

It was a different world then, where people did more, and gave more.

They came from farms and factories—ordinary people with mundane hopes and fears who opened this country of lakes and mountains across a continent out of their own enterprise—and then when called upon to take arms, defeated professional warriors claiming superiority of race and culture.

It was due to them this country emerged into the first rank of nations in the world, a people respected for the leadership shown in battles fought and won.

Canada punched far above its weight class, and displayed a nobility in action and vision that secured it a place of distinction among its allies, particularly those in the English-speaking world.

Since then, Canada’s population has tripled and its economy has grown richer. Canadians live longer and are wealthier than the generations who shed their blood at Flanders and Vimy Ridge, at Dieppe and Normandy.

Yet the country seems less sanguine about its future, its politics driven more by rancour and stained by scandals than when McCrae’s generation left for distant shores for reasons they could have denied had anything to do with them.

We now quibble about the meaning of freedom and the wisdom of spreading democracy when called upon to support, merely by words, the liberation of a people from tyranny, or in doing something forceful in ending a genocide when and where we might make a difference.

We have allowed our patriotism to be cheapened in the same measure as we have seen our dominion reduced to a never-ending quarrel over the equalization cost negotiated between the richer and poorer members of the federation.

We find comfort in praises offered by an inept and corrupt United Nations even as our politicians have gutted the country’s armed forces, and taken scheming dictators for friends while dismaying our long-standing allies.

Hence, it is a fair question to ask if Canadians in becoming more prosperous have also become more feckless, or is it the men and women lacking in ideas and integrity who represent them in public life that have brought ill-repute to the country.

We may not deny, however, should McCrae and comrades mock us from where they lie—“Between the crosses, row on row,/That mark our place”—for nearly breaking faith with them as Canada edges so perilously close to sundering apart because of our selfishness.



            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh

©2005-11 Salim Mansur
Salim Mansur BA, MA, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario.  He is also a columnist at Canada’s Sun Media.  His column appears here with Salim Mansur’s express permission by special arrangement with him.


Posted on 05/07/05 at 09:17 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Salim Mansur +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Steven Milloy

Steven Milloy

Obesity Hysteria Survives Despite Official Debunking

Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005
Bio/Email | Steven Milloy Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Obesity hysteria recently collapsed under its own weight. But the public health establishment, media and politicians are doing their best to revive it.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the April 20 Journal of the American Medical Association that estimated the net death toll attributable to obesity to be 25,814 people per year.

This, of course, was quite a downward revision from CDC’s March 2004 claim that obesity caused about 400,000 deaths per year, approaching the toll estimated for smoking. Readers of this column learned at the time that the 400,000-estimate was quite faulty and it’s rather refreshing to see the CDC admit that it was wrong.

But don’t expect the 93.5 percent reduction in the size of the scare to have any measurable impact on the obesity industry’s momentum.

When the new study was published, CDC chief Dr. Julia Gerberding told the Associated Press that the agency won’t scale back its anti-obesity campaign which, by the way, won’t mention the new reduced death toll estimate.

“There’s absolutely no question that obesity is a major public health concern of this country,” Gerberding insisted.

The translation, of course, is that CDC receives plenty of taxpayer funding to promote the obesity scare and it’s not giving it back.

In the wake of the new study, the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group “promoting personal responsibility and consumer choice,” took out full-page ads in several major daily newspapers depicting the “Obesity Epidemic” as shrinking over the last year to a “Problem,” then to a “Threat,” then to an “Issue,” and finally to just “Hype.”

Although the Washington Post was happy to take $100,000 or so from the Center to run the ad, the newspaper apparently wasn’t too happy about the message. Several days after the ad ran, the Post published a lengthy story on front-page of its Business section knocking the Center for Consumer Freedom as the tool of the restaurant industry.

Adding insult to injury a few days later, the Post then ran an editorial in which it ridiculed the Center for Consumer Freedom’s ad as a “scandal.”

“A group actually calling itself the Center for Consumer Freedom did buy $600,000 worth of advertising in The Post and elsewhere last week calling the links between obesity and mortality “hype’ fostered by the government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In principle, these advertisements are no less of a scandal: The high cost of diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses is not in dispute, any more than is the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. Obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled in the past 30 years and have tripled among children,” editorialized the Post.

Note how the Post actually tried the old trick of changing the subject, shifting the focus from the CDC’s bogus estimate of 400,000 deaths to perhaps equally dubious factoids about childhood obesity.

What’s really scandalous, though, is how the Post kept the Center’s money while simultaneously disparaging it.

Former President Clinton joined the obesity fray this week announcing a joint campaign with the American Heart Association to encourage children to have healthy diets and to be physically active—both worthy goals.

But President Clinton stepped into the realm of obesity hype when he stated, “The truth is that children born today could become part of the first generation in American history to live shorter lives than their parents because so many are eating too much of the wrong things and not exercising enough.”

The reality of the matter is actually quite different.

First, there is little evidence to support the notion that otherwise healthy adults have shorter lifespans simply because they may be overweight. In fact, the new CDC study reported that adults who are merely “overweight” actually live longer on average than adults who are of “normal weight.”

Next, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that, for otherwise healthy children, childhood weight determines or impacts longevity.

Perhaps worse than any weight problem that may or may not be occurring, is the problem of the obesity scare industry, consisting of government regulators, the media, politicians, and various nonprofit groups.

Regardless of the facts, these groups have a vested interest—mainly at taxpayer expense—in maintaining the fiction that Americans are eating themselves to death.

Perhaps many of us should eat less and exercise more. But we should also put the obesity industry on a steady diet of fewer taxpayer dollars and more truth-telling.


            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh
Steven Milloy's graphic

©2005-08 STEVEN J. MILLOY. Posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca with the express permission of Steven Milloy.  Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com  where the motto is: “All the junk that’s fit to debunk”, as well as CSRWatch.com.  Steven Milloy is an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore,  and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.  He’s also an investment adviser at an investment fund called Free Enterprise Action Fund.

  Buy Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.


Posted on 05/05/05 at 11:01 PM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Steven Milloy +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

The devil is out of details

Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Liberals have been unusually hysterical the past few weeks. But we’re not getting much in the way of details — which is odd because the devil is usually found in the details. As we reviewed vis-a-vis the judiciary in last week’s column, whenever liberals won’t give you details, it’s because the details don’t help them.

We keep hearing Tom DeLay’s name uttered in angry, accusatory tones, but I still don’t know what law he’s supposed to have broken. As far as I can tell, DeLay didn’t even cheat at golf during that trip to Scotland. But you know what liberals always say: “Where there’s nothing, there’s fire.”

As long as liberals can keep repeating “Tom DeLay” and “ethics violation” in the same sentence and get the media to throw a grade-A hissy fit — and it’s so hard to tease that out of the mainstream media when it comes to a Republican — they’ve got themselves a scandal!

Close your eyes and even now you can hear Aaron Brown saying: “Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay came under fire again today when it was disclosed that his Permanent Record showed he refused to take a nap once while in kindergarten. We turn now live to Wolf Blitzer with former kindergarten teacher Louise Millicuddy in Livingston, Texas. Wolf, could this bombshell spell the end for the combative Tom DeLay?”

How about asking the Democrats — I would recommend asking Rep. Rosa DeLauro this -— to explain precisely which law they believe DeLay broke? People will have already left the building before we get the most basic outline of the allegation. These are the same legal geniuses who looked at dozens of Whitewater-related felony convictions and said, “Crime? What crime?”

DeLay’s own constituents seem to like him, unless you include Democrats claiming to be Republicans. Liberals never tire of this trick or imagine that it could ever become any less believable. Turn on talk radio right now and you’ll hear some liberal caller claiming to be a lifelong Republican scandalized by the Bush tax cuts — or some other policy that has been a mainstay of the Republican Party for at least a century. The callers are always teachers. (No wonder our kids aren’t learning — their teachers are always on the phone with talk-radio shows pretending to be Republicans.)

A ringleader of the DeLay witch-hunt in Texas is Patricia Baig, who took out a full-page advertisement in a Texas newspaper calling for DeLay’s resignation. Baig signed her letter, “A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform.”

There is no record of Baig ever voting in a Republican primary, belonging to any Republican clubs or contributing to any Republican politicians in Texas or anywhere else.

To the contrary! Baig contributed to the Democrat who ran against DeLay in his last election. She used her maiden name for the ad, calling herself “P.A. Perine (Texas Republican).” She is a substitute teacher.

All of that was duly noted by a New York Times reporter. (If we are good and decent people, conservatives will put that reporter on a 24-hour watch to make sure he isn’t killed in the middle of the night.) But liberals think they can fool normal people with their road-to-Damascus “I used to be a Republican” conversion stories. They can’t even fool the New York Times!

Baig’s entire retort to the absence of any evidence that she is a Republican was to say that lots of Republicans don’t vote in Republican primaries or contribute to Republican candidates (which, in her defense, is at least a better excuse than Kevin Phillips’.)

So, like their theories on “global warming,” a liberal’s claim to be a Republican is a non-disprovable assertion involving a lot of hot air.

Another conservative getting the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment is John Bolton, Bush’s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations. The charge against Bolton consists of the allegation that he is an absolute beast to his co-workers.

Have the Democrats heard about Katie Couric? As the New York Times described it last week: “America’s girl next door has morphed into the mercurial diva down the hall. At the first sound of her peremptory voice and clickety stiletto heels, people dart behind doors and douse the lights.” (Funny, I do the same thing when I’m watching the “Today” show at home by myself.)

Things have gotten so bad at “Today,” sometimes they show that videotape of Katie’s lower bowel exam just to lighten things up.

Can’t Barbara Boxer do something to protect the staff of NBC’s “Today”? They’re at least Americans. First they had to live through the horrors of the Bryant Gumbel years, and now this. Also, I can’t be completely clear here, because somebody could get killed, but why isn’t a certain lamp-throwing junior senator from New York helping them out? Oh wait — I think I know why ...

I repeat: Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations. It’s not like it’s an important job. Get a grip, people! He’s not replacing Paula Abdul on “American Idol.”

The U.N. is an organization with thousands of people from all over the world with one thing in common: They badly need to be yelled at, preferably by a guy who looks like Wilford Brimley. When did collegiality with representatives from North Korea and Syria become a pressing national issue?

Why just imagine if Bolton raised his voice in front of Sudan’s ambassador, or (gasp!) Burma’s! I mean, Myanmar’s! (Sorry, military junta that runs Myanmar!)

Democrats are enflamed at the idea of Bolton mistreating representatives of slave-traders and dictators, but won’t lift a finger to help the staff of “Today.” We used to be a country that cared about ratings genocide.

The only silver lining to the Democrats’ efforts to kill Bolton’s nomination is that if they succeed, Bush could nominate Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the U.N.‘s Economic and Social Council instead. (Alan Keyes!) Maybe then we could finally get on with the important work of quitting the U.N. and kicking them out of New York. Isn’t it somebody else’s turn to host those guys yet?


Ann Coulter's newset - her fourth!



COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by special arrangement, weekly.  Link to ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

Buy Ann Coulter’s THREE other books too!  All best sellers! Buy them though our web site and help support ProudToBeCanadian.ca.  Thanks!

            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh
Ann Coulter's graphic

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.



Posted on 05/05/05 at 03:54 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Mike S. Adams

Mike S. Adams

The reign of Jane has Churchill looking sane

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Bio/Email | Mike Adams Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

When I was in grammar school there was a kid on my block named David. He often tried to make others look like idiots by accusing them of saying things they never really said. For example, he used to lean over to people as if they were whispering something to him. He would then recoil in apparent horror exclaiming, “No, I will not pull my pants down for a dollar.”

At first, he was successful in making others look like idiots. But, eventually, people figured out that David was the idiot. Unfortunately, David’s tactic has now been adopted by Ian Newbould, President of N.C. Wesleyan College.

Following a couple of columns-one by Jon Sanders, one by yours truly-President Newbould has issued the following statement in defense of embattled political science professor Jane Christensen:

“North Carolina Wesleyan College seeks to foster freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry. The College believes that the students’ educational experience should include a balanced and open approach to learning. As a United Methodist institution, we value diversity of opinion. The College fosters just and fair treatment for all groups in our society and does not condone hatred or violence of any kind. We seek to foster Judeo-Christian values. We value First Amendment rights, and academic freedom for our faculty and students…”

The first problem with this statement is obvious. Neither of the columnists criticizing Christensen argued that she should be censored in a way. We are not enemies of the First Amendment. Nor are we enemies of academic freedom as his statement suggests. In other words, we did not ask Newbould to pull his pants down. As soon as he stops insisting that “he will not pull his pants down” we can move on to other, more important, issues.

For example, Newbould says that NC Wesleyan values intellectual diversity and does not condone hatred. But how does that statement square with the following quote from Professor Jane Christensen?: “I rather think the ‘Holocaust’ denial sites have a great deal of credibility since the ‘Holocaust’ was the greatest hoax of all.”

Before you read the rest of Newbould’s statement, consider that Jane Christensen is the only political science professor at NC Wesleyan. And, just for fun, ask yourself what Christensen thinks about Newbould’s use of the word “Judeo” in his defense of her.

Newbould continues:

“Professor Christensen’s views are not those held by the overwhelming majority of Americans. She presents alternative views that many find repugnant. There is no question but that students in her classes hear views and opinions different from the mainstream. It should be noted that our students are intelligent and thoughtful. They can, and often do, disagree with Professor Christensen, without academic penalty. Many students find themselves upset at the opinion and commentary that they are uncritical, or can be brainwashed.”

Note that Newbould states that students “often” disagree without penalty. Does that mean that they sometimes, or perhaps often, disagree with penalty?

I suspect that Newbould chooses his words carefully because he knows that a recent complaint against Christensen (alleging viewpoint discrimination) was quickly dismissed by university officials. But what will he do if other complaints are lodged in the near future? Will it be harder to dismiss them now that the whole country is watching?

Newbould continues:

“As an institution, we do not require our faculty or students to accept, or reject, any particular academic or political theory. We endeavor to ensure, however, that what is taught accords with the standards of each profession and discipline. In response to the many concerns raised about Dr. Christensen’s coursework, North Carolina Wesleyan College will be asking a team of respected Political Scientists to evaluate, out of the glare of publicity, the academic appropriateness and integrity of Professor Christensen’s approach to teaching. Dr. Christensen has also suggested that this approach would be helpful. Sound and thoughtful review by external examination will guide our approach to this matter.”

The idea of calling in “a team of respected Political Scientists” to evaluate “the academic appropriateness and integrity of Professor Christensen’s approach to teaching” is simply hysterical. It reminds me of the time I saw a large dog defecate a few yards in front of me on a jogging trail. Rather than call in a team of experts to perform tests on the fecal matter, I just stepped out of the way. In other words, I know fecal matter when I see it. President Newbould’s capacity for fecal identification is not so well-developed.

Of course, this proposed evaluation is simply a stall tactic by an administration hoping that its greatest ever PR disaster will simply go away. After all, Christensen admits the following in regard to one of her courses: “This course is outside the scope of traditional ‘political science’ in many ways. First it is ‘unscientific’ in that it relies much on eyewitness accounts and speculation.”

And that is probably why Jane Christensen believes that the Bush administration staged the attacks of 911 and that “the ‘Holocaust’ was the greatest hoax of all.” She is a “speculator,” not a scientist.

But you can’t tell that to Jane Christensen. She says that criticism of her courses is part of “a war by the extreme right wing motivated by the Zionists to quash academic freedom on campus.” And when I offered her a chance to rebut my criticisms of her, here is what she had to say: “Sorry, Mike, you destructive bastard. You’ve just played your hand. F*** you.”

Let me say for the record that I am not part of a right-wing Zionist conspiracy, aimed at keeping people like Jane Christensen out of our institutions of higher learning. To the contrary, I think that Jane Christensen belongs in an institution. She could hardly function anywhere else.




Mike Adams - Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel

?2005 Mike S. Adams - Mike Adams, PhD, is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com. His column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca with Mike Adams’ express permission by special arrangement with him. Dr. Adams is available for speaking engagements.

            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh
Mike S. Adams's graphic

©2005-10 Mike S. Adams - Mike Adams, PhD, is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com. His column appears here at PTBC with Mike Adams’ express permission by special arrangement with him. Dr. Adams is available for speaking engagements.  Mike Adams’ new book, Feminists Say The Darndest Things.


Posted on 05/04/05 at 11:01 PM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Mike Adams +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy

Super-Sized Statistics

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Bio/Email | | Printer-Friendly Version

Wendy McElroy's iFeminsts.netThe accuracy of the following statements is not only personally important to your health, but it may be politically important to your freedom.

Which of the statements you believe is also likely to affect such intimate issues as your body image and how you choose to feed your family.

1: Obesity and inactivity kill 400,000 Americans a year, making them the second leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., next only to smoking.

2: Obesity and inactivity kill 26,000 Americans a year, making them less lethal than relatively unknown diseases such as nephritis and septicemia.

The first statement creates panic; the second, concern. Without diminishing the desirability of a healthy diet and exercise, which reaction do the facts really support: a public panic with calls for political intervention, or a reason why individuals should reconsider reaching for that second doughnut?

Don’t look to the Centers for Disease Control for guidance. The CDC seems determined to create confusion, not clarity on the statistics. Over the past year, the CDC has provided numbers that support both statements, contradictory though they be.

In March 2004, a study co-authored by CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding claimed that, in 2000, obesity and physical inactivity killed 400,000 Americans; that is, obesity caused more than 16 percent of all deaths in the U.S. The CBS headline, “Americans Eat Themselves To Death,” was typical of media coverage. Time/ABC News convened a Summit on Obesity.

Political reaction was equally alarmist. Surgeon General Richard Carmona declared, “As we look to the future and where childhood obesity will be in 20 years…it is every bit as threatening to us as is the terrorist threat we face today.”

Using words like “epidemic,” policy makers rushed to debate on everything from “fat taxes” on junk food to the regulation of fast-food advertising, from Medicare covering obesity-related surgeries to banning sodas from schools.

Some voices advised skepticism. Steve Milloy, in his FOX “Junk Science” column of March 12, 2004, pointed out that “the CDC produced its estimates with a statistical ruse called ‘attributable risk’—the fearmongers’ method of choice for alarming the public with large body counts. Attributable risk could be the poster child for the saying, ‘garbage in, garbage out’.” In other words, science accurately views obesity as a contributing factor in death—or, even more loosely, as a correlation—not as a causative one.

Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom—a self-described “nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense”—called attention to severe methodological and mathematical flaws in the CDC study.

On Nov. 23 the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to an internal CDC investigation, the “widely quoted” study on obesity contained “statistical errors” that inflated the death toll by “tens of thousands”—specifically, by 80,000 or 20 percent. In November, the CBS headline (and others) changed to “Obesity Study Overstated Effects.” But the 400,000 figure seemed cemented into government policy and public awareness. It is difficult to unring an alarm bell.

Then, on April 19, the Houston Chronicle reported that the CDC “estimated today that packing on too many pounds accounts for 25,814 deaths a year…As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher.” No wonder, the CCF concluded “CDC stands for Center for Damage Control”.

CCF takes an extreme view: it argues that CDC’s super-sized statistics were politically motivated and self-consciously false. (Others boomerang the same charges of dishonesty back at the CCF.)

If true, however, the CCF’s accusations would place some CDC officials in the same category as Eric T. Poehlman, a top obesity researcher who did work at the University of Vermont. On March 18, the Boston Globe reported Poehlman had “fabricated data in 17 applications for federal grants to make his work seem more promising, helping him win nearly $3 million in government funding.” Poehlman acknowledged making up “research results from 1992 to 2002, including findings published in medical journals that overstated the effect of menopause on women’s health.”

Apart from the profit (or funding) motive, political bias may be playing a role at the CDC and with other obesity research. In January 1998, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine cast a skeptical eye on the “300,000 deaths” from obesity per year figure and warned against a growing trend; namely, that “the medical campaign against obesity may have to do with a tendency to medicalize behavior we do not approve of.”

Medicalized behavior is behavior that government deems proper to control. If the food going into your mouth is an addiction or an epidemic, then your diet ceases to be a personal choice and becomes an issue of public safety. The lunch you pack for your children becomes a matter of public policy.

Accordingly, which of the two opening statements you chose to believe is not the only ‘weighty’ question. It is quickly followed by “what political importance should be attached to statistics about fat?”

I believe people are responsible for their own weight and their own food choices. Government intervention is a wrong and a dangerous option, on several grounds. Just one of them: individuals should be assuming, not relinquishing personal control over their own health. We should down-size government’s interest in what we eat and right-size the statistics it’s feeding us.


            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh

Copyright ©2005 Wendy McElroy.

Click here for Wendy McElroy’s Home Page.  Wendy McElroy has been a contributor at ProudToBeCanadian.ca since June 2004. She is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.


Posted on 05/04/05 at 06:25 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink



Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Barbara Kay

Barbara Kay

In praise of unilingualism

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Bio/Email | Barbara Kay Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Is multilingualism always an unalloyed blessing? May not absolute command of a single language be preferable to mere competence in two or more?

Promotions for the new movie, The Interpreter, a thriller revolving around a UN translator, have evoked one of my adolescent career fantasies. The job of a simultaneous translator seemed especially glamorous to me because, in spite of academic exposure to many languages—Hebrew, French, German, Latin (in which I majored for two years in university)—I knew by my teens that the second-language fluency required for such a position was forever out of reach.

I so envy truly bilingual people. As you read this I am engaged in my annual spring humiliation rite: yet another immersion week in French, in my ongoing bid for entry into the Canadian Goody-Goody Hall of Fame (would that be le Salon des Modeles de Vertu in French?). In the area of language acquisition, I am living proof of the old adage, “hope springs eternal.”

I read and comprehend standard French. It’s oral fluency that remains the ungraspable brass ring. Over the 40 years of my torontoise-turned-montrealaise sojourn in Montreal, I’ve done Berlitz, worked with a private tutor, taken credit courses at university, laboured over the expensive Champs des Elysees series of audiotapes. I’ve spent weeks on end in Jonquieres and Quebec City at their excellent language centres.

Will I achieve real spoken fluency this year, instead of the graceless functionality I’m stalled at? I doubt it. For that, you need bilingual parents, early immersion, or significant time spent in a milieu with no choice but to speak the second language (Paris, yes; but in Montreal, if you’re anglo, good luck trying to get bilingual francophones to speak to you in French).

As a result of intellect-filtered rather than osmosis-acquired language training, I know many things that nobody cares about in real life, such as when to use the subjonctif in French, and the rules concerning the ablative absolute in Latin (“Word having been brought back to Caesar that the Helvetians were intending to make a march through the territory of the Sequani…”). But what do I remember of my high school German? Nichts! Could I carry on a conversation in Latin with the pope? Minime vero! Will I ever fully comprehend the plot in an argot-riddled French film? Peu de chances!

I console myself for my foreign languages deficits by reflecting on my firmly entrenched knowledge of English. I remind myself that there are many others—amongst them serial language migrants like my husband, Ronny—for whom the nuances of mother tongue as well as those acquired prove elusive. Their stories are cautionary tales that early exposure to many languages can be a burden as well as a gift.

Ronny was born in Tientsin, China, to Russian parents, so of course his mother tongue is Russian. But his ahma, to whom he was consigned a good deal of the time, and the other servants (Caucasian foreigners lived like kings in pre-WWII China) spoke to him in Chinese. In the European-run kindergarten to which the “blue-eyed devils” all sent their children, the common language was French.

After the war—Ronny was 8—his family emigrated to a francophone area of Montreal, but he was put into an English school where, at the time, they employed the sink or swim rubric of language acquisition. Finally, the day Khrushchev banged his shoe on the table at the UN at the height of Cold War tensions, Ronny informed his parents he was too embarrassed to speak Russian, and they must thenceforth speak English at home.

The result was a kind of linguistic no man’s land. Although fluent, his Russian became “frozen” in late adolescence: The deep structures spring automatically to the tongue, but his vocabulary is limited to the banalities of domestic life. On the other hand his unsystematically acquired English is only apparently seamless, and he occasionally stumbles over odd fissures.

So although I never made it to the UN, after 40 years of marriage, I am at least an experienced “translator” of my husband’s malapropisms:

“That lawyer’s the rainman in his firm.”

“You mean rainmaker, dear.”

“I see they’ve beautified Mother Teresa.”

“That would be beatified, dear.”

“Yuck. Why would they name a chocolate bar ‘Mounds’?”

“Um, you’re thinking of ‘piles’, dear.”

At such moments I am consoled for my lack of deep bilingualism, and persuaded that having one language well in hand is worth two in the blush [sic].




            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

©2005-09 - Barbara Kay is a columnist at Canada’s National Post newspaper.  Her column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca weekly, with Barbara Kay’s express permission. 


Posted on 05/04/05 at 06:06 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Barbara Kay +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Paul Jackson

Paul Jackson

Witch hunt sinful

Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Bio/Email | Paul Jackson Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Political tormentors of bishop should face serious wrath

It’s tough when asked to name the individual in Calgary one most admires—there are so many good souls in our city.

One ponders Art Smith, the Second World War bomber squadron hero who has done so much for the poor in our community, and lawyer Gordon Hoffman, who spends as much time on charitable endeavours as he does trying to make a living.

Yet, pushed, I have to come down to Bishop Fred Henry, our outspoken leader of the Roman Catholic diocese.

Particularly so when, while having to face an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, he still has the courage to speak out and defend his Church’s beliefs.

The investigation stems from allegations spurred by individuals I consider to be simply mischief-makers, publicity hounds and malcontents who filed complaints against him for taking a stand in favour of traditional marriage.

The probe could lead to him to being found guilty of hate crimes.

Facing enormous legal costs to defend his good name and the freedom to speak on his Church’s centuries-old doctrines, I thought being hauled before the commission might shut him up. But, no, this faithful servant of God hasn’t been deterred. This past week, he sent out another pastoral letter to his flock, similar to the one that brought on the charges, and defended his beliefs again in “We should lead fight for marriage” (May 1), in his regular monthly column in the Sunday Sun.

Now, on many issues, Bishop Fred has been a little too far to the left for me—though he may refute the term left, saying he is just speaking on issues of social conscience—but that doesn’t mean I can’t admire his qualities, and his courage.

Once, the bishop wrote if in North America we all stopped eating ice cream and buying pet food, we could feed the starving millions in Africa and Asia.

On the first point, in humour I replied the ice cream would have melted far before it ever reached Africa and Asia.

On the second, the bishop really did err: I have the cutest Shih Tzu puppy—Muffin—you ever saw. Whenever I look at her, she renews my faith in God. Only He could have created such a lovely and loving creature. There is no way an animal who has brought so much happiness into a person’s life isn’t going to Heaven. Tell me that’s so, Bishop Fred.

Back to the current witch hunt.

Bishop Henry’s arguments, in his various pastoral letters and columns, are firmly implanted in the Bible, and in particular the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 6:9-11.

Are certain passages in the Bible now to be banned?

He speaks of the ageless belief of the Roman Catholic Church that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and sanctioned by God. He defends the traditional family unit as the bedrock of any stable society.

Is the Roman Catholic Church now going to be censured for this belief?

Well, Bishop Henry is certainly being pilloried for expressing his faith’s views. In many ways, he himself has now become a “victim” of our political system.

Here’s a major flaw in the Alberta Human Rights Commission process: Anyone can file a complaint and it doesn’t cost them a single penny. Yet, to defend himself, Bishop Henry has had to go to one of Canada’s top law firms, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, and get them to prepare an enormous brief.

The costs the diocese will incur could have been spent on any of the charitable and community works performed by the church in our city.

Instead, time and money will be wasted on what the vast majority of rational and fair individuals would consider an utterly outrageous attempt to not only blemish the bishop’s good name but, indirectly, frighten ministers of all other Christian denominations from quoting the Bible, defending the sanctity of marriage and working to preserve the family.

The likes of Chretien, Martin and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan gave assurances when the same-sex marriage issue was raised that no religious leader or church had to fear persecution for defending their beliefs.

We now find this isn’t true.

It could soon be open season on all religions: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and whatever.

If the good bishop is dragged before a kangaroo court—a Star Chamber—the individuals, particularly the politicians, who allowed this to happen should fear some serious wrath.



Copyright ? 2005 Paul Conrad Jackson.

Click here to read Paul Jackson’s full and fascinating biography.  Paul Conrad Jackson is one of Canada’s most distinguished and thought-provoking journalists.  He is currently senior political commentator for the Calgary Sun and other related newspapers, after being both Editor and Associate Editor for a number of years. Mr. Jackson has interviewed such world famous political figures as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Yitshak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu.

            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh


©2005-06 Paul Conrad Jackson
Paul Jackson is one of Canada’s most distinguished and thought-provoking journalists.  He is currently senior political commentator for the Calgary Sun and other related newspapers, after being both Editor and Associate Editor for a number of years. Mr. Jackson has interviewed such world famous political figures as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Yitshak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu.


Posted on 05/03/05 at 07:42 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Paul Jackson +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Janet L. Jackson

Janet L. Jackson

Lust led to Liberal demise

Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005
Bio/Email | | Printer-Friendly Version

Janet L. JacksonWhen Paul Martin hit the tube last week, I half expected him to turn to the camera, shaking a finger denying he had sex with someone.

Bill Clinton’s apology accompanied by denial turned out to be the decline of the Democrat machine. Martin’s speech to the nation signifies the death of the Liberal Empire.

Canada’s primary problem is not Liberal greed alone, but Canadian imbalance. Since 1900, the Conservatives have been in power for 31 years and the Liberals for more than 70.

I recently interviewed Senator Anne Cools who left the Liberals last June.

Cools was appointed by Trudeau many Liberal moons ago. As an independent thinker she explains how the Liberal caucus today can be a mean-spirited place to work—if you don’t march to the current politically correct drummer.

Having worked both sides of the House, Cools philosophically proclaims the Liberals to be “... in descendancy, no matter how you cut it.”

Cools also explained how people associate lust with sex, but the lust for power and dominion is just as powerful:

“It makes people act in pretty strange ways,” she said.

“When any political organization reaches a stage where its primary drive is ambition and the need for and the holding on to power—it is most unhealthy. It means the primary drive is no longer actuated by principles of governance. The opinion of the people and caucus are no longer heeded.”

And the signs of Liberal deterioration go beyond the revelations at the Gomery inquiry.

Such as the obvious physical aging of the no-longer-needed-Liberal-pit-bull Warren Kinsella, who recently testified at a sidebar inquiry investigating further Liberal PR firm improprieties. At his zenith, Kinsella was the anti-conservative “hidden-agenda” flag waver who took Stockwell Day down by mocking his religion on Canada AM with a purple dinosaur. Kinsella now seems a pathetically frail shell of his old self-aggrandizing self.

Paul Martin flirts with the NDP speculating he can hold power with their help by eliminating corporate tax breaks.

NDP policy is not the only thing Martin is borrowing from Jack Layton. Martin’s choice of headgear at a recent Khalsa Day celebration was a bright orange babushka. Layton also sported an orange scarf monogrammed “Jack,” making me wonder if Paul Martin borrowed Layton’s and flipped it over.

Covering your head at a Sikh celebration is a sign of respect, but Martin disrespects the Sikh faith by pushing same-sex marriage.

To retain power Paul Martin and the Liberals continue to be all things to all people. They have lost touch with their principles, and, in so doing, lost their very soul.

Certain national papers continue their relativist Liberal apologetic gymnastics claiming Paul Martin is “99.9% pure” while Stephen Harper is coming on “... like an attack dog, not a statesman.”

Harper needs to keep it coming.

It is time for the Conservatives to stand tall for alternative Canadian values. Stand tall for tax cuts for businesses—to stimulate the economy. Stand tall for tax cuts for the middle class so they can spend more money directly on their own families. Stand tall for marriage and no longer allow the Liberals to cover a litany of sins with “rights” rhetoric.

Liberal lite is not the answer: Canada is finally ready for real reform. Hopefully it will come in the form of the Conservatives.



Copyright ? 2005 Janet L. Jackson.

Columnist for the Calgary Sun, Janet L. Jackson is also Executive Director of the Canadian Conservative Union.  Through her work with conservative political action committees, Jackson has been an effective and prominent voice for preserving traditional marriage, religious freedom and free speech.

            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh

<font size=“1”>Copyright © 2005 Janet L. Jackson.

Columnist for the Calgary Sun, Janet L. Jackson is also Executive Director of the Canadian Conservative Union.  Through her work with conservative political action committees, Jackson has been an effective and prominent voice for preserving traditional marriage, religious freedom and free speech. </font>


Posted on 05/01/05 at 11:01 PM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink



Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Paul Jackson

Paul Jackson

Divided we stand

Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005
Bio/Email | Paul Jackson Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Perhaps having an independent Quebec would be better for Canadians

A few weeks back Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe did a western swing and a comment he made has been whispering around in my mind ever since.

Now, Duceppe has often been mocked by his opponents, and having once been a Marxist-Leninist, it’s relatively easy to portray him as being off-the-wall, but by most assessments he was the most articulate of all four federal party leaders during the 2004 federal election campaign.

And, as for his Marxist-Leninist period, most of us have either said, or done, some pretty foolish things during our lives.

What the Bloc leader said that has been whispering in my mind during his stop-off in Calgary and other points West, was that what passes for English-Canada would be much happier in the long run if Quebec were an independent country, and that Quebecers would certainly be much happier. Both of us would have a much better, more friendly, relationship.

I’m starting to believe Duceppe may well be right.

Now, for a long, long time I was hauled into the ‘Quebec is part of my country’ idea and aghast when someone suggested maybe we should let Quebec go.

My reasoning partly being (A) Quebec is a part of Canada so why hand it over to a bunch of radical separatist fanatics, and (B), that the rest of the world is coming together—the borderless European Union, of which I am a great supporter being perhaps the best example—so why would Quebec want to go in the opposite direction?

Wanting to become a rather small, insignificant entity rather than being part of a large, supposedly world-respected entity hardly seemed rational.

But in recent months, an awakening has started to happen to my thought processes on ‘La belle province,’ and I can’t really see why we should spend yet another decade exhausting ourselves in order to try and continue to buy off one province.

This growing mood really hit home this past week when a new poll showed 54% of Quebecers surveyed would now vote for separation, up a dramatic 10% in the past year. Significantly, 37% of those polled said the inquiry under the auspices of Mr. Justice John Gomery into the Liberal AdScam affair has been influential in either hardening their support for separation or shifting their views on the issue.

We in English Canada often think French-Canadians believe patronage, bribes, payoffs and kickbacks are all part of the game. That they see nothing dishonest in these tactics.

Worth noting then that it is Quebec where the Gomery inquiry has had its worst fallout. French-Canadians have been glued to their TV sets day-after-day and week-after-week watching the revelations of Liberal perfidy unfold from the inquiry as if it were some top-rated soap opera.

They are not amused—indeed, they are incensed by what Jean Chretien’s and Paul Martin’s Liberals have been doing.

So incensed, an increasing number of them—rational ones, too, not just separatist radicals—do not want to be part of such a rotten system any longer.

The irony is for several decades the hypocritical Liberal party and its governments have contended they are the only ones who can fight separatism and ‘save’ Canadian Confederation.

Today we see that because of Liberal corruption—and the grab of provincial rights from Quebec—which also echoes in Alberta’s fury towards Liberal Ottawa—it’s the likes of Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Martin who have spurred disenchantment in Quebec and across Canada.

In last year’s federal election the Bloc took 54 of Quebec’s 75 seats, and the Liberals 21. It’s suggested in the coming election Duceppe’s party could win all but half-a-dozen seats.

This coupled with the almost certain defeat of Premier Jean Charest’s provincial Liberals, would mean Quebec would be governed and represented in both provincial and federal politics by the two parties whose main objective is independence.

How realistically could a smattering of provincial governments in English Canada, and English-language MPs sitting in the House of Commons, fight such forces.

Perhaps we have to accept what Duceppe and his supporters believe is inevitable (and what many in English Canada believe, too).

Maybe we really would both be happier separate, but with the same kind of trade, economic, military and various alliances other independent nations share with each other.

Think about it—and without emotion—because no number of Liberal platitudes, hucksterism—and certainly not bribes—are going to bind Quebecers to Canada now.



Copyright ? 2005 Paul Conrad Jackson.

Click here to read Paul Jackson’s full and fascinating biography.  Paul Conrad Jackson is one of Canada’s most distinguished and thought-provoking journalists.  He is currently senior political commentator for the Calgary Sun and other related newspapers, after being both Editor and Associate Editor for a number of years. Mr. Jackson has interviewed such world famous political figures as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Yitshak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu.

            Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

Nice line, eh


©2005-06 Paul Conrad Jackson
Paul Jackson is one of Canada’s most distinguished and thought-provoking journalists.  He is currently senior political commentator for the Calgary Sun and other related newspapers, after being both Editor and Associate Editor for a number of years. Mr. Jackson has interviewed such world famous political figures as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Yitshak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu.


Posted on 05/01/05 at 07:05 AM

• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.

• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Paul Jackson +


Advertisement
Your Ad Here
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4