Sunday, July 24, 2005

Here Lies Natural Law - R.I.P.

I’m writing this column au natural.

Oh, relax. I don’t mean naked. Although it’s hot enough these days to warrant it. I mean that, as I write this, I am living under the same roof as my wife and children. We actually have a functioning ‘natural’ family unit. I get to kiss my kids good-morning and good-night every day and sleep in the same house. Surely there is no love more encompassing or more ‘natural’ than the love of a dad for his kids. None more than mine at least.

Without a doubt, the ‘natural’ family unit – one man, one woman and their children - is the most elegant, efficient, successful, and totally ‘natural’ social creation in the history of mankind.

Have I used the word ‘natural’ enough yet? Four times in two short paragraphs. Redundant? Maybe. But there’s a method to my dadness. I’m just setting you up for this week’s tirade on the subject of ‘Natural law’.

‘Natural Law” is a term that refers to the laws of ‘nature’. You know, the laws that govern how we exist in the natural universe. In ancient Rome, ‘natural law’ meant the instincts and emotions of humans and animals – instincts such as procreation, self preservation and the love we feel for our offspring. (Please note: there is no mention of government or government programs there. Government is NOT natural. Unlike the natural family, government is a cold, unnatural, artificial and temporary social construct.)

If I had to provide a scenario showing how natural law applies to the human race, I would do it like this: ‘One man and one woman form a life-long monogamous relationship. They have children. They raise their children in their family unit. They impart their values, ethics and principles to their children. They care for their aging parents. Their kids grow up, find mates and form their own family units. The kids nurture their children and care for their aging parents. The cycle continues in this way. And so on and so forth.’

From the beginning of time, the sanctity of the family unit as enshrined in ‘Natural Law’ was all that stood between us and oblivion. It sustained us. It is, irrefutably, the very reason we have survived as a species. Unlike some animals, humans are totally helpless for a long time after birth. Throughout the ages, if human babies did not have a parent to remain with and nurture them and another parent to protect and provide for them, they would not have survived. It's the same with old people. They depended on their children to help and support them as they aged and died.

Anyway, as we all know, these days here in Canada it’s a heckuvalot different. The family is slowly being replaced by government as the most important institution in our society. And the natural cycle of life – the truth of natural law – is being cast aside by a generation of selfish, narcisstic humanists and misguided, state-worshipping socialists.

We shouldn’t be too hard on them, though. Lets face it, Natural law is a drag. It actually requires disclipline, self-sacrifice and an adherence to a shared set of societal values. Yuck. On the other hand, our benevolent Canadian government asks nothing. No sacrifice or discipline is required. In fact, the less you do for yourself the more the state will do for you. The more irresponsible you are, the more responsibility the state will take for your life. The fewer pesky morals, ethics and principles you adhere to, the more you will need to go begging to the state for help and the more of your soul the state will own.

It’s a religion, really. What Jesus is to Catholics, government is to humanistic socialists.

Unlike the natural family, whose sole purpose is to raise children to be independent, responsible, well balanced, self sufficient adults; the unnatural, artificially created Canadian state is quite happy if you remain dependant forever. It is the way it maintains power. If you require nothing of the state, it will, in the words of Marx, whither and die. It will grow weaker, smaller and less intrusive. The government knows this and preys on our vulnerability. Just look at Canada’s new national childcare program. The government does more, you do less and you become increasingly unable to survive without it. (Oh, by the way, I offer my apologies to socialists for using the words of Marx against you. But, lets face it, poetic justice is sweet.)

Most socialistic societies, like Canada, develop in the same way. The people always start off as the master and the government as the servant. But, as years pass, the roles become reversed and the servant becomes the master. Tell me, here in Canada, who is the master - the people or the government? Who depends on whom? Who crawls to whom? Who fears whom? Who is patronized by whom? Who is controlled by whom? Clearly, these days in Canada, the people are the ‘who’ and the government is the ‘whom’.

Freedom is power and power is control. However, there can be no freedom, power or control without personal responsibility. The more responsibility the government assumes over your life, the less freedom you have and, the more power and control the government has over you. Cause and effect!

Believe it or not, I actually have a point to make here, and it is this: after tens of thousands of years of success, the ‘Natural Law’ cycle seems to have broken down for a lot of people here in Canada and in much of the western world. These days we have little need for ‘Natural Law’. There is no need to cleave to the family in the interest of procreation or self preservation. After all, we now have our omnipotent, unnatural nanny-state to take care of us from cradle to grave. And, like pavement over grass, the government continues to spread while the natural family is slowly smothered underneath.

Someday, however, government will no longer be there to care for us. History shows that all governments fall. For us to think that our society, with its frail, pathological dependency on government, will be spared, is just plain foolish. In the end, the families that adhere to the principles of natural law and look inward for strength, rather than to government, will survive. Those who depend on government will fall with the governments they depend on. Maybe not tomorrow, but someday.

My kids are still young. And maybe, as they grow, they too will be swept up in the new-age Canadian socialist culture of government subservience. Maybe they will grow to love and depend on government, just as so many of their peers inevitably will. (Certainly, it is what they are being taught in school and through the media.) And this makes me fear for the future of my descendants. But, in the end, if they choose this path, it will not be because of me. It will be in spite of me. And in this, I can take some comfort. For, at least I tried to teach them the natural truth.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

The Enemy Within

Our western democracies are under attack by individuals who hate our way of life and seek to destroy everything we stand for. They loathe our traditions. They detest America and Israel. They despise white skinned Christians. They hate capitalism. They want to replace our values with theirs.

I bet you think I’m referring to radical Islamic terrorists. Sadly, I’m not. I’m referring to the plethora of left-wing politicians, artists, media outlets and interest groups that dominate our social and political landscape. They are the enemy that we should really fear in our war on terror, because they are the ones who seek to destroy our will to resist the terrorists. Consider how they have behaved thus far:

1. In September 2001, radical Islamic terrorists killed 3000 Americans in the WTC attacks. Since then, the left has blamed America, rather than those who perpetrated the acts. As I understand it, they are currently arranging for the WTC Memorial to be mainly a museum showing controversial images of 9/11 and ‘discussing America’s role in the world’. (this is code for: ‘discussing America’s evil imperialist activities’.) What should be a simple, respectful memorial to the dead is in danger of becoming a socialist indoctrination centre, portraying America in a less than complementary light and instilling feelings of guilt and self loathing in all weak minded people who visit.

2. In July 2005, radical Islamic terrorists killed over 50 people and maimed hundreds more in four suicide attacks in London. Within days the media started carrying stories of frightened Western Muslims who feared reprisals. As a result, Western non Muslims became the intolerant villains, all Muslims became the victims, and the dead became incidental participants in the Muslim’s victimhood. If their objective of the left is to make the more insecure among us lose respect for each other and our society, they are surely on the right track.

3. Anytime America, Israel or one of their allies strike back against terrorism, leftists always moan about how retaliation is counter productive and mean spirited. Inexplicably, when we are attacked, they sadly shake their heads and note how the terrorists are merely striking back in retaliation for the misery their people have suffered at the hands of American imperialist foreign policy. Their blatant hypocrisy may seem obvious to many of us, but, rest assured, some westerners will listen and buy into it. As a result, their resolve will be weakened, and with it, that of their entire nation.

4. And where are the many left-wing feminist groups? When there are terrorist attacks you would expect feminists to rally around their flag to defend the culture that gave them the freedom be the majority in our medical schools and university law programs. You would expect them to denounce societies where raped women are stoned and daughters who dare choose their own mates are killed by their fathers. But they do not. Rather, they are either silent or vocally opposed to any and all measures taken to protect ourselves; thus implicitly promoting angst and doubt among their supporters and fellow citizens.

In order to wage war effectively, an antagonist must be familiar with several important military strategies and utilize them effectively. For example an antagonist should seek to destroy the enemy’s morale and morals and spread confusion among them. Clearly, the left is becoming very good at this. They incessantly rail against traditional Western values and morals. They continually cast the West as the villains and the terrorists as the victims. Their goal is to confuse us so we will question our moral right to defend ourselves.

An antagonist must also try to control media outlets and public information sources. Ask yourself this, what message do you commonly see on the CBC, in the Toronto Star and New York Times? Is not America commonly cast as a heartless, capitalist, imperialist, juggernaut and Britain as its likewise cruel accomplice? Are Muslim nations not portrayed as the unfortunate victims, prevented from controlling their own destinies by the greedy, oil hungry, capitalist West? Just ask Michael Moore, he’ll tell you.

It doesn’t seem to matter to them that all nations of the world where Muslims control the government are non-democratic, oppressive regimes where the people, especially women, suffer under Islamic law, while the rich princes, despots and elite live in luxury. It doesn’t seem to matter that millions of moderate Muslims have fled their homelands to enjoy the freedom and opportunity of Western democracies. In the eyes of leftists and much of the Western media, capitalist North Americans and Europeans are always at fault. They hammer this message daily. And, sadly, some of us buy into it.

If there is one thing we can take from these unfortunate developments, it is this: We are facing a radical Islamic enemy of tremendous resolve and conviction. If we cannot summon the same resolve and conviction in defending our way of life from their attacks – if we continue to gaze at our navels and question our very right to exist – we will lose this war. We will not deserve to win. And the terrorists, with the help of their Western left-wing apologists, will win. We must not let them.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Spanking, Is There Anything It Can't Do?

Here in new-age Canada some people actually think that spanking should be a criminal offense. Imagine, administer a few light taps on your child's bum and end up in jail. I have no idea where these people come up with this stuff. Obviously they have not done their research. Spanking is an effective, tried and true disciplinary method for dissuading children from exhibiting harmful or inappropriate behaviors. In addition, most people are not aware of the many side-benefits that spanking provides to families and society in general. Here, let me give you a few examples:

1) Chairs last longer in homes where children are spanked. Children with stinging buttocks tend to stand a lot more and sit a lot less than the average child. This saves wear and tear on chairs. Parents who buy fewer chairs can invest the money saved in their child's education
.......spank your child - secure his university education.

2) Our nation is safer when children are spanked. The next time you are spanking your child you might want to try tapping out a few messages in morse code. This will turn a simple disciplinary activity into a learning experience which will prepare your child for a rewarding career in the armed forces.
.......safeguard democracy - spank your child

3) More spanked children learn to write with either hand. Trying to block the blows to one's buttocks with one's writing hand can sometimes result in an injury to the hand. As a result, the child is motivated to learn to write and eat with his opposite hand while the injured hand heals. Thus the lucky child learns a new skill that will be invaluable in adult life
.........spank your child - promote ambidexterity.

4) Spanking helps develop artistic ability. Does your child have difficulty distinguishing between subtly different shades of red - like, magenta, rose, crimson, burgundy, pink, sunset, blush, etc? Well, your troubles are over. The next time you are spanking him, use a mirror so he can see the gradual change in his bum's color. Be sure to point out each shade of red to him as it occurs and spell each word slowly. Within a few months you will have a child who will probably grow up to be a talented painter. the Arts - spank your child.

5) Spanking builds a national identity and brings people together. Have you ever wondered how those Olympic athletes learned to run and jump so well? Yep, everything they are, they owe to spanking. You’d be surprised how strong and resilient young people grow when they are running through the house, leaping over furniture and jumping out windows, trying to avoid a good licking. These are the kids who go on to win the gold for their countries.
.......spank your child – help build National pride.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

An Unsolvable Riddle?

Wait for it. You’ll hear it any minute now. Wafting over the airwaves, staring back at us from our newspapers, inundating our perceptions. Plaintive cries for tolerance and understanding. Chastising looks and comments from our political leaders as they beg us not to blame the entire Muslim community for these loathsome sub-human acts of depravity perpetrated against the British people. If you listen closely you will almost be able to hear the sound of the air moving as the media and our politicians spin around, turning their backs on the victims of Thursday’s terrorist atrocities in Britain and forming a tight circle of protection around our Muslim communities.

It happens every time an attack occurs. The victims become a subtext and those who share the aggressors’ religion become the main focus. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like screaming: “I am not the racist. I do not hate Muslims. I do not desire the death of anyone. Do not plead with me to be tolerant. Because in doing so, you are assuming that I am not tolerant. I deserve more credit than that.”

I recall when Osama Bin Laden named Canada as one of the so-called Christian nations that should be targeted by terrorism. He also named Britain, Spain and the USofA – all of which have been attacked. One by one, the nations Osama hates are getting their comeuppance in the name of his god. Someday, it will be our turn here in Canada.

We truly are screwed. Some of us will surely die at the hands of these monsters. It is only a matter of time. We face an enemy that believes that any man who dies while killing those who do not subscribe to their radical version of Islam will be sent to paradise and given a bevy of beautiful virgins. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a radical Muslim. That makes me a target. They would kill me without ever knowing my name. A harem of virgins is a mighty powerful intoxicant.

Tell me, how do you fight an army that does not wear a uniform? How do you defeat people who believe that they fight for god and that everyone who does not worship their god must die? How do you fight a person who has been raised from childhood to crave the deaths of any one who is not like him while hiding like a cowardly animal amongst innocents? Such duplicitous, conniving individuals are capable of anything.

And, do not doubt it, this is not about poverty or capitalism as some may suggest. This is all about religion - a religion where certain radical adherents believe that all who are not like them must die.

Did the 9/11 terrorists scream “give us economic fairness - give us refrigerators and more food” as they ploughed their jets into the twin towers? No. They screamed “Praise Allah”. Everything they do is driven by what they perceive as justifiable under their religion. Do not listen to those who would tell you different. Just as the misguided adherents of Christianity were the enemy a thousand years ago as they killed those who rejected their god, the adherents of radical Islam are the enemies today. They do not want economic equality. They want us to convert to their religion or die.

Right here, right now, in Canada, we have radicals who subscribe to these beliefs. They live two lives. On one hand they send their children to our wonderful free Canadian schools. They enjoy free Canadian health care. They reap all the benefits of living in a free society created by us infidels. Infidels who welcomed them to live with us here as brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, while they smile at us on the street and take advantage of our tolerance and good will, they secretly plot against us and dream of the day when we are dead. They are here. They are among us. And they will attempt to kill us. Just as they killed the Americans, the Spanish and, now, the Brits.

There is nothing we can do. And they know this. It is their ace in the hole. We surely cannot demonize all Muslims. That would be horribly wrong. I have grown to know several Muslims in my life, one in particular is a kind and wise man. He is very active in his Muslim community and seeks to spread peace and understanding in all that he does. In many ways he is a better Canadian than most white people I know, including me. And there are many like him – Canadian Muslims who share nothing with the terrorists with respect to hatred, malice or insanity.

So what do we do? The enemy is among us and he is unidentifiable. Many here in Canada share the description of the evil ones while not sharing their evil beliefs. Yet, those who share their description risk being perceived as sharing their evil. It is a terrible quandary.

Unfortunately, it is a riddle that may not be solvable. A tolerant nation that welcomes all people into its midst takes upon itself the risk of welcoming those who hate us. A nation that denies sanctuary to anyone who shares the same religion as those who hate us is intolerant.

And yet, this is the choice that we must eventually face: Remain an open and tolerant society and accept the fact that our tolerance will inevitably cause death and misery among us, or limit our tolerance and possibly save Canadian lives.

Monday, July 04, 2005

A Tale of Two Families

There’s a nice little street in a nice little town. On this street, two houses sit side by side.

In one house there is a nice, well adjusted family. They live their lives with some semblance of discipline. The parents nurture their children, care for their property and get along quite well. They are active in the community and frequently help the less fortunate.

In the other house, chaos reigns. The family is exceedingly dysfunctional. The parents behave like petty tyrants. They spend all their money on themselves and ignore the needs of their children. The children are beaten and seldom have enough to eat. The property looks like a war zone.

One day, the major of the town - Bob Delgoff – learns of this unfortunate situation. And being a good, compassionate man, he decides to do something about it. So, he pays visit to the Nice family. Once inside their home he proceeds to lecture them in a most sanctimonious fashion. “You need to do more to help your neighbours.” says Mayor Bob. “You have so much and they have so little. You should be ashamed.”

“But Mr. Mayor,” says Mr. Nice, “Mr. and Mrs. Tyrant spend all their money on themselves and neglect their children terribly. They are the cause of their own problems. Why aren’t you lecturing them instead of us?”

The mayor, having no retort to this unexpected bit of irrefutable logic, sputters something unintelligible and makes a hasty retreat.

The next week he is on the local TV station with Mayor Nobo of a neighbouring town, announcing a benefit concert with proceeds going to Mr. and Mrs. Tyrant. "We must help their children." Mayor Nobo exclaims. "They are innocent victims and we must do all we can to save them."

Everyone feels sorry for the Tyrants' children and the concert is a huge success. Being the good citizens that they are, the Nice family attend the concert and give generously.

Mayors Bob and Nobo make a big public display of turning over the proceeds to Mr. and Mrs. Tyrant. They make the front page of the local paper and the evening news.

Mr. and Mrs. Tyrant promptly buy a 60" Plasma screen, a satellite subscription and three crates of Rum. The children are locked in their rooms so the parents can party throughout the night.

The following week, two of their eight children are found dead of starvation and a third is hospitalized with pneumonia. Everyone feels sorry for them. Another concert is organized.

But, this time, the Nice family doesn't attend.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Something's Amiss With Marital Bliss

Holy Matrimony Batman. Gays and lesbians can now marry anywhere in Canada. It is the law of the land.

I must admit that, for a long time, I had my reservations about whether this would be a good thing or not. But, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided that I simply don’t care anymore. Sure, in my heart, I will always believe that marriage is solely between one man and one woman. However, I also believe in a lot of other antiquated things as well. Like, for instance, that divorce should be serious business and married couples should be treated with higher regard than common law couples. Talk about old fashioned, eh?

It should be clear to everyone by now that marriage lost most of its relevancy long before gays and lesbians were let in. The advent of no fault divorce and equal treatment for common law couples did more to degrade and devalue marriage than gay people ever could. In fact, when you look closely at those unfortunate social developments, gay marriage seems almost innocuous in comparison.

I think it’s time that all the supporters of traditional marriage faced it: gay marriage hasn’t rendered the institution of marriage meaningless; it’s already been relatively meaningless for a long time now.

And who do you suppose we can thank for setting us on this path of Holy Matriphony? Let me give you a few hints: he’s a man who told his sons that communist Russia would be the nation of the future; a man who admired and wanted to emulate Fidel Castro; a man who rode his motorcycle through the streets of Montreal during the second world war wearing Nazi paraphernalia. Now, you may ask how such a short sighted person could have gained the power to destroy marriage. Simple. Short sighted Canadians elected him Prime Minister. Need I say more about Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

Here’s how it went down. In 1967 Trudeau passed legislation making it easier to get a divorce. From there, things continued to slide until eventually we arrived at where we are today, with no-fault divorce - a legal process where a marriage can be dissolved by one party only, for no particular reason whatsoever.

Imagine, the most important personal contract in the history of humanity is now the only contract that can be broken by one party only, without the other party’s consent. Thanks to the wheels set in motion by Trudeau, a contract between you and your plumber to fix your toilet is more binding than a marriage contract.

Oh, and incidentally, did you know that mothers initiate 70% of all divorces involving children and two-thirds of the time it's because of a “lost sense of closeness” or “not feeling loved and appreciated”. Hmmm, when you think about it, maybe women are more of a threat to marriage than homosexuals. (That was a joke. No hate mail please.)

So, as divorces became easier to get, more people got them. As a result, people started looking at marriage with suspicion and distrust. After all, if so many married people were going to get a divorce, wouldn’t it be much simpler to just not get married in the first place? So many didn’t.

Of course, as we all now know, common law relationships are far less stable than married ones. And many people found themselves single after living common law with nothing to show for it. They didn’t have the same protections under the law that married people had. It didn’t matter that they were free all along to either convince their partner to marry them or find one that would. That wasn’t good enough. They wanted the same protection and property rights as married people, without the pesky bother of signing the necessary legal contract.

So, with various tax-funded feminist and leftist groups scratching at Parliament’s door, the government started passing laws giving common law partners the same rights as married spouses with respect to such things as succession law, property, government programs, pensions and support payments. By government decree, common law couples became equal to married couples, without ever having to make an equal commitment. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

Once upon a time, a man and woman would make a public vow to each other and sign a legally binding marriage contract signifying to the world that they intended to spend the rest of their lives together. It was a contract that was respected. It meant something. And it brought with it special privileges that people of lesser resolve – i.e., common law couples - were not eligible for.

These days, people who sign a marriage contract and make a lifelong commitment have no more rights than people who can’t be bothered. A couple willing to pledge allegiance to each other for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do part, are now no more valuable to society and are treated no better than a couple who shack up and just happen to last a few years.

Of course, when it comes to the devaluation of marriage, we shouldn’t forget the media proliferation of shallow, superficial people using marriage as a publicity stunt. Take, for example, Brittney Spears’ weekend marriage. And then there’s the many reality TV shows where a bevy of beautiful, attention starved miscreants compete to marry someone of equally low personal quality.

Is it any wonder that marriage has been reduced to a sad, pathetic parody of what it once was?

Anyway, I still believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. They would marry freely, choosing their own mate, with no cultural coercion or blackmail by their parents or community. Those who married would receive the benefits and respect that such a profound and freely offered lifetime commitment deserves. Anyone else of the opposite sex, same sex, different species or whatever, who chooses to live together, would be free to do so, but would have no spousal rights whatsoever.

We were all born to heterosexual couples; the vast majority of us to married ones. Without them, none of us would be here. These couples have created and nurtured us and our world. For untold centuries these couples had their own word to describe and celebrate their special and unique unions. And that word was marriage. It was once thought that they deserved their own word. Now, according to some, they no longer do. But still, the word itself remains in our vocabulary, despite having little resemblance to its original meaning. We can only hope that it, in its new guise, serves the future as well as it, in its old guise, served the past.

Whatever the case, it has been quite a while since marriage has held any significant meaning for heterosexuals. If things continue as they are, someday marriage will mean nothing at all. Some may believe that this is because homosexuals were allowed to share it with heterosexuals. As for me, I sincerely welcome homosexuals to this quickly disintegrating institution. Still, I cannot help but feel a little feel sad for them that they were not allowed to share it with us before it came to mean so little.