Purpose of Government

I was hoping when I got inspired to write again on my blog it would be something lighthearted and fun but sadly that is not going to be the case.  Last night I heard a journalist on the TV news say, as though it was a well known fact, “that government is not in the business of telling people how much to save for retirement”.  Really? 

Now you may be gearing yourself up to disagree with my obvious stance but give yourself a few minutes to reflect on what government “does for you”.  Here’s what I see.

·         Pass laws (without consultation) that affect your lives, examples would be the current assisted death legislation and legalization of marijuana.  Other laws would be capital punishment and abortion.  These are all significant laws which happened without a referendum.  [I’m not necessarily saying this should have happened but they ARE significant life altering rules]

·         Pass laws that inhibit or restrict your choices, examples would be wearing seat belts, distracted driving laws, car seats for children

·         Using tax dollars for bailing out business (this is a big one – think Bombadier, Air Canada, General Motors), for matching on Red Cross donations (let’s remember how much of the Red Cross dollars go to exorbitant salaries for executives), donating to Third World Countries (Trudeau’s recent grandiose gestures in Europe) and other non-essential spending which does not enhance the running of the country (and PLEASE don’t get me started on the bailing out of businesses because I will go berserk)

·         Here’s the clincher for me – they apparently aren’t responsible for telling us how to save for our own retirement but they can randomly increase their own pensions (which are paid for by the tax payer, let’s remember) to such an extent that they will live high on the hog as soon as they have been in government for 6 years

·         All civil servants at all 3 levels of government can opt into a pension plan (and who wouldn’t) which again is partially funded by tax dollars

·         Manage (?) the CPP fund currently in place to such a poor level that the rate of return after 40+ years of paying into it we are living at well below poverty level rate if we had to exist on it – if we reviewed any other funds over a 40 year period what do you imagine the rate of return would look like?

These are just points that came quickly to mind last night as I paused the news to ponder and rant (in about 10 seconds). 

We are in the 21^st century and the reality is that we live in a world that is completely controlled about 1% of 1% of the wealthiest so what do you suppose their agenda is?  As all evidence points one way let’s look clearly at the fact that we are perilously close to returning to a form of serfdom covered in an illusion of democracy.  Don’t you (journalist) tell me that government is not responsible for our well-being because They control so many factions of our daily living that it is outrageous to think otherwise.  We do not have the freedom to move west, away from government, and just live off the fat of the land.  We must earn a living, we must pay taxes, we must pay exorbitant rates for utilities which were once owned by the taxpayers and miraculously have been given over to some favored political crony who is now a multi-billionaire. 

Oh please, for some balanced journalism from an intelligent, free thinking person.  Does one exist?

Revisiting History

I was having quite a rant yesterday from one hot topic on The View so let’s go to another topic. 

Why are we revisiting the question of abortion in Canada and the United States?  Didn’t we agree back in 1972 or thereabout that women had control over their bodies and had a right to make a choice in the event that they had an “unwanted pregnancy”?  Why are we talking about this again?  Has the Boomer Generation found Jesus so now want to rectify their “youthful mistakes”? 

There are some decisions that should be made by neutral parties where emotion is not part of the equation.  That is why we have instruments such as courts and other governing bodies.  We also have the Supreme Court where several judges confer and make decisions.  Religion should never be part of a neutral decision.

People get very emotional when they think about the fetus being “a person” and that is understandable.  However, your personal emotions should have nothing to do with the decision of an individual whose life is going to be unalterably changed regardless of the decision she makes about terminating or not terminating a pregnancy.  It’s not anyone else’s job to judge, to save, or otherwise interfere.  Society made a decision that a woman has a right to make decisions about her body and that includes anything in her body.  Whether you are religious or not, whether you believe in the right of the fetus or not, it’s not your right to decide for another human being; the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the USA made these decisions a long time ago. 

What has changed?

Nine Parts of Desire - a Personal Review

At last I have finished reading Geraldine Brooks’ book “Nine Parts of Desire” and rather than go over the book what I would like to do is review my reactions as I read the 12 chapters.

The first thing I realized was how truly ignorant I was about the Moslem religion.  I had read the Encyclopedia Britannica as well as Wikipedia biography of the prophet Mohammed but that was many years ago and neither article was particularly enlightening on the status of women.  The second thing I realized was that a great deal of what we hear about the religion is in fact not truly part of the teachings of the Koran but rather cultural beliefs that have been folded into the religion.  This is important to understand because a great deal of how the women are treated is not really prescribed in the Koran.

The book moves from one country to another and describes the condition of women in these countries through the voice of various women.  I learned that Iran (at the time of publishing in 1994) was the most liberal of the countries and this surprised me as I had always thought that Ayatollah Khomeini was a vicious tyrant who suppressed women.  In fact Saudi Arabia is the most fundamentalist country in the Middle East (at the time of publishing at any rate).  Brooks’ also writes about Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Eritrea, Egypt, Syria and Turkey.

The further into the book I got the angrier I became; I mean that I was not just upset but very angry.  I was angry at the primitive thinking of both the men and the women.  Then I became angry at our Western governments for not recognizing the condition of these women whose human rights were being violated daily.  Then I wondered in bafflement at how hypocritical our governments are in using expedience as the way to work out “global or foreign policy”.  We live with so much bullshit and as always the ultimate concern is money.   That’s right, as usual everything boils down to money.

It makes me really angry because I am struggling with feelings of racism and justification that are against my upbringing and better nature.  I am watching masses of refugees flooding out of the Middle East into Europe and I am feeling threatened not only on behalf of Europeans but also for Canadians because I am seeing these refugees as economic opportunists just as the Hungarian minister said.  But as I have been reading this book another alarm has gone up in my mind and that is the question of whether these people (most of which are young men) are being sent into Europe to undermine the countries, just as some fanatics have threatened to do in Denmark. 

But now as I have finished the book I have taken time to absorb everything I have read and what I feel is that I need to know more about Islam, the Islamic state and what it means for the women in these countries.  I need to understand if these women are brainwashed into believing their religion or if they honestly believe the teachings are true and right for them.  Have they really been educated to understand what opportunities are in the world waiting for them?  I need to know what the United Nations position is on the condition of women and children in the Middle East and everywhere that Islam is the main religion.

As a woman I feel that it is utterly wrong to endorse a religion that would suppress a woman’s potential by locking her up in her house and telling her that her duty in life is to reproduce.  As part of the human race, women everywhere have a right to human rights and the human rights sanctioned by the United Nations is I believe the benchmark that the world has agreed on.  Am I correct in believing this?  Please see the link below to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the UN site;  the fifth paragraph clearly states equal rights for men and women.

I would encourage all of my readers to read this book and think about what is happening in the Middle East.  I think it’s time we look at this from a completely different perspective and that what needs to happen is that all nations in the world who believe that women have the same human rights as men should boycott the Middle East and all countries that adhere to fundamental Islam. 

 

Footnote:  Just to be clear, I feel the same way about any fundamental religion or culture that suppresses women, children or men.

UNITED NATIONS SITE:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

GERALDINE BROOKS’ SITE:

http://geraldinebrooks.com/