Canada is Aging, We Need More Babies. Should Families be considered “Producers”?

The only way to stop the Canadian aging process,” states the 2006 StatsCan report, “is to increase fertility.”

It’s no accident that the world’s most heavily taxed industrialized countries also have the lowest fertility rates. When Canadians have to work half the year just to pay the tax man, babies become economically impossible. By the time a couple achieves financial stability, the woman has often passed her best-before-date in terms of fertility.

The time is past due for all levels of Canadian government to give birth to a new strategy to increase our population the old-fashioned way. Anything less is slow death to Canada’s way of life.

I was thinking about this the other day.  I was thinking about how we subsidize farmers, farms, farm equipment, how we even have special “purple gas” that is tax-free for “producers”.

Why are these offered?  Because the government, from time immemorial, has considered the production of food to be of benefit to the entire nation.

I think it is time for society to collectively get over the “overpopulation” myth.  All around the world, fertility rates are plummeting, in the first world and the third.   There is no slowdown in sight.  At current rates of decrease, the third world won’t have any surplus population to send us to make up for our own fertility shortfalls, within 20-30 years.  Then the demographic glacier that is already visible on our horizon will overtake us, and the Employment Insurance, the Welfare, the Public Health Care, the Canada Pension Plan, all these products of socialism that relies on perpetual population increase, will collapse.

My thinking is that we should start to consider families (and I mean man-woman-children families, which have already been proven to be the most cost-effective structure to produce balanced, healthy citizens) as producers.  Start giving them the same kind of preferential treatment as farmers get.  Without human resources, this nation will fail.  Having kids contributes to the entire nation’s future.  If you choose not to have kids, fine, that’s your choice, but you are not contributing to the nation’s future.  Enjoying the benefits of society now comes at a cost of supporting that society’s future.  It makes sense, then to have those who are not producers support to a degree the producers.  It makes sense to give financial benefits to producing at the lowest cost with the best results.

I don’t question that singles could have kids, or homosexuals for that matter, with fertility treatments, etc.  However, those means have a greater cost to society than the nuclear family.  Using science to make babies is more expensive than using the reproductive organs the way they were designed.  Plus, the cost of raising productive, healthy citizens is higher when a child lacks a parent of the opposite gender.  If health care costs are higher, if socialization skills are lacking (relating to both genders in a family has a greater instructional effect than only encountering one gender outside the safety of the home), that costs society, hence they should be discouraged – or nuclear families should be preferentially encouraged.  Serious thought should be given to how to encourage couple who have kids to stay together – to repair broken relationships, to live in cooperation, to think of their kids before themselves.  This produces healthier adults and healthier children.  And a healthier society.

Choose ye, liberals.  Start scaling back government now, or start encouraging families.  But get a wiggle on, eh?  I kind of like Canada, and would hate to see it go away.

Canada’s crack capitals

Last week, the International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations posted its annual report in which a finger was pointed directly at Canadian politics:

The Board calls upon the Government of Canada to end programmes, such as the supply of “safer crack kits”, including the mouthpiece and screen components of pipes for smoking “crack”, authorized by the Vancouver Island Health Authority, as they are in contravention of article 13 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. The distribution of drug paraphernalia, including crack pipes, to drug users in Ottawa and Toronto, as well as the presence of drug injection sites is also in violation of the international drug control treaties, to which Canada is a party.

The arguments for and against the United Nations in this matter come from all directions. Some people agree. Some people say that the U.N. is just taking orders from the U.S. war on drugs and that the U.N. has no business telling Canadians how to deal with health issues. It is abhorrent that Canadian bureaucrats are facilitating illicit and dangerous drug use.

I reject “harm reduction” goals because I believe they represent demonic twisted priorities. Worrying about the “harm” of an intravenous drug user spreading disease among other drug users is warped. Here is their rallying cry: “I inject less as I have easier access to pipes” These “harm reduction” advocates even recommend that drug users do not recap their syringes for fear of pricking their fingers. You heard that right. Go figure!

Call me heartless but I do not give a damn about the drug users. My sympathies go out to the hapless innocent people who get stuck with discarded city syringes. I have collected discarded syringes and crack kits that were supplied by my municipality for free to drug users. They were scattered dangerously on side-walks, in play-grounds, around churches, behind apartment buildings and commercial properties.

——

The drug users are usually quite destitute and they certainly need help. Supplying them with fresh paraphenalia is not the help they need.

I think drug pushers are horrible people. I think the bureaucrats who endorse these “harm reduction” programs and supply free syringes are horrible people too. I would not trust any of them.

The logistics of following the money is straight-forward:
from tax-payer to bureaucrat
from bureaucrat to welfare recipient
from welfare recipient to drug pusher

Oh, I forgot one person: the middleman. Somebody is making money by supplying the bureaucrats with the free syringes, crack pipes, lip balm, lubricants and condoms. Sweet gig.

Google Hypocrisy – Microsoft is Bad for the Internet?

Google’s Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, had this to say about Microsoft’s attempts to acquire Internet giant, Yahoo:

“We would be concerned by any kind of acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft,” Chief Executive Eric Schmidt told reporters.

“We would hope that anything they did would be consistent with the openness of the Internet, but I doubt it would be.”

Which is pretty laughable coming from anyone who cooperates with Chinese censors to limit freedom of speech in China in exchange for access to the lucrative Chinese market.

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country’s free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet’s fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China’s Web suffix “.cn,” on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google’s search engine has previously been available through the company’s dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world’s most populous country.

Schmidt isn’t worried for the Internet, he’s worried about the potential for loss of market-share…