This is an unpublished letter to the editor sent to the Winnipeg Free Press.
I was disappointed to read that Stephen Fletcher indicated housing projects for homeless people should be dry because “a majority of Canadians would agree that homeless people should be clean before they're given somewhere to live" (Booze battle over Bell Hotel, Apr. 23).
Whether or not public opinion is as Mr. Fletcher contends, it clear from his statement the federal government is morally opposed to allowing homeless drunks to live off the public dime.
I have a problem with this because real evidence suggests that giving addicts a home can, in many cases, help them turn their lives around. The ancient practice of moralizing, on the other hand, has never done anything but fill the streets with more despair. I realize that there is a very sizable segment of sanctimonious people out there who don’t care a whit for the drunks that populate Winnipeg’s downtown, but it saddens me to know that a federal representative would endorse their ill-founded righteousness so publically while committing funds to this initiative.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Raw Milk is not Poison
This Letter was Published in the Victoria Times-Colonist print edition, but for some reason did not make it onto their website.
Minister Chong’s response to a recent editorial about over-regulation of food production refers to a “widely recognized” threat of illness and disease represented by raw milk, using the image of children dying as a defense.
What she does not bother to address in her haste to arouse fear is the reason why people would choose this “dangerous” product over the widely available pasteurized variety. People choose raw milk because it has not been subjected to the negative effects of making milk “safe”. The process of pasteurization kills the good bacteria along with the bad, making milk a far less healthy product than it has the potential to be.
Similarly, governments that issue blanket edicts about what is safe to consume based on the opinion of a few “experts” remove choice from the market and demonize wholesome, centuries-old ways of living for the sake of political expedience.
Minister Chong’s response to a recent editorial about over-regulation of food production refers to a “widely recognized” threat of illness and disease represented by raw milk, using the image of children dying as a defense.
What she does not bother to address in her haste to arouse fear is the reason why people would choose this “dangerous” product over the widely available pasteurized variety. People choose raw milk because it has not been subjected to the negative effects of making milk “safe”. The process of pasteurization kills the good bacteria along with the bad, making milk a far less healthy product than it has the potential to be.
Similarly, governments that issue blanket edicts about what is safe to consume based on the opinion of a few “experts” remove choice from the market and demonize wholesome, centuries-old ways of living for the sake of political expedience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
