THE CONSERVATIVE HIPSTERS
Friday, October 15, 2004
POLITICS AS USUAL: IF THIS IS A NANNY STATE, I WANT A BEDTIME SNACK, AND THEY CAN AT LEAST TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE FOR ME...
Do we need the government to tell us what to do? Here are two new brainwaves. One bans pitbulls the other (only a proposal at this point) is banning smoking in cars with chldren.
I guess I'm split on kicking the McGuinty government in the butt on these proposals. They've introduced a bill banning pitbulls, but have (thankfully) rejected the Ontario Medical Association proposal.
Nevertheless, both proposals are stupid. Is this what it comes down to? Abdicating personal responsibility in favour of by-laws, bans and legislation? If Canada is going to increase its state of "nanniness", then I at least want it to pick out my clothes in the morning.
Look--people know smoking is bad and they know pitbulls are dangerous. Those that light up in the smokehouse that is their car clearly don't care about the effects it will have on their kidlets. How exactly would you enforce such a ban? Have "Cancer Cops" on motorcycles doing RIDE programs sniffing your window for traces of smoke? I can think of no greater punishment for a parent than the doctor telling them that their kid has cancer. If that's not preventative, I don't know what is.
And pitbull owners know their pet has the capacity to rips a child to pieces. The government shouldn't ban pitbulls. They need to enact a penalty akin to vehicular manslaughter. The dog is(like a car) is a potential weapon. You use it incorrectly, someone dies, YOU go to jail for a number of years. They might think twice next time they poke Cujo with a stick for fun.
Either way--doesn't the government have better thing to interfere with? Don't we have a $5B deficit to tackle? How about property tax reform? Fixing hospitals? R&D for the hi-tech sector? Fostering growth? Cutting taxes? While I'm suprised we haven't gone to "Pitbull Threat Level Orange" with these recent attacks, I think we're taking our eyes off the ball.
Let's get some perspective.
I guess I'm split on kicking the McGuinty government in the butt on these proposals. They've introduced a bill banning pitbulls, but have (thankfully) rejected the Ontario Medical Association proposal.
Nevertheless, both proposals are stupid. Is this what it comes down to? Abdicating personal responsibility in favour of by-laws, bans and legislation? If Canada is going to increase its state of "nanniness", then I at least want it to pick out my clothes in the morning.
Look--people know smoking is bad and they know pitbulls are dangerous. Those that light up in the smokehouse that is their car clearly don't care about the effects it will have on their kidlets. How exactly would you enforce such a ban? Have "Cancer Cops" on motorcycles doing RIDE programs sniffing your window for traces of smoke? I can think of no greater punishment for a parent than the doctor telling them that their kid has cancer. If that's not preventative, I don't know what is.
And pitbull owners know their pet has the capacity to rips a child to pieces. The government shouldn't ban pitbulls. They need to enact a penalty akin to vehicular manslaughter. The dog is(like a car) is a potential weapon. You use it incorrectly, someone dies, YOU go to jail for a number of years. They might think twice next time they poke Cujo with a stick for fun.
Either way--doesn't the government have better thing to interfere with? Don't we have a $5B deficit to tackle? How about property tax reform? Fixing hospitals? R&D for the hi-tech sector? Fostering growth? Cutting taxes? While I'm suprised we haven't gone to "Pitbull Threat Level Orange" with these recent attacks, I think we're taking our eyes off the ball.
Let's get some perspective.
# posted by Anonymous : 10:27 a.m.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
