A Pandemic of Fear

 

 

 

My wife and kids go to a female chiropractor in Coaldale. She actually teams up with her husband and has done wonders for my family. Dr. L is a very reasonable, sane, and competent human being, and the same can be said for her medical expertise. When I suggest she comes unglued at the word "H1N1," I do not believe I am exaggerating.

In other words, she is very concerned about the dangers of H1N1 immunization.

Then I read some behind-the-scenes information as to what comprises the vaccine - again, from reputable medical professionals - and I get confused, afraid, and mad. If a fraction of the information is true, then I honestly believe we do have a pandemic – but it is a pandemic of ignorance and gullibility.

When I consider the hype and pressure surrounding the whole immunization frenzy, I get really worried. To be sure, there is a so-called swine flu out there. Granted, people are getting sick, a number have died. I don't wish to minimize sickness or death. These are facts, and who can argue with facts?

But where I draw the line is the massive hysteria about the shots, and the hours of line-ups waiting for the great poke. Yet there is an incomplete, partial picture of what the vaccine is comprised of – and the damage that those shots are doing to our bodies. I think every reader should look into the background of H1N1 immunization – and don't just take my word for it, or the government's word for it, for that matter.

Thousands of Canadians will not be getting vaccinated this winter, but it's not because of a shortage of vaccine. Nor will it be because they could care less about their health. In fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. Truth be told, they understand the severe risks involved in getting immunized. They are simply no longer willing to blindly submit to peer pressure.

Despite the hype that has been foisted on us - from the government, the media, and the medical profession - I am frankly alarmed that so few people have paused to take a breath and investigate all the salient details behind the noise.

We live in a world of limited discernment. We are told something, so we believe it. Schools of every description and every form of media are the main conduits of such propaganda. Space forbids even a partial listing of examples, but I would cite some of the following: evolution, global warming, abortion, promiscuity. I humbly suggest that if one would pause and examine facts and evidence, motivation and goals (for starters), I think there would be many shocked seekers.

In other words, we don't do something because the government tells us do it, nor should we not do it because the government says we should do it. The key to my argument here is we should do what is right, once armed with the impartial facts.

I toss in the H1N1 rush with the above. There is a history of flues that have been far more deadly over the past 100 years. (Check out the epidemic of 1918-19, with the twenty million souls that lost their lives.) Even the common flu remains far more toxic the H1N1. And the general hysteria that has erupted in the past few weeks has me deeply concerned as to how people react to well-orchestrated decrees.

Lest there is any confusion as to my warning, I am not suggesting for a moment that we be less careful or cautious about our health. I am suggesting that we do due diligence when it comes to any public or popular trend. Check things out; examine the facts; get more than one opinion; reflect and discern.

Don't necessarily follow the crowd: They may be headed in the wrong direction.

A Question about Sports

 

 

I know the other guy on the other page writes about sports – and writes it well, by the way – but every now and then I get these sports urges that I need to get off my chest (or would that be my fingers?). These come in the form of questions, so I hope they don't baffle you too much.

1. Why is the World Series only played between teams linked with America? Shouldn't it be called the North American Series? The USA Series? The Lower-48 Series? It strikes me as a little ambitious, perhaps even pretentious, to claim a title for an event that has nothing to do with the actual title. The World Cup of Soccer, for instance, involves teams from around the world.

Maybe you don't even care, but the New York Yankees, also known as Club Spoiled Brats, is taking on the Philadelphia Phillies for this year's World Series. The Phillies, by the way, not to be confused with the Philadelphia Fillies (which are horses) won it all last year.

At one point, it was almost an all-California series, as in the LA Dodgers versus the LA Angels. The Dodgers once hailed from Brooklyn, home of the current Yankees; and the Angels have also been known as the California Angels (when I was a kid), and the Anaheim Angels, more recently. Technically, the team then could also be known as The Angels Angels – as "los angeles" is Spanish for angels. But again, who really cares?

2. Why do certain CFL players feel they haven't arrived until they have played in the NFL? The CFL, in my most humble opinion, is vastly superior league, for the following reasons: the field is longer, they only have three downs instead of four, the end zone is deeper, and the CFL has more man-in-motion options. Okay, their cheerleaders are cuter, but I'm talking about the actual sport – not the distraction on the sidelines.

I was never good enough to play football, though I once played end, guard and tackle. That was great until I learned that I was to sit at the end of the bench, guard the cooler and tackle anyone who came near. So I never had that same urge to head south. To play for an A-B-C (anyone but Calgary) team, would have been an honour. If I understand the CFL roster flexibility correctly, I think there is a greater chance of becoming a starter up here than down there. I should add that some of the greatest players down there got their professional start up here (hello, Doug Flutie and Warren Moon).

3. What has happened to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers in these past few weeks? I know, I know, they're winning- that's why I'm asking, Horace. But how can essentially the same set of players who were so inept all year now become so good (or is it 'ept'?)? Believe it or not, their turnaround started around the time Calgary made a trade with them, but I am not aware of their new players playing any significant role in the wins. More sleep? Less drugs? The playbooks come in coloured paper now? Whatever, as long as the Lions win it all.

4. Hasn't anyone told the Colorado Avalanche that they are supposed to be one of the bottom feeders this year in the NHL? As I write this, they are 10-1-2; by the time you read this, they could easily be 12-1-2. The pundits placed them some where near the bottom in the whole NHL, not just the Western Conference.

Speaking of the Western Conference, it's going to be a gong show, come mid-April. I don't see any weak teams out here - well, okay, we have two question marks north of us – but I have no idea who will join the Toronto Maple Laughs and the New York Good Bye'landers in the basement.

I should comment on basketball and soccer, just to show my well-rounded approach to sports, but I have nothing to really say. I'm just not into them. And don't look here for a positive column on golf or tennis, demanding as they are. I'm not even sure they would make it into the other real sports column.

Peace for What?

 

 

 

I never dreamed in a thousand years that I would ever agree with Hamas, that anarchist paramilitary group consumed with the destruction of Israel. My sentiments – indeed, my convictions – lie firmly with the state of Israel, both because of biblical and historical realities.

But today's column has nothing to do with Zionism or Semitism or even the Jews themselves. It has everything to do with an award that was handed out recently to the president of the United States, one that neither I nor Hamas nor (it now seems) millions of others agree with.

In other words, Barack Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a bizarre twist of what the prize stands for. I rank that debacle of honour up there with Henry (the-father-of-abortion) Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada.

Much of the outrage has come because Obama has been in the Oval Office for only a few months. Listen, people: The nomination came through by the first of February! He had been in the office for only a few days!

Others are outraged, and this is where I come in, at what he has done in the name of peace, or better, what he hasn't done. Re-stated: What has he done to create peace in this troubled planet? I have no problem giving a president the Nobel Peace Prize (there was the precedent of the president, if you will) if, in fact, he has done something. But when a man has done nothing, that is a joke – a very bad joke.

We all know that he has plans for peace. But don't we all? Since when did this noble (pun intended) prize get awarded for something that hasn't happened yet? To carry this logic further, I can think of a number of businessmen, scientists, and others, who are on the verge of doing something great. Perhaps we should award them a prize for their prospective work, too.

Whether I am against a socialist president of arguably one of the most powerful nations in the world is a moot point. He could be a right-wing gas jockey, for all I care. You just don't give men awards having done nothing. You don't do that at schools, churches, businesses, or any other normal institution. It seriously cheapens the Nobel's credibility.

I know there has been this nauseating groundswell of support for the man as the next messiah. The hype has gone beyond tedious; it's actually downright scary. I don't even think he would promote himself in that manner. In all fairness, I understand Mr. Obama was as shocked at getting the Nobel Peace Prize as he is in being considered a messiah.

If you want to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize, I have a name for you. His efforts in promoting peace around the world and throughout the centuries, across the borders and over the barriers, have stood the tests of time, space, and substance. His influence has altered homes, communities, nations, and history itself.

Agree or disagree about my candidate – Jesus Christ Himself – you must admit, even if you are a token student of history, that when His peace principles are carried out, things are radically and positively different. I will be the first to admit that many who have claimed to be His followers have bungled the mission supremely, but that in no way lessens the power of peace created by the world's only genuine Messiah.

Obama would do well to have a track record of centuries (not days), of cross-cultural followers (not a few capable hacks), of realistic solutions (not artificial handouts) before he steps up to accept this prize.

I would love all to agree with me, but that has never been the case. Funny, I don't think even Hamas and I would be on the same page on this one, either.