Copy of first letter below: (I no longer have the 'press copy, but the headline was something like. . .)
|
Mike Harris has allowed his government to be influenced by well-financed groups whose focused purpose is to eliminate entire industries and ways of life. Affected by the tactics of these groups are beef and pork suppliers, and shoe manufacturers and the family dog. These are truly offensive tactics. Say goodbye to the Christmas Turkey, hamburgers, and soon in line regular licenses for moosehunting. It is time for all of us to realize that the real issue is emotional and shortsighted political control without substantiated reason.
These groups strategically calculated the cost of implementing law, chose a safe objective as a preliminary milestone in a line of progression leading to the dinner table and the plastic boot. It is time that we see this are important advancement toward Orwell's 1934 horrific vision of population control. He was only a few years short. What amazes me is that the political leaders themselves have not countered these initiatives as issues of willful manipulation of law by intelligent but narrowly focused individuals who have created self employment as executive directors and legal counsel within non-profit groups. We must ask ourselves if our own political complacency is a valid political position.
Lark Ritchie
Porcupine, Ontario |
A post-commentary follows. . .
His company website says they direct 5% of 'before tax profit' to non-profit groups. (NOTE: Before Tax donations actually reduce the profit of a company for taxation purposes. Most companies would die giving that much away.. wellllll.. some companies...)
Now... Think of this... Schad is a businessman. He is obviously profitable in business. In other words, he understands his environment and is an economic animal, in the sense that he survives and thrives in the 'concrete jungle.'
I would assume that in some ways, he could be considered a predator, in the sense that at least once or twice, he has made a business deal at the expense of another business. (he might call himself something like a herbivore, but the economic food of an economic animal is cash, and cash, in a capitalist society, most likely, at least, even just one time, be generated through a predatory action.) Isn't making a profit a result of successfully competitive action? I could be wrong, but I assume that he, in his existence, or his company, has 'eaten' another business or service, or allowed it to indirectly be subject to economic death. I have no problem with that. Our society and culture sees that as acceptable. (If anybody really knows, contact me...)
My personal question might be 'Might this man be a paradox? Might he be, in some sense, validly, by definition, be a hypocrite?'
Can Husky Injection Molding Inc. really be 'fully environmentally-friendly? A Plastics company? Maybe... but... I find it hard to believe. 'Fully environmentally-friendly?' Comon! Even ISO-14000 accreditation does not mean 'FULLY.' Hmmmm.?
The... man... made... PLASTICS... and ROBOTS... He has a personal fortune. His vision of the world depends on technology... He must drive a car? Does it have leather uphostery? Does it pollute? Do the robots make polluting devices? Does he entertain with steak and shrimp? Is he a justified minimalist? I don't know... But I wish I did... I might respect him if he truly was...
Whatcha T'ink?
Lark Ritchie
Back To Project Friday Central...
Back To Hunting Themes
Lark's Home Page (c) 1999 Lark Ritchie. All Rights Reserved. Contact me at this address..