Thank You, Mr. Williams

by Jane Gaffin

The venerable academic and author Walter Williams, an economic professor at George Mason University, who comes with a long litany of credentials, is one of my favorite political syndicated columnists and is often an invited commentator on a number of radio talk shows such as Brian Wilson’s Libertas Media Project.

I admire Mr. Williams whose thoughts always make sense. I can comprehend, thus retain, what he said after he said it. That, to me, is the sign of a true academic; an unpretentious teacher who doesn’t talk over the student’s head. I could have done with a few more professors the likes of Mr. Williams during my school years.

It is for all those reasons I saved his article Bizarre Arguments and Behavior to my document file for future reference, having come across this specific piece on the Lew Rockwell website under the heading The War on 2nd Hand Smoke.

Other than UK writer Christopher Snowdon at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, it is not too often I come across anybody agreeing with my opinions about the bogus United Nations people-control tobacco-control tactics, based on so-called “researchers” snatching fake statistical numbers out of thin air, that was perpetrated on a gullible public while buying off the health-care system.

One exception to Christopher Snowdon was another Christopher, the late journalist, debater and orator Christopher Hitchens, a smoker and drinker in his own rights. During an interview with Rhys Southan of Reason Magazine in November 2001, Mr. Hitchens explained, among other things, why he was no longer a socialist and why moral authoritarianism was on the rise.

“I’m damned,” Mr. Hitchens said, “if I’ll be treated how smokers are now being treated by not just the government, but the government ventriloquizing the majority. The majoritarian aspect makes it to me more repellent. And I must say it both startles and depresses me that an authoritarian majoritarianism of that kind can have made such great strides in America, almost unopposed. There’s something essentially unAmerican in the idea that I could not now open a bar in San Francisco that says ‘Smokers Welcome’ ”

If the truth were told, anybody with a grain of sense would find a moderation of smoking tobacco and alcohol consumption far safer than the health-care system’s unrestrained habit of prescribing deadly pharmaceuticals that cause more illnesses than cures.

Practitioners are conditioned to blame past or present smoking as the cause of all health ails while ignoring pills as a major culprit. When the dumb quacks find out the patient has never smoked tobacco, or anything else for that matter, they are up a creek without a scapegoat and indignant because they cannot collect their Big Pharma rewards for foisting nicotine and/or alcohol withdrawal assistance on the patient. Unless the patient is dumb enough to allow it to happen.

“Some statements and arguments are so asinine that you’d have to be an academic or a leftist to take them seriously,” was the attention-grabbing introduction sentence from Mr. Williams’ March 26th column. Whereas the entire column must be read to appreciate all the examples he dredged up, toward the halfway mark is where he goes on a roll about the second-hand smoke fable.

“Decades ago,” he continued, “I warned my fellow Americans that the tobacco zealots’ agenda was not about the supposed health hazards of secondhand smoke.

“It was really about control.

“The fact that tobacco smoke is unpleasant gained them the support of most Americans. By the way, to reach its secondhand smoke conclusions, the Environmental Protection Agency employed statistical techniques that were grossly dishonest.

“Some years ago, I had the opportunity to ask a Food and Drug Administration official whether his agency would accept pharmaceutical companies using similar statistical techniques in their drug approval procedures. He just looked at me….

“Former U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman John Webster said:’Right now, this anti-obesity campaign is in its infancy. … We want to turn people around and give them assistance in eating nutritious foods.’

“The city of Calabasas, Calif., adopted an ordinance that bans smoking in virtually all outdoor areas. The stated justification is not the desire to fight against secondhand smoke but the desire to protect children from bad influences — seeing adults smoking.

“Most Americans don’t know that years ago, if someone tried to stop a person from smoking on a beach or sidewalk or buying a 16-ounce cup of soda or tried to throw away his kid’s homemade lunch, it might have led to a severe beating. On a very famous radio talk show, I suggested to an anti-obesity busybody who was calling for laws to restrict restaurants’ serving sizes that he not be a coward and rely on government. He should just come up, I told him, and take the food he thought I shouldn’t have from my plate.

“The late H.L. Mencken’s description of health care professionals in his day is just as appropriate today: ‘A certain section of medical opinion, in late years, has succumbed to the messianic delusion. Its spokesmen are not content to deal with the patients who come to them for advice; they conceive it to be their duty to force their advice upon everyone, including especially those who don’t want it. That duty is purely imaginary. It is born of vanity, not of public spirit. The impulse behind it is not altruism, but a mere yearning to run things.’ “

I love it! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, all you doctors, enforcers, meddlers, connivers, snivelers, moralizers, influence peddlers, uplifters and other busybodies who care to stick your noses in other people’s personal lives where you are not welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Williams!

*******

Advertisements

Doctors Want Everybody Unwell

by Jane Gaffin

While zero-tolerance policies clog court dockets and jam jails with non-violent weekend recreational drug users, it’s the dangerous drug-pushing criminals who should be behind bars, namely doctors who take patients off healthy nutrients and hook them on harmful prescription drugs.

The practice is detrimental to patients and financially beneficial to the quacks. Doctors receive 50 to 80 per cent kickbacks from the giant pharmaceutical companies for prescribing specific pills, especially experimental ones.

New drugs are not tested thoroughly before the government approves their release into the marketplace. Then doctors receive extra residuals for monitoring the reactions of the human guinea pigs and sending results to the drug companies in the spirit of research. Twenty years later, the patient is diagnosed with cancer or some other chronic disease.

Often the prescriptions are government-paid. Just as often the useless financial burden falls to the patient who doesn’t qualify for prescriptions under health care programs.

No problem. Plead poverty and the doctor’s office will submit a form to health care personnel. Then the doctor can load up the patient at government expense. The patient doesn’t have to worry about payment and the doctors get rewarded with kickbacks.

It’s a neat, tidy, slick fraud.

One of the latest “flavours of the month” is diagnosing every patient with hypertension for the purpose of prescribing blood pressure pills. Many quacks will go so far as to promise the medication will “prevent” strokes and heart attacks. It’s a bare-faced lie.

But patients want to avoid illness. They are so brainwashed that doctors know best they will attempt a salt-free diet on blind faith. Trusting their gurus of wellness, they gulp pills without considering every pharmaceutical comes with a big price. No pill can prevent anything; a pill should only be ingested to treat a condition that is worse than the side effects caused by the drugs.

Unless the blood pressure is nearing boiling stage and the patient is ready to explode, there is usually no reason to be on blood pressure pills.

Yet many people voluntarily take the pills while admitting dismay. Their blood pressure is not high, and they wonder if doctors could be dispensing misinformation and over-prescribing drugs in a pharmaceutical-driven medical profession. Nevertheless, they are afraid to quit the drugs.

It has created a great deal of confusion for the consumers. But they can be unconfused easily. Anybody whose blood pressure is not high, much less not abnormally high, go for a walk and stop supporting the pharmaceutical racket.

The side effects of blood pressure pills definitely outweigh the disease the patient doesn’t have yet. The pills are diuretics and inhibitors.

Most likely, the pill-pushers will hastily and unthinkingly prescribe a drug that inhibits the body from properly metabolizing sugar. Doctors don’t tell patients to make regular appointments for blood tests to track the blood sugar level. It can sneakily reach the point where the patient has contracted sugar diabetes–another “flavour of the month”.

It is suspect why there seems to be a diabetes epidemic and the medical profession is promoting the disease–pre-diabetes, Diabetes I, Diabetes II and working on popularizing Diabetes III.

A cure for diabetes was discovered by the Mayo Clinic researchers in 1970. I was at the Minnesota research facility for the celebration. Did anybody every bother asking why over 40 years later the pharmaceutical companies aren’t manufacturing drugs to cure diabetes rather than just making insulin to control the blood sugar level? Clue: Once the problem is conquered, the patient could stop taking the cure; insulin is forever.

If the pill-pusher ignores a patient’s allergies, say sulfa, and prescribes a sulfa-based pill, the respiratory system may seize to the extent that the oxygen supply to the brain is inhibited. The patient will gasp for air, become disoriented and maybe incoherent. He may suffer insomnia, nervous tension or be so incredibly lethargic he can only sleep.

A complaint lodged with a disinterested doctor will garner denial. The patient will be told his symptoms are not the pills’ fault but a figment of the patient’s imagination or maybe the result of another problem.

What other problem? The doctor’s malpractice? Ignorance? Greed? Unethical behaviour? Most doctors are not fastidious about writing prescriptions.

For sure, he doesn’t want the patient to learn he collects a goodly bird-dog cheque from the drugs he has prescribed, disregarding the fact they are making the patient sick. The doctor may simply prescribe another brand. Don’t fall for the farce a second time.

Sometimes the pharmacist is guilty of taking the doctor’s word carte blanche and does not ask the patient or check the records for drug allergies before dispensing the prescription. This is a double whammy for the consumer. It can be lethal if the patient suddenly ingests an ingredient which his body cannot tolerate.

Blood pressure pills are diuretics. Of the hundreds of varieties available on the market, most tend to drain the body of potassium through urination. If the body does not retain adequate potassium and salt content, it is highly likely the kidneys will shut down. Anybody who has the misfortune to be on these potassium-draining pills, should be loading up on bananas, potatoes and oranges. Actually, most fresh fruits and vegetables contain some potassium.

So far, the patient has contracted oxygen deprivation, diabetes and kidney disease from taking blood pressure pills to prevent the stroke and heart attack that wasn’t a problem in the first place.

These nebulous “flavours of the month” policies and recommendations filter down to the government every six months from a Toronto-based Canadian Medical Health Advisory Board. No practicing doctor worth his salt knows what to believe any more.

A salt-free diet is equivalent to blood-letting. It ranks up there with the medical community’s lunatic fringe promotion for unhealthy meat-free and dairy-product-free diets. This swill makes zero sense.

Ironically, the government’s wires crossed. The only sensible newspaper ad campaign the Government of Yukon ever ran came from Health and Social Services. It was promoting the drinking of milk as a good source of vitamin D and calcium for children and adults.

Undoubtedly, people do eat more salt than necessary. Nobody has to acquire a taste for the white crystalline substance used for preserving and enhancing flavours of food.

However, when a doctor advises a salt-free diet, patients, in their desire to be healthy, hasten to sign up for government-sponsored Heart Smart workshops and cooking classes to re-learn how to eat and prepare meals.

It’s all well and good, except when people accept this New Think with an “all or nothing” attitude. They dispose of salt shakers and reject packaged and canned goods that list salt or sodium chloride as ingredients as though salt were a poison.

Heart Smart is a dangerous craze unless approached with caution and common sense. One devoted disciple went salt-free, then went hiking in the hills, fortunately with trail mates. It was warm and she was taking plenty of liquids. She blacked out, anyway.

For a long while, the doctors were perplexed. After a gazillion tests, a smart professional realized the patient wasn’t suffering dehydration but rather salt deficiency. Then it was another month regulating the patient’s circuitry and getting the parts meshing again.

An old wife’s tale states that people don’t crave salt. That story probably came about because most people overdose, leaving a sufficient amount of salt in the body. If the salt level is low, come hot weather, active people usually start craving potato chips, sardines, kelp or other salty products.

Like humans, livestock and wildlife–the entire animal kingdom–crave salt and need to supplement their forage and feed diets. Even a mad cow is smarter than a politically-correct quack. Cattle know to bee-line to the salt blocks farmers put out in the fields at strategic locations. Wildlife instinctively migrate to natural salt licks.

Animals are smarter than humans. Some hospitals, supposedly the epitome of wellness, have been designated salt-free zones. Gulag-style meals are not prepared with salt, nor are incidental packets of salt or Saltine crackers put on trays.

Unless outsiders are willing to act as salt smugglers or the patients want to chance swilling from a bottle of medicinal saline solution, patients have no access to salt, even if their life depends on it–which it can.

Why any hospital would go salt-free is a puzzle. Salt deficiency is difficult to diagnose and is usually misdiagnosed as dehydration. Pumping the patient full of additional saltless fluids is a useless exercise.

The body does not manufacture its own salt supply. Without adequate salt intake, the body will lose all its excess salt and water from sweating, which is the body’s coolant mechanism.

If the sodium, chloride and potassium are perspired away through the pores and evaporate on the skin and into thin air without replenishing the stock, dehydration does set in.

Can you imagine a doctor telling a farmer or geologist–or any other outdoors workers who slog under a broiling sun all day–to stay off salt! The wise ones would rightfully scoff over the asinine “medical” advice; the not-so-wise would be setting themselves up for kidney failure and a heat stroke.

However, doctors do continue to advise salt-free diets because they are mainly trained to observe politically-correct, quackery policies and parrot the system’s dictates. Most doctors can’t even discuss nutrition with patients. The young lot who came from the New Think education era probably missed home economics 101 that starts teaching proper nutrition from the elementary-grade level and hammers the subject until the students graduate.

Besides salt being a preservative to protect food from spoilage, it is an effective, cheap wound healer, a disinfectant, in the front line defense against bacteria.

Salt also plays a vital role in the chemistry of baked goods and makes the end product taste good, which is desirable. Salt is every chef’s best friend.

Another reason it is important to cook with or sprinkle free-running table salt on food is for the iodine. Though a person’s small daily iodine requirements are measured in micrograms, iodine intake is essential. Good sources of the element come from the ocean’s kelp and fish. But the cheap, no-fuss source is table salt.

It is beyond comprehension why health systems and politicians would promote the nutty ideas of salt-free diets and a total ban of salt. Even Gulag inmates were blessed with a few grains of salt and sugar for their tasteless porridge whenever the rare commodities came available in post-war Soviet Russia.

A small minority of Canadian doctors did speak out publicly when the Marxist concept was in full cry. Although salt prohibition is still on the books, under the fraudulent term “healthier lifestyle”, the harmful proposal has at least been tamed, but not abandoned before some hospitals declared themselves salt-free zones and left-leaning mayors of places like New York dictated salt bans in their cities, albeit having to ultimately temper or rescind their zealous stupidity.

About the time Canada was dumbing down with politically-correct quackery, the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), of all places, was finally getting smarter.

The WHO recognized the necessity of iodizing poor nations to prevent mental deficiencies in children and prevent thyroid-gland goiters in adults.

A cheap, effective way to distribute iodine to third-world populations in India, Pakistan and African countries is to have manufacturers iodize the salt, announced WHO (about 2006).

Why did it take a WHO brainchild so long to figure this out? Morton’s has been iodizing its salt for North Americans since 1924.

While third-world people are given free iodized salt to make them healthy, Canada’s drug pushers are still advocating salt- and iodine-free diets to make people sick.

Moderation, maybe, but zero-tolerance no.

Salt is good for you; pills and quacks are not.

*******

Blastogram: Statistics Canada is Revenue Canada’s Watchdog

by Jane Gaffin

I am blessed to live in a quiet sanctum and neighbourhood that are agreeable to going about my writing and research undisturbed.

One afternoon I nearly jumped out of my clothes when that serenity was suddenly shattered by an enormous pounding reminiscent of a doorbusting riot squad. I always expected when the Nazi SS came for me it would be a 5 o’clock morning surprise, not 5 o’clock in the afternoon.

If I were truly in danger, I had the ultimate option of risking life and limb by leaping over the balcony railing. Instead, and for the first time in my life, I felt compelled to grab the handiest object. It was an iron breaker bar tapered to a wicked point on one end for flipping off hubcaps.

I don’t know what good a hubcap-flipper could do against Tasers, 9 mm handguns or paramilitary paraphernalia. But the breaker bar provided a false sense of comfort until I could identify the intruder who may be nothing more than someone looped on stagger juice and had stumbled into the wrong building looking for a clansman.

“Who is it?!” I yelled.

The answer was another thunderous crashing that made my head hurt. If any tenants were home on my floor, they surely would be poking their heads out into the hallway to check on the obscene ruckus.

“IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SAY WHO YOU ARE THEN GET AWAY FROM THAT DOOR!” I snarled.

From the other side of the door came the meek reply, “Stats Canada.”

“I sent you something already,” I said, perturbed at the invisible guy who had been either raised in a barn or a whorehouse with an impatient Madam for a mother.

“This is the long-form census,” he chirped timidly, belying his prowess for door-crashing.

“I’m busy,” I retorted.

“Can I leave it and come back in a couple of days?” he asked, politely.

“You can do whatever you want,” I answered, assuming he was going to do what he wanted anyway, with or without my permission.

To arrive at my residence, this stranger had to do a “break and entry”, maybe with assistance from a keyholder, to access the locked building, then trespassed private property where he didn’t belong.

The only people who have carte blanche access to the building are the landlord, manager, tenants and approved guests, maintenance and service people, contractors, postal carriers and couriers, and, during elections, politicians and enumerators. Once, every five years, bona fide Census-takers are added to the eligibility list of legal entrants.

Other than that, stay the hell away. Even the police do not enter the building unless they have been summoned to an emergency or have made prior arrangements to visit a tenant.

At 5 o’clock the following afternoon, the balcony door was open. I observed an unfamiliar car pull into the parking lot. After some chatter, a tenant was convinced to let him in the front door.

The breaker bar was still laying on the table beside the hallway door and the Stats Canada packet was still laying on the hallway floor without my fingerprints on it.

It was good to know that this guy was a quick learner. His knock was subdued and sane.

“Yes?” I asked.

“Can I talk to you?” he asked.

I opened the door. There towered two strapping young men who had the appearance of cops. The first introduced himself mannerly, then introduced his sidekick.

They did not acknowledge me by name. Since Household Census surveys are purported to be “random”, the nameless recipients are supposed to be known only in the Orwellian fashion of phone number and address.

Does the government really believe Canadians are stupid?

It struck me as odd that Stats Canada felt obligated to send two heavies to deliver one dinky packet to a lone occupant. Did they feel “threatened” and traveled in pairs for “officer safety” like the police? Were they packing heat?

“You filled out the Census form,” the first said.

“Yes, I have,” I answered, referring to the May campaign that had accomplished the head count of all Canadian residents.

“This is the long form Household Census,” he said. “Won’t you at least look at it?”

“No, I won’t,” I said. In my opinion, there was no need for a second “census” form, long or short. From previous encounters, I had a fair idea what the invasive long-form questionnaire contained and didn’t need to review it.

“I’m under no obligation to fill it out.”

Evidently, these guys knew the rules, too. They accepted my decision and left without argument or threat. But it won’t be the end of a saga. Stats Canada doesn’t take ‘no’ easily.

Stats Canada deceitfully promotes the long form as a “Household Census”. If it were a “census”, the foot soldiers would be canvassing every apartment dweller in my building instead of again pretending to target me as a “random” subject to receive the long form.

I applauded Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Company for responding to complaints of privacy infringement, civil rights abuses and agents’ obnoxious behaviour. He outlawed the “long-form” in late 2009. However, the Privy Council eventually caved to Stats Canada’s whining and agreed to a suitable compromise of “voluntary compliance”.

That was fine. Some Canadians relish spilling their guts in compliance with the government’s false pretenses.

However, the purpose of a census is to obtain a head count, which is growing exponentially in view of Canada’s 250,000 annual immigration influx, the highest rate in the world that is also importing crime exponentially. It leaves Ottawa in a lurch about how to divvy out transfer payments and budget for welfare and police programs. Hint: Cut the immigration rate by 75 percent until Canada catches its societal breath.

Every five years Statistics Canada designs another form and pushes the envelope beyond the half dozen or so allowable questions: name; birth date; sex and gender; city and province; name of spouse; names and ages of children; number of people living in the household. That’s about it.

Unlike some Canadians, I willingly file a Census form, not because I’m concerned about Ottawa’s per capita funding. As a writer, I am often called on to conduct genealogical work. Census records are the first important source of attack.

However, privacy is precious and must be guarded. Deep thought must be put into how much personal information to release to strangers. Once your personal information is given away, you can never retrieve it. At some later date, that personal information can come back to haunt you because you don’t know where the information flows now or where it will flow in the future as laws and societal attitudes change.

When the Marxist social engineers decide to euthanize a specific group because they discovered socialism doesn’t work, never did work and never will work, and they have exhausted the spending of everybody else’s money and can no longer afford to support lavish social programs, Stats Canada computers can handily spit out names. Then the government medicare brass can line up the eligible for their death shots.

When the New World Order’s High Priest is governing the world from the lofty towers of the United Nations and people are subjected to the UN’s constitution, laws, courts, treaties, policies and eugenics, it will be easy to use worldwide statistical databases to select the three billion people who are scheduled for extermination and a lesser number to be interned in concentration camps.

Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler would have respectively slaughtered another million for the luxury of computers. As it were, the deranged dictators reviewed hand-written lists each day and personally decided the fate of their enemies. Occasionally, the masters of doom would strike through a name, saving a person from fate in one of the Gulag’s hard labour camps or a killing camp like Auschwitz.

When a Stats Canada agent identifies himself as such on the phone, you can not verify that the person is not really a Google information-gatherer, an I.D. fraudster or some other con artist profiling you for unethical purposes.

Anybody can sound official, reading an intimidating preamble that threatens prosecution for refusing to answer a litany of invasive questions.

You wouldn’t give out numbers of your credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts or personal identification numbers and passwords to a stranger. Yet Stats Canada’s squad members demand you share your HealthCare Card number and Social Insurance Number–not for statistics, I might remind, but for surveillance. Stats Canada has to attach an accurate identity to Josephine Doe or John Citizen for Revenue Canada purposes.

It’s highly advised never to do a survey on the phone with any one who only confirms your identity by a phone number. Ask who they are calling; or say that whoever they want to speak with will return the call later.

Dealing solely in phone numbers indicates telemarketers, independent surveyors, hacktivists and other unsavory characters trying to obtain your private information for disreputable intentions.

In the past, not only has Stats Canada been on my back, but those groping bastards have tried to get into my womb. I, like gun owners who have to answer probing questions about their love life and bedroom activities to register firearms, resent Stats Canada’s blackmail tactics. “You HAVE to answer,” the Winnipeg caller demanded.

Oh? Who said? Response to all impertinent questions, either verbally, or scrawled in black felt pen across the page of a form, should be met with: NOYFB!

When dealing with Stats Canada. know your rights. If you are unsure, pretend. No matter what, stand your ground. Worry about possible fallout from heavy-handed threats later. I daresay there won’t be any. These people are overbearing bullies trying to have their way by playing petty-assed power games.

Some years back, when under threat of prosecution, a supervisor, later diagnosed with job-triggered mental illness, intervened on my case which is how I inadvertently came aware that Stats Canada is the watchdog for Revenue Canada.

I was balky because one of her power-tripping broads had stolen into the locked apartment building and come to my door. She demanded my Social Insurance Number to match me with tax-related information she needed to extract from me. I refused to talk to her again.

This episode went on for over a year. I could not–therefore would not–answer questions about (un)employment that were irrelevant to my freelance-writing lifestyle. I could not get delisted.

“It would ruin our statistics,” they lied.

It was blatantly obvious the goofs were tracking me for Revenue Canada, a fact confirmed when I accidentally caught them red-handed with all my tax returns scanned into their laptops. So much for Revenue Canada’s promise of confidentiality.

My financial records were accessible to all of the part-time, temporary, casual help as computers were passed from one person to the next. What happens to the information when the computers are replaced? The hardrives are not carefully scrubbed before the computers are sold at auction or trashed. It means the sensitive information is floating around in cyberspace.

The supervisor denied all. She claimed that I had provided Stats Canada with the personal financial information. Hardly. I wouldn’t have remembered where I’d worked or how much I earned and other sundry information from 20-to-25 years earlier unless I had checked references, which I wouldn’t have bothered doing, even if I could. I only keep tax records for seven years.

I refused to cooperate because Stats Canada’s devious agents had not been forthright. Then the supervisor warned me that Stats Canada had the right to prosecute.

“Send me a copy of the Stats Canada Act,” I said.

Unbelievably, copies were not available in her Whitehorse office and had to be ordered from Vancouver. Travel time took a while because these brainboxes didn’t have the smarts to send mail to a mailing address.

Later, the tenacious supervisor rang to prove she was right. She instructed me to turn to a certain page of the “Act”. I did. Nothing there.

She was incredulous, stumbling and bumbling, reading a blurb from her “Act”. After I quizzed her, I discovered we weren’t reading from identical documents. This babe was reading from the office Guidelines!

I was being threatened with prosecution by a functionary who didn’t know the difference between a procedural manual and a parliamentary act that legally governs her employer! These are the clever bureaucrats who want command-and-control over our lives!

In my estimation, it would be easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. But Stats Canada’s squads adhere to the premise of setting off people’s ire and engaging them in a war of wills.

These goons have been known to overstep their legal boundaries, trespassing property and trampling gardens in their attempts to break into back doors, as well as brazenly invading family Sunday afternoon barbecues and dragging the husband aside under threat to “fill out the long form or else.”

I can’t remember if the gentleman complied. But his heated letter-to-the-editor was one of many that saw ink during that Stats Canada pestilence one season when agents swarmed Whitehorse like a horde of locusts.

The agents will claim they don’t know the occupant’s name, only the phone number and address. Change your phone number. They will latch onto the new one jiffy quick, listed or unlisted; move to a new address and Stats Canada will follow you to the new digs.

“Oh, this household was targeted for a survey; not you personally.”

Do I look stupid? I guess so because those are some of the lies Stats Canada’s drones are taught to spew to the prey.

Make no mistake. They are after you personally, looking for undeclared income, and trying to trip you into a contradiction. Stats Canada knows everything about you, either from the long-form or telephone surveys, or, more likely, because Revenue Canada gave them your latest “confidential” tax return.

You are not sought out to provide statistics; you are under surveillance.

*******

This Blastogram was originally published on July 21, 2011