The science on car brakes isn't in yet

After hearing some anti-vaxxers on my local radio call-in program, it got me thinking about an interesting parallel scenario.

The topic of the call-in show in question was about doctors firing patients for not getting themselves or there kids vaccinated. The topic was framed very much as a freedom of choice and the rights of the patient and it got me wondering.

Could I take my car to my mechanic, and when he tells me I need new brakes, can I say "I don't believe the science on brakes is in yet. You can fix my window wipers and lights, but don't touch the brakes."

The mechanic could protest "But without brakes your car won't stop. You will be a danger to everyone else on the road."

I could reply "You are just part of the automotive industrial complex and you are paid off my Big Auto to push the idea of brakes."

The mechanic could tell me about the many times he has seen brakes save lives and how he would never personally drive a car without brakes.

I could then tell him I found a website called "Brakes-R-Bad" and how brakes cause bad fuel mileage and increase green house gas emissions and no thinking person could ever approve of the use of brakes.

I will even tell him about how I saw Jim Carrey on The Tonight Show speaking to how brakes destroyed his dad's car and gave his son asthma from all the dust particles brakes cause.

After hearing all this, the mechanic tells me he can't fix my car and he can't have me as a customer any longer. He can't in good conscience allow me to drive away in a car with no brakes.

This would offend me, he is violating my rights as a consumer to not use brakes. What gives him the right to tell me what should go on my car? Just because some fancy experts show me graphs on stopping distance and statistics on deaths caused by no brakes. What do these experts know anyway? Didn't they ever him Jim Carrey talk about the evils of brakes? These experts must be in on the conspiracy.

The mechanic then tells me its against the law to drive on public roads with a car that doesn't have working brakes.

Well that just gets my blood boiling, the nanny state is just trying to control me and force me to believe in these so called brakes.

What gives the government the right to force my to use brakes on my car? Just because they claim I'm endangering the public they believe that gives them the right to tell me how to use my car?

Its my car, its my choice!

I hope everyone reading this can see the parallel's between this anti-braker and the common arguments anti-vaxxers employ.

So let me ask you these 2 questions:

Do I have the right to refuse vaccines and endanger everyone in the doctors waiting room?

Do I have the right to refuse brakes on my car and endanger everyone I drive with on the public roads?

Omar Khadr's fate

I don't understand the double standard when it comes to Omar Khadr.

These facts appear to be undisputed:

1) He killed an american soldier during combat

2) He was 15 years old at the time

3) He was sentenced to 8 years at gitmo, for which 7 has been served

4) The USA wants him sent back to Canada to finish his sentence.

What I don't understand is the insane fear people have in his return to Canada

I can understand not liking an enemy soldier, but he is still a Canadian and if we just ignore his rights because he committed a crime, then what rights and freedoms are we fighting to protect?

What he did during his time at war may be horrible, and he paid for his crime with 8 years of his life.

Do we now throw out everything it means to be Canadian just so we can get revenge on a 15 year old soldier?

This may be cliche, but if Omar Khadr is denied his rights as a Canadian, then the terrorists win.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry