VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

DOOM & GLOOM UNHELPFUL

As a recently graduated family doctor, I thought I would add my opinion to those expressed in your Dec. 20 article about ER closures.

I can't comment specifically on the number of family physicians graduating from Dalhousie University with an emergency medicine certificate over the past several years who have stayed in Nova Scotia, but I do know for certain that it is more than “none.”

From a family medicine perspective, I can comment with certainty that five out of five Annapolis Valley Family Medicine Program graduates in 2019 have committed to Nova Scotia. Three out of five are providing ER coverage and three have committed to starting family medicine practices. Two are providing full-time locum services. Almost all of this work is in the Annapolis Valley.

According to your article, this means 100 per cent of us from the Valley program have committed to harder work for less pay this year. While I agree there are challenges, there are also obvious successes like this. Many Dalhousie family medicine residents across the province are committing to stay in Nova Scotia and contribute to a solution.

Perhaps there would be even more success in recruitment if these facts were accurately represented and celebrated in the media. Doom-and-gloom articles aren't likely to help recruitment and retention.

Dr. Lynne Cann, Kentville

ISRAEL DEFENDS ITSELF

Re: Jim Vibert's Dec. 23 column, “International lethargy permits occupation.” Mr. Vibert writes about an interview with Prof. Michael Lynk who expresses a partisan position and reveals an open hostility towards Israel.

Lynk starts out with the hyperbolic assertion that Israel is guilty of “the longest belligerent occupation in the modern world.” As far as the records go, it seems that China's invasion of Tibet in 1950 is an older modern occupation — occurring 17 years before the 1967 Six Day War.

Further, China's occupation is illegal, as Tibet had no plans to invade China, yet China seized Tibet and forced its government into exile. In the case of 1967 Israel, the neighbouring Arab states openly began a marine blockade and Jordan fired thousands of artillery shells; its troops engaged in combat before Israel took defensive measures. Israel eventually removed the aggressors' forces from territories that were the platform for their aggression — hence Israel's “occupation” is not illegal.

To complicate matters, Israel had religious, historical and legal rights to those disputed territories; Bethlehem itself is the hometown of both King David and Jesus, who were not Muslims or Arabs — they were Jews from Judea.

Further, Prof. Lynk shows his antagonism by omitting the recorded Arab aggression, which would provide some context to Israeli defensive measures.

Larry A. Riteman, Bedford

THIN IMPEACHMENT GRUEL

Michael de Adder's “stain on Trump/ America” impeachment cartoon needs some tweaking to be accurate.

Yes, impeachment is a stain on any American president who endures it. But for Donald Trump, it will wash off fairly quickly. After Senate Republicans acquit him, he will milk it for all the public-relations value it provides to him during the months leading up to the November election.

The real stain on the United States as a result of this unfortunate impeachment campaign is on the House Democratic caucus. They were so determined to impeach this Republican president, whom they fear will win reelection, that they invented a “crime” — piecing together bits of loosely related information to form a theory that they transformed into “fact.” Then they bolstered it with banal references to no one being above the law, upholding the Constitution, protecting the nation's democracy, ad infinitum.

They set a dangerous precedent in American history, one that could easily backfire on the Democratic party in the future, when a Democratic president faces a Republican majority in Congress. So, although President Trump is not guiltless in this dark stain on America's history, the Congressional Democrats deserve the much stronger rebuke for abusing their majority advantage and wielding the impeachment sabre for political gain.

D.G. Fletcher, Smiths Cove

MOVING GOALPOSTS

So, Halifax's mayor, deputy mayor and all the “yes” councillors believe it is a great thing to be invited to the prom by the group behind the stadium proposal. Taking that analogy a bit further, a good prom date, with trust on both sides, unfolds in a predictable manner.

The stadium group, however, has floated as many different funding and stadium options as quickly as they could think of them, all in hopes of convincing councillors that they are good people. First, stadium too big — no problem, here is a smaller version. Funding ideas all look too one-sided in their favour — no worries, here are a couple more to choose from. Projected attendance figures look a little too rosy for staff — well, the arrogance in Schooners co-owner Anthony LeBlanc's answer was something to behold: “I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one in that room that has run a professional sports team.” Let's just ignore how successful he was running the Phoenix Coyotes.

Oh, but the absolute best statement, coming from somebody who now has a date to the prom, was in reference to HRM Mayor Mike Savage. When asked to comment on Savage's concerns over the stadium group's proposal to have the province increase taxes on hotels and rental cars, LeBlanc said, “He's just another citizen.”

How quickly things turn when somebody gets what they want.

Joe Macdonald, Dartmouth

GIVING AWAY OUR GOLD

Re: “Report weighs benefits of gold mine in St. Mary's area of Nova Scotia” (Dec. 11).

We in Nova Scotia have a valuable resource in gold. The applicant to mine this gold can do so for $950 per ounce, and can make a profit of $584.50 per ounce after paying us a one per cent royalty. But gold is now selling at $2,000 per ounce, not $1,550. This means that we get $4.50 more per ounce and the investors get $445.50 more profit per ounce.

This is our gold. The mining company does not own it. It is in the business of mining. We should pay them for doing so, without giving away our gold. Why do we not get all of the increase in value? True, we will get 16 per cent from corporate taxes, but that is not for the value of our resource; it is for our provincial social system.

There are reasonable estimates that gold will go to $10,000 per ounce. That would mean that we in Nova Scotia would get $100 per ounce while the profit of the mine owners would be $9,315.50 per ounce. Who in Nova Scotia would be fool enough to give away a deal like that?

Edd Twohig, Kentville