Foremost on my Mind: An Elephant in the House

Let me start off with a verbal cartoon, for you: An elephant is standing on a rug in someone's living room; it is also standing on the homeowner's toes--which are also on said rug. It hurts, it's inconvenient, and the elephant really shouldn't be in that house in the first place. But in all fairness, it hasn't broken anyone's foot (yet) and, well, elephants do need to stand somewhere, don't they? Oh yes, something about personal rights, too.

Now let me shift to another scene: With most of the Occupy Wall Street apes (Maurice, “apes” is a double entendre) “graciously” conceding to remove their tents, toilets, and trash—to say nothing of the rest of their delinquent debris from publicly-owned property throughout the land, we can finally get on with life. It seems that the anarchists in Los Angeles are now some of the few protest groups defying the law. But, hey, what else can you expect from California?

If you missed the analogy, it is as follows: The elephant represents the professional squatters, the homeowner represents the civic leaders; the house, of course, is a co-op, owned by the rest of the people. Pushing, pleading, and prodding will not get the elephant off toes. A tranquilizer here, an enticing bucket of slop over there, or something of that sort, should do the trick—if ever proffered.

In the meantime, one hopes the elephant wouldn't do anything as thoughtless as sitting down and making itself at home in someone else's house. No, only human protesters are that, well, animal-like.

A movement that possibly had a smidgen of integrity at its inception has blossomed into full-fledged acts of vandalism, perversion, and lawlessness. I know for a fact that if my family tried the same trick—ie., freeloading on public property, and creating a mess while at it—I would be thrown into jail sooner than I could sing “this land is my land.”

As alarmed as I have been at how easy it has been for these goons set up their mobile ghettoes throughout North America, it has been equally disturbing to see how inept and powerless the law has been in removing them—no matter how much they have pushed, pleaded, and prodded.

On the one hand, eviction notices, public opinion, and the spirit of the law have meant diddly-squat with these people. The other thing I wonder about is just exactly who are they? Do they not have jobs and lives of their own? Where do they live? Do they really believe in the cause, or are they just looking for a way to vent their petulance?

On the other hand, I am thinking that, in a civil society where law and order is to be maintained, nihilism should be dealt with swiftly and judiciously. There should be no room for negotiation or plea bargaining. I don't recall those options when I have been stopped for speeding. Maybe we should try that approach to shoplifting and vandalism, and see how far we get.

So why the double standard when it comes to civil disobedience?

The irony here, as I have stated in a previous column (as well as in today's column), is that there may be—and I repeat—a “smidgen of integrity at its inception.” In other words, a very small percentage of these squatters may have a faint reason for their actions. The rascals in big business and big banks and big government need to be far, far more accountable. There is no question there needs to be far more transparency and openness at every level, from the top down.

But we do need businesses, banks, and government (noticed I dropped the word “big”) to provide a sane infrastructure for a healthily, robust economy. And we do need the ability to choose, protest, and appeal when these big three are off-kilter. Such disagreements should take the form of letters to the editor, voting with all the facts, ads in newspapers, and peaceful, public demonstrations that can be timed with a watch (not a calendar)—for starters Disagreement with said institutions should never take the form of public indecency, defiance, and lawlessness.

If not handled correctly, next time—to carry through with my analogy—the elephant may just may choose to sit down on the wrong spot. And that could get the homeowner and his friends really mad.. And then that could produce quite a mess.

Foremost on my Mind: Whales in the Desert

This world is truly a divided place: There are those who agree with me and those who are wrong.

Okay, I jest, but at least I caught you reading...

And speaking of world groupings, there are many dichotomies out there (Maurice, that would be two sharply contrasting divisions, often used in science in the form of binary classification). There are factions about this issue, divisions over that one, and mass polarization regarding everything under the sun—or so it seems.

One of the most obvious sets of “camps” involves that of the origin of the world. Many Bible-believing people feel that the earth is only a few thousand years old, while others buy into an old earth theory. Countless secular people see evolution—that is, life developing naturally over millions of years—as the obvious answer to origins. Interestingly enough, a growing number of pure scientists with earned doctorates debunk that position, and have wisely and accurately embraced a young earth paradigm.

And somewhere on the fence, oops, in the middle, are those who subscribe to what has become known as Intelligent Design. (I should be gentler here: I too believe in Intelligent Design, but only because I believe in an intelligent Designer—a position that leads me to a “creationism” conclusion.

This rambling preamble is because of two recent news tidbits written by secular scientists, scientists who have no truck whatsoever with a young earth position. One announcement had to do with the mountain range under the ice cap in the Antarctica; the other was a discovery of a massive dump of whale fossils in a desert in Central China. (No, that is not a typo: I did say “desert.”)

Both have been explained away with a timeline of millions of years, something I disagree with; and both were seen as the result of some sort of cataclysmic event, something I do agree with. In terms of the whales in China, the authorities are at a loss as to how they got so far inland.

I think I have an answer for them, but I'll tell you first. Part of the young earth theory includes a worldwide catastrophe, also known as the Great Flood, linked with an old man called Noah.

Let me wait, while you pick yourself up off the floor.

Are back up on the couch? Great. Let me proceed. I say Noah, and you think of someone with a goofy-looking boat, surrounded by a few pairs of animals hanging out on the deck. Perhaps you learned that at your local Sunday School, or at grandma's knee. Well, the “old” part is accurate, but that is probably the only part that is. Strangely enough, most myths about Noah have come from the church. A careful examination of legends from well over two hundred cultures (all secular, non-Christian, no less) across the globe speak of a worldwide flood that devastated humanity about 4500 years ago.

Re-stated, that would be cultures without a Biblical framework of reference, with no theological axe to grind.

What is accurate is that there was a very large three-storey barge, and that there were likely just infantile animals (ie., no adults)--thus, sleeping most of the time, eating very little, and taking up very little space. These animals became the predecessors of every cat, cow, and canary in the world today.

Some animals made it onto the ark (two of each, and seven of those those that were to be sacrificed). The rest, you might say, were history.

They died on the spot, forming, for instance, huge mammoth graveyards scattered throughout the polar regions—or did they hide that from you in school, too? They perished, big time, as in thousands of dinosaurs (who did live alongside mankind, by the way). Can you say F-O-S-S-I-L F-U-E-L? And many ended up getting beached somewhere—surprise, surprise-- in a desert in Central China.

The Great Flood explains the fossils of mammals scattered in petrified forests under the ice cap —get this—in Greenland. It explains how verdant valleys that once existed—get this, again—in the South Pole. It fits in with all the seashells discovered by the few, yet hidden from the masses, on the tops of the Himalayas.

So when I read of a mountain range in the Antarctica, or of a whale graveyard in Central China, I feel re-assured. Ironically, even though they are from legends from pagan cultures, or field work from anthropologists of all stripes, I am continually amazed at how it all fits in to a Biblical worldview.

Believing in an old earth or evolution is too much of a leap in the dark for me. You see, I don't have enough faith to believe otherwise.

Foremost on my Mind: Model Communes

Communes and community clusters have always intrigued me. Of course, I have never lived in one, unless you count eleven people living in the same house at one time as a commune. (No, I didn't think so either...)

So I have been thinking about three very different types of communes and community clusters in recent days; and four, if I can make a passing comment on a commune in 100 Mile House, BC. I'm thinking of the Emissaries of Divine Light, a New Age cult (with international headquarters in Loveland, Colorado). This group lives in separate houses, but all in the same property.

The other three under discussion today are as follows: A Hutterite colony, a First Nations reservation, and a Sikh family home. I am quite serious when I state that I think there is a bona fide topic for some doctoral student's thesis paper there, namely, a study of three commune-types thrown together, one way or the other, and with a detailed examination of the good, the bad, and the ugly of said arrangement.

The Hutterite colony is the most common form of communal living familiar to most of us. I have spent many hours at various area colonies over these past ten years, buying, visiting, touring, and teaching. They are a remarkable study in how people banding together can produce great things in an cost-efficient way.

The First Nations reservation model is something I am only vaguely familiar with, usually by way of passing near them. Thanks largely to the media, I am actually more familiar with many of their dangers, their educational and vocational struggles, and the apparent two-tiered system of perks and quirks (the chief and his relatives versus the rest of the tribe). Nationally, of course, we are often told that they are very much a Third World community within our Dominion.

Lastly, the Sikh family “commune.” Well, not exactly a commune, but very much a community within a single house. My experiences in BC's Lower Mainland is the basis for this discussion. Caucasians have often laughed at the three families crammed into one of those monster houses, leaving the old people to raise the kids, while the respective moms and dads trundle off to work every day. This happens for years at a time, until the “joke” is over: Four to six years later, not only is that particular house paid for, but two others are also, thus allowing all three families to have their own spread..

Banding together for the common good, at least for a time, is the common thread here. The Hutterite model is the most intriguing because of its positive economics. Land and animals, trades and machinery, meals and accommodations, form the backbone to their success.

Reservations, of course, are an unmitigated disaster at every level--educationally, vocationally, morally, spiritually, and economically. One of the chief contributing factors is that money is simply dumped in, via the Department of Indian Affairs, with little or no accountability, little or no checks and balances. Space doesn't allow me to develop my thesis about how completely futile this network of cultural ghettos is.

I have met so many outstanding First Nations peoples who have been freed from that “cradle-to-grave” mentality that we've given them, and I wish more would get it. I have also seen whole bands in BC (Osoyoos, Westbank, Kelowna, and Kamloops, for example) take complete advantage of working together for their own good.

Lastly, there are few orthodox Sikhs out here in Southern Alberta, so you may not be that familiar with them. It's simply the concept of two to four families banding together, on a much smaller scale than the Hutterites, and producing something to their advantage—without political intervention, without historical interference.

It's good to have a sense of independence, but it's bad to be so independent that there is no cohesive approach to economics and employment, no combining of mutual resources. On a lesser scale, that's why carpooling works; that's why bulk buying is prudent; that's why block parties and food co-ops should be encouraged. (Bet you you never made that connection, did you?)

And that's why there's such valuable resources in a large family, with all members combining their gifts and resources for the common good of the home. More people mean more work; but more people also means more workers. Channeled or harnessed, there's nothing like it. Just ask me: As a family, we get far more done by pulling together than we doing going our own separate ways.

And by the way, that would be a great way to run this country.

Foremost on my Mind: Skin Flint, Yes?

It's not too often that one is impressed with celebrities these days. Too many of them hang out on the wrong side (Maurice, that would be 'left') of the political spectrum, change partners as frequently as I change my oil, and feel that their ascent to the screen or the arena allows them to opine on anything and everything—whether they know what they're talking about.

That's why a recent revelation about Andy Garcia and a quote from Roberto Luongo were most refreshing. Who is Garcia, you ask? Well, there are at least two movies that feature him: The Untouchables and The Godfather III. I know he's in others, but those are the ones I'm familiar with. And Luongo, natch, is Vancouver Canuck's starting goaltender.

Regardless what you think of the afore-mentioned movies and the state of Vancouver's current goaltending woes is beside the point in this column.

We're talking “skin” today, people, so if you have a problem with today's topic, cover your eyes when you read this.

Garcia, a famous actor swimming betimes in the cesspool also known as Hollywood, is reputed to have walked off a set when—get this—he was asked to take his shirt off. He refused to display any skin whatsoever, even if it was just his upper body. I believe there was also some reference to his wife in that clip.

Roberto Luongo has shot up in my estimation, based on his reaction to teammate Ryan Kesler's pose in the buff. He was asked what he thought about various athletes posing semi-nude for a charity calendar, including Kesler. His response: “This body is for one set of eyes only” (and again, he was referring to his wife).

Now, due to divine circumstances beyond my control, I will never be a Mrs. Andy Garcia or a Mrs. Roberto Luongo. However, if I'm sure both of those women would be thrilled to have a husband with such standards. I can think of many women who would give anything to have husbands who prized their marriage vows like that.

In a world of “wardrobe malfunction” (another name for “desperate ploy for attention”), it is a rare gem to find celebrities who have climbed the popularity ladder, while at the same time keeping some sense of propriety. Most of them seem to lose their common sense, morality, and clothes on the way up—and not necessarily in that order.

Healthy morals are always the first thing to go when people come into money or fame. And even in the case of Andy G. and Roberto L., there may very well be other side issues that yours truly knows nothing about, and would be very dismayed over. However, all I can comment on is what I'm told.

The simple point here is the fact that these two--and there may be others—have decided to stick to their standards, regardless of how nerdy and prudish they may appear. They have truly gone against the flow. Movies stars and athletes are quite a promiscuous tandem these day. This is nothing new; it just perhaps being, er, exposed more and more.

And not only exposed, but flaunted.

So, hats off to Andy and Roberto for their moral courage. And, for the record, that would be the only thing I too would ever take off.

Foremost on my Mind: Are Trees More Important than Children?

One of my favourite fans sent me a thought-provoking email the other day. It happens, you know, when you're a world-famous writer. Or, in my case, when you're a town-famous writer.

The clip was simple and to the point: “Pretend I'm a Tree and Save Me.”

And to drive the point home further, there was a picture of an unborn human (known by the pro-death forces as a “fetus”) in the corner of the page. Regardless of what side of the life-before-birth dialogue one comes down on, the simple email drew an unavoidable parallel between trees and babies. One simple question came to mind when I saw it, which, in turn, produced a host of others.

The one main question is, of course, “What is the link between trees and humans?” Before you shake your head at such an apparently stupid question, hear me out. And buckle up for the ride—I have a few more thoughts to throw at you...

Trees are very important, to be sure. No homesite is complete without them. One doesn't go for a stroll in a desert (no trees); one goes for a stroll in a forest (nothing but trees). Our respiratory system works better when we're near trees. They provide shade on hot days, entertainment on boring days, beauty on any day. And there are even “poems as lovely as a tree.”

But in a culture gone mad with environmentalism, methinks we have carried the cause of trees too far. And the inverse is likely true about children.

Can we have enough trees? Probably never. Can we have enough babies? Probably never. Old trees and old people are cut down on a regular basis and must be replaced. But even though the “enlightened” element of our world thinks we need more trees and less people, they are sadly misguided.

Have you hugged a tree today? A tree-hugger is an environmentalist out of touch with common sense. There is a place for peaceful disagreement, for civil protest—perhaps something our “Occupy” friends (a new word for “unemployed and belligerent squatters”) should learn. The Great Rain Bear Forest (I believe I have the term right) on BC's mid-coast is a wonderful example of the coming together of all interests, namely, First Nations, desperate industries, and environmental activists.

The real question should be: Have you hugged a baby today? Where is the pathos and passion—the fete and the fight, if you will--for the good of the children? Where are the activists when it comes to the children?

Elections have been fought over the future of old growth forests. Has there ever been one fought over the welfare of young children? It would refreshing to see a politician stake his or her success at the polls based on his or her defence of children.

When a cluster of well-established trees are cut down, there is a loud hue and cry. But when humans are murdered before they even have a chance to become established, let alone well-established (something we euphemistically call a “woman's choice”), many turn a blind eye.

On the family front, let's be reasonable here: Not every one can handle a lot of kids. But at least they do value the ones they're have. That's not the issue here. Today's discussion is simply the misplaced emphasis far too many in our society place on things—such as trees—while at the same time marginalize the very “thing” that will keep future generations alive.

Trees can be replaced, children cannot. Don't believe me? Ask those parents of recent car accident victims in Magrath and Grande Prairie. They certainly seemed to have their priorities straight. And they might even plant trees in their honour, not to replace them but to remember them

So, we have a simple lesson: Don't confuse a child with a tree. Unless, of course, it's part of a family tree.