Foremost on my Mind: Live and Let Live

There is no question that the safest place for any baby in this world is in the womb of a beautiful British princess. I have never seen such hype, hoopla, or hullabaloo surround the birth of child, as I have seen with Prince Whats-his-name. Even from the point of conception, I might add, that darling little Windsor baby was a recognized human being.

How sad that the North American baby-butchering industry (aka abortion) doesn't see it that way. How tragic that thousands of human beings conceived nine months ago will never see the light of day. Why the double standard, I cannot tell.

I suppose the millions upon millions of innocent humans (read that line again, if you will—let it sink in) that have lost their lives over these past few decades would have been saved had they too been conceived within the safe confines of a royal womb.

It seems there is far more outrage when surplus sled dogs are killed in Whistler, or when a dog is dragged behind a car in Innisfail. It strikes me as very sad that it may be safer to be a pet these days, than it is to be a human baby.

Safe sex—a misnomer if there ever was one—has been one of the lies the left and the media (or are they one and the same?) have foisted upon gullible North Americans for decades. We need to define “safe”: Safe for whom? Safe from what?

If there ever was a bellwether mark of a society going to you-know-where in a handbasket, one condition would be its view of children: Unwanted and unnecessary; “things” we get rid of in the most barbaric manner; “things” we throw away at the earliest whim; “things” we forget about and leave buckled up in the heat of blistering summer's day.

The irony is not lost here: The desperate plight of babies being killed—let's call it what it is, friends—is something most citizens and lawmakers seem to turn a blind eye to. I would dare any one of the major networks to do a segment on the gory details of the inner workings of a Planned [non-] Parenthood clinic--another misnomer, if there ever was one.

Yet when a wanted baby is in distress at the same stage of gestation, any given medical team will perform super-human heroics trying to save its life. Go figure.

The irony, in case you missed it, is that two babies at the same stage of life are treated differently (Maurice, that would be life or death), owing to the capriciousness of the powers-that-be. You would think that a civilized society, with even a token Christian influence, would know better.

I am firmly entrenched in the “pro-life” side of things (in case you hadn't connected the dots), a term that is, in my opinion, limited in its scope. I like the term “whole life,” because it speaks for the, well, whole of life. Whole life is broader and bigger, speaking to the quality of life from conception to natural cessation. It deals with the physical, moral, spiritual, mental, nutritional, educational side of life—and even more, covering everything.

I don't know if it's me, but I seem to be hearing more accounts of a mother throwing her baby into a dumpster here, or of a father getting back at a girlfriend by killing her child there. That makes news, and so it should. But is killing a child before it's born any different? Is murder more acceptable when done by “professionals”?

The big picture here contributes to this sickness. Easy access to pornography, thus creating a constant state of sexual arousal, is obviously one factor. Racy ads and commercials is another. The loss of the meaning of true manhood is one more. A complete absence of the reinforcement of moral teaching of the value of life also contributes to this. The two sources that could stem the tide would be schools and media; unfortunately, the very opposite is happening through those avenues.

Miscues, mistakes, and miscalculations happen. No problem with that. But the adults here (that would be the girl and the guy) should own up to their irresponsibility, and do the right thing, namely, carry the child full term and put it up for adoption. Responsible parents choose life for their child—something I call true pro-choice.

I can't tell you how many couples who are unable to conceive would do anything to adopt a child. So there would be no problem finding a loving home for these children. Foreign adoptions are noble and necessary, but very expensive and complicated. Russia is the latest country to throw up even greater restrictions.

Adoption, then, not abortion, is the viable option. Moot point, of course, if the child is a prince.

Foremost on my Mind: A Birthday Present...and Future

A birthday is one of life's benchmarks reminding us of our mortality. One's own birthday--or in this case, my birthday—reminds me annually that I'm moving on, slipping up, and spreading out. Four sleeps from this paper coming out, and I will reach the grand old age of fifty-nine years.

Re-stated: I will be entering my sixtieth year on this planet, come Saturday, July 27.

It makes me look ahead, knowing that, at least on paper, I have lived two-thirds of my life, that most of my productive years are behind me. I am fully aware that many innovations, discoveries, and enterprises have been started by men and women over sixty. But in the main, that is not the case.

It also makes me look behind, taking a panoramic view (or would that be called a “review?) of what was once my life, with all its highlights and lowlights.

By nature, I tend to be a visionary, a mover-shaker type of guy, and I get a real genuine rush starting things from scratch. In other areas, though, I tend to be quite a reactionary--meals and electronics being two examples. I'm in one those morose, reflective moods at this moment, so bear with me.

But bigger than me or mine or my world, I look back at a time when I felt more at home in it than I do now. I have seen some significant changes in my world over these last fifty-plus years—some good, some not so good. Oh, I know we've come a long way in terms of electronic gadgets, house construction, and even automobiles, but isn't there more life than things?

Beyond the electronics, wood, and metal, there are some significant intangibles that I feel are missing in today's world. (Maurice, “intangibles” would be things that you can't touch, plug in, or, package up, but are nonetheless very real. True love, loyal support, and moral standards would be a good place to start.)

Pick your segment, any segment, of the world that once was. Education? Economics? Politics? Religion? Entertainment? Music? Business? I think you will agree with me that there has been a significant shift in what those products look like, in how products are delivered—and who delivers them.

Let's focus on something that we all have a stake in, namely, family life. It has changed drastically in these past two generations; that's a given. What was once the norm is now the exception. A word picture is in order here: We've gone from “Father Knows Best” to “Married with Children.” We've gone from the expectation of being a stay-at-home mother to the stigma of being one (as in “do you work or are you just a housewife?”). Throw in family size, while you're at it.

(Note: I am not arguing against women working outside the home or smaller families—just lamenting that those who choose a traditional route are held in contempt.)

I will argue that change can be good, but I have seen too many changes that leave my head shaking. I wonder what the generation in front of me thinks about said shifts. Again, pick your decade and see if what we have today is qualitatively better than it was back in the '40s or '50s.

You could argue that within each time period things were bad back then, and I would agree with you--for the most part. I agree that there was a problem with the broken homes (with deadbeat dads and crummy moms), with abusive teachers and conniving employers—just not to same extent. Not even close. I may be wistful, but I am not naive. I am fully aware of these and other abuses.

In the main, though, those were the exception then, not the norm. Today, I suggest, with our moral and ethical compass out of whack, those abuses are more the norm, not the exception. Easy divorce, fast money, fatherless homes, and the Internet are among other contributing factors. And did I say anything about rampant drug use?

Part of the basis for my melancholy as I write this is my grandchildren--not because of what they are, but because of what they face. What sort of society am I creating for them? If the world I was raised in essentially no longer exists, how much more different will it be for them?

Will it be a safer, healthier, better world for them? While I'm at it, what about your children and grandchildren? Our world could be a better place; not all is lost. Each parent has to make that decision to do his or her part. As does each politician, each pastor, each professional—in short, each individual.

It's my birthday, and I want a great present. And don't forget: A great present always leads to a great future.

Foremost on my Mind: Maintain the Right...What?

A relative of mine had once expressed a keen interest to join the RCMP. He had all the markings of good cop-in-training, namely, size, strength, sense of justice—and he loved doughnuts. (Just kidding, officer, just kidding.)

He is busy pursuing other peace officer options at present, because of his two alleged liabilities: he's white and he's male.

According to his inside sources, the Force has to reflect all segments of a multicultural Canadian society. I'm not sure exactly where in the government labyrinth that that shortsighted nonsense came from, but I need to register my disappointment, via this column.

It seems that it's no longer a matter of “the best [person] for the job”: The driving force for this adjusted prerequisite is skin colour, gender, and ethnicity. At least that's what I hear; I sincerely hope that what I heard was an inaccurate exaggeration. It's bad enough if this was the human resources depart of, say, Safeway, or the student prerequisite at, say, the University of Lethbridge. But do you think retail outlets, school divisions, or even sports teams would take this approach? Me neither.

Now add to the situation a crisis where there is law and order on the line, or where life and death are in the balance: Will having the token appointed multicultural Canadian trying to break up a bar brawl or answer some domestic violence is the best way to respond? You're right again.

It's bad enough that the powers-that-be at the RCMP have fallen to this wobbly thinking, but I understand other first responders—the fire department, in particular—have likewise embraced or are open to embracing this flawed approach to hiring applicants. Again, this is one of the times I didn't get my facts straight.

Let me give you an example: I got very few “A's” in my public school life, where I was an average student in Richmond, BC. Why should I get an award, then, for academic gifting? I didn't qualify for it; I didn't deserve it. Rita and Shelley and Ken and Larry (real people, people) got the appropriate certificates because they earned the right to them.

It should be no different for any form of employment, unless a kind employer is trying to help someone enter the workforce--a token job here or there. I'm all for that.

But when it involves maintaining the law of the land, where there are everything from heartless punks to ruthless thugs engaged in crime, I suggest to you that the best-qualified person for the job should always get the nod. Law enforcement is serious business, folks, not a “touchy-feely” social experiment or academic exercise.

Does that mean that First Nations, women, people of colour etc., cannot become peace officers? You never read that here. Not even implied. If applicants who are First Nations, women, or people of colour qualify—like anyone else—they should get the job.

In other words, they get the job because they meet the standards—not because they fill a quota.

Here's another example: We nominate the best person to represent our party of choice; then we vote for the best candidate to represent our riding. And on the basis, the party in power would then appoint the best member for each particular portfolio.

Or at least this is what should happen. Political commentators, in my opinion, miss the boat completely when they do a head count on how many women or French, for example, assume cabinet posts—or whine as to how many did not. Wouldn't it make more sense if the best-qualified people were appointed. And the more women or French cabinet ministers, on that basis, the better.

None of the above should ever be based on such flimsy “qualifications” as race or gender. Ever. That would be a further example of political correctness out of control. Let’s not forget, the goal, folks, is law enforcement.  We need the best qualified in the field, not a pretty diversity of non-white males “at work.”

Regardless of any cosmetic differences, everyone should have a chance to apply and succeed. The powers-that-be would then have the right to award the best-qualified people for said job. That's just simple common sense, people.

So in terms of “maintaining the right,” the first place to start is to maintain the right standards for applicants..

Foremost on my Mind: Thirty-two and Counting

My wife left me the other day, taking our three youngest with her. Last time I checked, she was heading for her folks' home in Terrace, BC.

It's ironic, then, that this is happening, considering tomorrow is our 32nd anniversary.

Years ago, when I was younger (naturally: couldn't have been older, Maurice), I'm sure I was quick to opine about home matters--you know, marriage, child-rearing, running a household, finances, etc. Now, having experienced years of said major lifestyle issues, I feel I have little to say.

You might say I have gone from “you need to know this” to simply “I don't know anymore”--even though I probably do. Somewhere in between, there's a balance.

Now that doesn't mean that I actually don't know. It just means I'm more caught up with practice than theory now-- more doing rather than talking, you might say. It means that some things I thought were supposed to work haven't quite measured up, whereas others have succeeded beyond my wildest imagination.

So, just in case you were looking for some family advice, and in a weak moment I felt motivated to give it, I will suggest a few things that would make any home better. Again, just suggestions, friends.

One, create the freedom to laugh out loud more. Laughing with someone is not the same as laughing at someone, of course. However, we should be able to laugh at ourselves more, and not take each other so seriously. More family games, more family movie watching, more outings--just simply hanging out. Family life is a serious business, for sure, so we need to lighten up more—or at least have the liberty to do so.

Two, create the freedom to think out loud more. To opine is to express an opinion. If you express your opinion on everything, that is opinionism, something quite different from what I am talking about. You should feel the freedom to express your inwards thoughts on outward topics. Robust discussions, even occasional disagreements, are healthy. There are “rules” for how to disagree, and every marriage counsellor (before and during the marriage) should spell them out.

Three, create the freedom to cry out loud more. You may know who you can laugh with, but who do you cry with? Many couples carry a lot of pain for any number of disappointments and hurts, but they fail to express it adequately. Grief or sadness unchecked can lead to outbursts at the wrong time or in the wrong way (read: violence), or the tragic development of very bad habits (read: drinking, drugs, illicit relationships).

The list is longer, for sure, but this is more of a start of a conversation, rather than the conversation itself.

Whether it's regarding marriage or family, one doesn't really know what one is getting into until he or she is in it. Marriage counselling (and I've done my share) can only give the couple a heads up. But they have to be immersed in the crucible of experience to implement family principles.

You have read my rant here before about Hollywood's version of marriage. A steady diet of Hollywood's tripe, its take on marriage and family, is surefire way to destroy (not merely harm) any marriage or family.

Firstly, the hunks and babes of Beverly Hills exhibit an approach to marriage that doesn't exist. Second- ly, they're reading lines; they're not even speaking their own words, based on their own experiences. And thirdly, they all live in a world that doesn't exist, showcasing marriages and family life that rarely last.

I remain convinced that the best models for marriage and family life are right here in the towns across Alberta. I take breathless inspiration from the examples of those good prairie folks who have hung in there for thirty, forty, even fifty years. And as parents, they weren't perfect, but they did what they thought was right.

Just like my wife and me. I told you that she left me to head back to her parents' place. Oops, did you think she left me for good? Silly me: Her folks are downsizing, so she has popped over there for a few weeks to help them (along with her four sisters) work through all the tedious adjustments. She'll be back in a week or so.

Here's to the next thirty-two years.