Something on my Mind: Old Year Reflections, New Year Predictions

I don't know which is harder for me this early in the New Year: looking backwards or looking forward.

Looking ahead, we make resolutions, repair broken relationships, turn over new leaves, and anticipate plans for the next twelve months.

Looking back, we reflect on the “highlights,” which often work their way into our Christmas newsletters (even newspaper columns). But where are the “lowlights”? Do we gloss over problems from the past? Do we de-emphasize the disappointments, turning a blind eye to them? Sweeping the events of the past year under the proverbial carpet doesn't mean they'll go away.

Be it a Christmas newsletter, Canadian politics, or world affairs, we must consider the past in order to face the future. We ignore this principle at our peril.

So I draw from our past year or two: Did anyone anticipate the price of oil sitting this low, and creating this much unemployment? Or did anyone ever make the connection between Alberta and the NDP, or Canada and the Liberals?

Well, actually I did: I just didn't think the results to be so pronounced.

Yes, I could see the ineptitude of the provincial Conservatives, and I could sense the insipidity of the federal Conservatives. Those facts were a start, but I never thought they would lead to the mess we're in now.

You'd think voters were blindfolded and threw darts at the ballot. Surely no one could voted that way with their eyes open. How shortsighted could they be? Or more to the point, have they never examined the past?

I voted the way I did because I did examine the past (recent history, if you will). I was acutely aware of policies by both respective parties. Thus, because I learned by looking back, I am not surprised at what I see coming out of Edmonton and Ottawa.

Surprised, no; offended, alarmed, and disgusted, yes.

You see, when we look into the past, we can see certain developments, that may or may not, if unchecked, worsen in the future. But if we don't take that look back, that is, if we don't study the past and don't interpret those facts accurately, we have only ourselves to blame.

Studying and interpreting are fine, but are useless unless we learn from the past

It has been said that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Well said, and the operative word is “learn.” But studying it, then ignoring it, is a waste of time (and money, resources, maybe even lives). It is the ultimate futility.

Analyzing the past gives us a sense of the future. Disregarding the past gives us no sense for the future. And if we continue to pooh-pooh the past, the mess we're already in is going continue into the future.

That's why a minimal regard for history is very scary. I'd even go as far to say it is “irresponsible.” And even worse, what is being passed off as history in educational and media circles these days is pure tripe (an old line of mine).

But at the end of the day, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we ignore the past. And the penalty for ignoring lessons from the past? A very miserable future.

In other words, while I didn't anticipate the socialist sweep of Alberta, or the liberal (lower case “l” intentional) success in Ottawa, I knew that any ground given to these parties would put us on bad footing (pun mercilessly intended) for the future.

Politics aside, one principle, that of cause and effect applies, whether from years ago, to decades ago, maybe even centuries ago--be it moral, cultural, or economic. For instance, the implosion of the nuclear family the last decade or two ago is catching up with us now. And the mess of “First Nations” ghettos, oops, reserves, established many decades ago is also catching up with us now.

Reflections on the past are necessary, both the highlights and the lowlights. We just need to learn from them. They should be applied to assessing and tracking the future. Learning from the past allows us to face the future equipped, alert, and pro-active.

So yes, it's good to look forward at this time of year, but do not forget to glance backwards. Looking forward and backwards are clearly connected.

In other words, the roots of the past will produce the fruit of the future. And the question begs: What are we producing?

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my my Mind: Christmas, or Christ-miss? Christ-mess?

So, it's a few days before the big day, that day we celebrate the birth of the Christ-child. No matter how you approach it, I sincerely trust your celebration(s) will be a great time for you and your family.

However, in far too many circles here in the West, that opening line would be unacceptable: too religious and too assertive. Such would produce protests and petitions. And for starters, that would only be just over the songs.

Question: Why all the fuss? I have no idea.

For those types of people, Christmas becomes Christ-miss. That's more tragic than witty, if I may so say myself. In other words, they “miss” out on the genuine good that comes with Christmas season. I cannot fathom why all the pettiness (sorry, friends, but that's what it is) that they drag into the season.

The birth of Jesus was a verifiable historical event. Any thinking person would not dispute that. The Christ-missers have no problem celebrating with presents, trees, lights, and turkey dinner, but they want the fundamental reason for the season left out.

That's like saying that I would like teaching if it wasn't for the kids—or a store if it wasn't for the customers

Here's a tip to those whose noses are out of joint: Do your Christmas thing your way, but leave the rest of us alone. Deal? You don't want nativity scenes? No problem, don't have them. Just let us have ours. You want to delete any reference to Jesus, Christ, or God in the Christmas carols? No problem; sing your own inane ditties (man, I love that line!). Just let us sing the ones we value.

I recognize clearly that so many in the world have no time for the birth of Jesus, or at least don't feel the urge to celebrate it. That may be for religious, cultural, or other, reasons. No problem; but that doesn't mean I need to protest or petition.

Strange that so many have come to “miss” the significance of what Christmas is all about, and want to join the Grinch in spreading their grumpiness around. One wonders what the real reason is. Fear? Resentment? Bitterness?

Then there is another group that I think about at this time of year. They too will “miss” out on the real meaning of Christmas, but for very different reasons. You see, their life is a “mess,” so Christmas for them is not so much Christ-miss as it is Christ-mess.

It's Christ-mess because they've just lost their job, or their marriage has fallen apart, or they read the news headlines everyday, or because the doctor's prognosis was not good at all or...well, you get the picture.

Christmas is a time where family and fun, love and laughter, hope and happiness, are emphasized so strongly—and rightly so. And when there has been loss of any of those factors, well, it's not much of a Christmas. Maybe you struggle with a deep sense of alienation of some sort. My heart goes out to you.

Or, maybe you don't, but you know someone who does. Does your heart go out to them?

One of our habits at Christmas is to have someone over (individual or family), someone who has no family connections in the area. We aren't motivated by pity, as much as a sense of camaraderie: we're actually in the same boat. So while we don't seek out those whose lives are necessarily in a “mess,” we do seek out those who may be on their own for the day.

That, I believe, is one of the special spirits of the season.

I am so grateful that both my wife and I were raised in that attitude of Christmas. I think those who object to the spirit of the season really “miss” out. For us to cram our viewpoint down the throat of a reluctant citizenry would be wrong. And for them to cram their take on the season down our throat is equally wrong—and I did say “wrong,” not merely objectionable.

But likewise, for us to hold back the genuine good that we want to share—whether in song, or in scenes, or in spirit-- would likewise be wrong. We need to do what we must do, without restrictions.

As much pain as I feel for those who feel the “mess” of their lives so keenly, believe it or not, I also feel pain for those who “miss” out on what Christmas is all about. It's about giving, not grabbing; about sharing, not stifling; about magnanimity, not miserliness.

So whether it's a “miss” or a “mess,” and regardless of what your take on the season is, I want to wish you one and all the very best of this Christmas season, from our home to yours. Even if you can't accept the words I say, please at least accept the spirit in which it is given. Merry Christmas to all!

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: The Twelve Days of Christmas

On the first day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me one Conservative government in Ottawa. Not being impatient, m'love, you understand, but we need it now—before the guy with the name and the mane screws up things some more.

On the second day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me a second conservative government in Canada, namely, one here in Alberta. Here we call our truly conservative party “Wildrose.” Just in case you have been imitating Rip Van Winkle in the past few weeks, there are no longer any Conservative (or conservative) governments presently in Canada. This is indeed a sad commentary on thinking Canadians.

On the third day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me--I'm on a roll--a third conservative government, this time in Ontario. No matter how bad the last Conservative bunch were there, they look like a bunch of Churchills compared to this the present travesty. You might say that Ontario's Wynne is really Ontario's loss.

On the fourth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me four years of uninterrupted conservative rule (see gifts numbers one, two, and three). Is it just me, or does the current four-year mandate seem like a four-year prison sentence? Even if it's a “suspended” sentence, that would mean hope, progress, and reason themselves are suspended for four more years.

On the fifth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me (let's leave politics for a moment, please) five wins apiece for the Flames and the Oilers. Never thought I'd say anything charitable about either team, but, hey, it's Christmas and all that. Besides, the team I really cheer for (see #11) is in far deeper trouble, and they need even more goals

On the sixth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me a pause in the passing of Bill 6. There are six reasons why it's wrong: restrictive, invasive, expensive, excessive, destructive, and prohibitive. We normal, rational Albertans knew that the NDP would be bad for the province, but not this bad, this soon. We're appalled, astounded, and aghast--and that's only the beginning...of the alphabet.

On the seventh day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me seven days without wind. Last week we just had wind twice: Sunday to Wednesday, then Thursday to Saturday. We have more wind than an auctioneer's training school. Or a bean factory. Maybe JT should be out here in a windstorm; it might do something creative to that hair of his.

On the eighth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me at least one government in Canada that would get it right on the following eight points: immigration, medical marijuana, abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, gun control, doctor-assisted suicide, and carbon footprint. The present leaders are at least consistent: consistently wrong on all eight points.

On the ninth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me nine centimetres of that white stuff, commonly known as snow, every week for the next couple of months. We need it for fun (now) and work (later)--deep enough to plough either way, if you get my...drift. While you're at it, keep it on the fields and mountains and off the roads. And thank you in advance!

On the tenth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me ten provinces that are actually Conservative or conservative (oops, back to politics). Enough's enough, I say; let reason rule, and dismiss the silliness of voting in NDP (or even a NDP-leaning) governments. I have this pressing urge to make a pun about “what's left?” or “leftovers” or “who's left?”--but it's no laughing matter.

On the eleventh day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me eleven wins for the Vancouver Canucks in December. If that's too ambitious, what about for December and January? February? (Hey you Canucklehead guys: All you have to do is just put the rubber thing in the meshy thing, raise your arms in the air like you're under arrest, then hug a teammate. Remember doing that a few weeks ago?)

On the twelfth day of Christmas, I wish my true love would send to me twelve more seats for the Wildrose party—for starters, but only at the expense of the NDP. (Maurice, that would mean twelve by-elections in NDP-held ridings, in which the Wildrose would win.) Not enough to assume the leadership of the province (yet), but a lot closer than they are now.

Complaining about politics, hockey, and the weather--can't get anymore Canadian than that, eh?

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Christmas Joys--or Noise?

There are really old Christmas carols, and then there are those pleasant songs that have appeared in the last few decades. I suggest a third grouping, namely, those mindless, inane ditties. These are the ones we're bombarded with if we're in the wrong store at the wrong time.

Maybe it's an age thing, but the older I get, the more I like the older music.

It could be that I appreciate meaningful content in a meaningless world, or possibly I sense the more serious side of the season, and frivolous lyrics just don't cut it for me any more.

Let me set the tone here: I confess I'm in your face today with my opinions. As I write, it is still a free country and the Stalinist mindset hasn't kicked in...yet. I am simply expressing my personal viewpoint, without any hard facts to force you to believe me. Opinions notwithstanding, I think you would agree that the older carols do have significance and substance, wouldn't you?

Simply put: Today's column, then, is dealing with opinions, memories, and reflections. Whether you agree with me or not is another thing.

I'm working backwards in my comments on my “hit” list (pun mercilessly intended), as follows:

As stated in an earlier column, Christmas is both a historical and a biblical event. To ignore and devalue its historical significance to the point of insatiable greed, kissing under the mistletoe, grabbing more than giving, and all the drinking binges, is a tragedy--a mindless charade of the real thing, if you will.

To put that behaviour to lyrics, then “sing” about it, calling it a Christmas song, is an affront.

That middle group of songs are the ones that I hum and even enjoy myself: Light and shallow, they don't have a lot of substance, to be honest with you, but they have a nice, homey storyline and good rhythm. They're harmless, I suppose, though they clearly miss the significance of Christmas.

After all, while I do like the following, they miss the essence of Christmas: not being being home for (a blue) Christmas; or dreaming of a white Christmas (that I'll be home for, but only in my dreams); or coming home with (those silver) bells on; or finally, those six white boomers (dashing through the snow on a one-horse open sleigh)? (And yes, Maurice, I intentionally mixed the songs up),

I'll limit my annual rant about Santa Claus and his seeming divine ability. Suffice to say, Christmas is not about a fat dude in red and white jump suit, shouting at reindeer that miraculously fly. And with a belly like that, he couldn't possibly slip down anyone's chimney.

Why, he can hardly slip into his pants.

But back to thinking of the old ones: For example, when I hark back to the sort of themes that Handel wrote about in his Messiah, for example, I am moved with deep emotion. If we try to categorize them, we do see some common themes—of angels, stars, shepherds, baby Jesus, the manger, joy, and genuine worship.

Mommy kissing Santa Claus? I don't think so.

Here I am again, with my persistent yearning for themes with “substance.” These are rich themes that I find in these “older” Christmas hymns. I don't think you have to be so-called religious or even “mature” to appreciate the depth of these songs that both men and women, young and old, penned for us, two, three, or four hundred years ago.

I think I'm consistent in this thinking: I also lament the trivialization of death, the glibness of war, the hollowness of marriage, and the cheapness of sex. Good old-fashioned Christmas carols are part of the collateral damage of a juvenile culture.

So for this Christmas, would you be able to make the effort to sing one really old Christmas hymn? Hum it? Okay, maybe look at the words? Or if that's a stretch, could you at least have it playing in the background? Plan to have a “ditty-free” day at least just once over the holidays.

Meaning and significance: these are two missing ingredients in our culture's quest for identity. And Christmas is easily the most opportune time to regain that ground for said genuineness.

Over 300 years ago, the Christmas hymn, O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, expressed the following words: “O come, Desire of nations, bind all peoples in one heart and mind. Bid envy, strife, and quarrels cease; fill the whole world with heaven's peace.”

That's a great message for Christmas, isn't it?

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Why Christmas?

Believe it or not, I may be one of the greatest fans of Christmas in the country. Well, at least the county. On my street? My home? There is very little about Christmas that I dislike, apart from the crass materialism and nauseating sense of entitlement that is choking the life out of it.

Christmas delight for me can be summed in the following words: creed, need, read, and feed—and not necessarily in that order.

You name it, I like it: presents, trees, lights, board games, family, pace, snow, naps, good will, and so on. While I may not start as early as Wal-Mart (“Good afternoon, shoppers, and welcome to the start of the Christmas season. It is a balmy 25+ outside on this late August Monday. Snow suits are on aisle 15, beside the bathing suits”), I do get into the mood at about this time of year.

I have my own reasons for relishing the Christmas season, as I'm sure you have yours. They may not even be the same ones, but hey, it's Christmas, so we're all in a jolly mood, aren't we? Christian people often speak of the “reason for the season,” so you may want to ask them what that means.

Anyways, your reasons for enjoying this season may fall into one or more of the following categories:

Financial I am a wannabe businessman, what with my responsibilities in education and teaching projects, plus the farm life, so I do think businessly (not a real word, Maurice). However, as I don't have a retail outlet or online sales, whereby I sell actual products, the Christmas season doesn't affect me as it would someone, say, in a brick and mortar building.

I understand that something like 20% of the year's revenue comes in around the Christmas season, so it's crucial to have a good sales around this time of year. More power to them. Many happy returns, you might say, just not the ones on Boxing Day

Their answer to “Why Christmas?” is likely the revenue it brings. Fair enough.

Traditional Then there are those traditional saps, like me, who love kittens, feel-good stories, and musicals—plus all the traditions that Christmas brings. I have alluded to them about three paragraphs north. Believe it not, I think I like the good will that is in the air the best: It gives people a chance to be nice for a while, and really mean it.

Your family has its traditions, we have ours. Traditions build memories, bring people closer, and smooth over the rough edges in many relationships. I don't think anyone can say that some are “right” traditions, while others are “wrong.” “Good” and “better” would be a more accurate way to express it.

Some traditions may fly better than others; some may be suitable for a family with young children, others may work better for families with older kids. Try having a family, as we did, with younger and older at the same time. We had to get both creative and simple and do what was best for all.

So another answer to “Why Christmas?” is simply the memories it brings.

Historical This one seems harder to tackle, but only because history seems so open to misinterpretation these days. And more so if it's so-called religious history. Ironically, the reason for Christmas on a historical basis may be its strongest argument.

When I investigate the Good Book, as well as other historical sources, I find secular people such as Herod, Caesar Augustus, and Quirinius—king, emperor, and governor, respectively—mentioned.. I read of real places such as Syria, Galilee, and Bethlehem—country, province, and city, respectively--mentioned. I see events such as a mass of moving magi (astrologer-kings from present-day Iraq), of an empire-wide census, and of a spectacular solar event (the moving star).

Not only history affirms the birth, so does geography and astronomy. The secular and biblical timeline mesh very nicely.

These people, places, and passages can be verified by “outside” secular historians. There is no religious element to them. It's a fact a “Jesus” (aka “Immanuel”) was born in time over 2,000 years ago. What we do with the facts, of course, is up to the seeking historian in all of us.

So another answer to “Why Christmas?” is simply the confidence it brings.

Biblical Finally, for those of us who actually pick up the Good Book and read it for what it purports to be—an essential account of God speaking to man—we are convinced that there was a special birth, there were shepherds in the fields by night, with the result that humanity has never been the same since.

There's no denying Christmas (and all the good that comes out of it). To deny it would be short-sighted and irrational. Excesses and greediness aside, make a point to celebrate the birthday of a King.

I'm sure I read that in a history book somewhere.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: If I were the Immigration Minister

I think I missed JT's phone call the other week, in his quest for cabinet ministers. I was half hoping I would be his next Immigration Minister. Perhaps if he reads the following, he will be impressed with my ideas, and give me a quick buzz.

You see, it's just a matter of time before we Canadians will be challenged with what to do with the refugee crisis. I know there's a Liberal promise of taking in thousands soon, but those are just words--Liberal words, at that.

If there's no plan, it's “Lookee, our 25,000 Muslims for Christmas are here. Now what?”

One response is to ignore it and hope it goes away. Let them stay in Europe, we might suggest. Or we could re-direct the refugees to perhaps Iceland; they have lots of space. A third alternative is to do something along non-government lines (say, a church or community organization) and sponsor a family or two. Personally, I see the latter as the best option: less top down, more ground up.

The refugee crisis over there could soon become a refugee crisis over here. I just hope the powers-that-be have some sort of plan as to how to handle it. If not, I know of a county-famous columnist who has some splendid ideas on re-settlement...

But before I share my brilliance, there are some startling facts that are beginning to emerge over this, also known as the “Syrian refugee crisis.” You may or may not be aware of them, so here is some food for thought:

1. Many of the refugees are not, in fact, Syrian. We call them Syrian refugees, when actually they're refugees from other Muslim countries. I don't have a problem calling them what they are; I just have a problem calling them what they're not.

2. There are many healthy young men among them, without any seeming legitimate claim to refugee status. Does that alarm you like it alarms me? Can you spell I-S-I-S I-N-F-I-L-T-R-A-T-O-R-S? You may feel it's paranoid to think that; I think it's naive to not to think that.

As we bring these “refugees” over to North America, will the illegal ones sneak in among the real ones? And what are the ramifications of that? Refugees, yes; illegals and spies, no.

3. Have you ever wondered where these refugees are headed to? Or perhaps better stated: Where they aren't headed to? Why do the refugees appear to not want to go to other Muslim countries, or why do other Muslim countries appear to not want them?

I find it strange—that is, somewhere between amusing and confusing--that the “evil West” is the first place they head to when they have the opportunity. If the West is so debauched, why are Muslims flocking to it? You may recall that part of the Christian heritage that we used to enjoy is to help our fellow-man. It seems that few, if any, other faiths practise that—particularly the Muslim one.

So on a positive note, what are the plans to settle them in our country? I have a few ideas, but who am I—just another faceless voice amidst the mass of voiceless faces? But I do have this column as a platform for some ideas.

I humbly suggest that we re-settle the 25,000 souls in the interiors of many provinces. Even a vague estimation would be a few hundred to a few thousand refugees per province (depending on its size). I would steer these people clear of the major urban centres, and re-locate them into small hamlets and villages scattered throughout our nation.

In fact, I can think of quite a few hamlets and villages within a radius of two hours of this column that could do with a shot in the arm. Then there's more as we head farther north.

The infrastructure—roads, utilities, and houses—are already there. Everything would be affordable and accessible to these people. Empty houses, schools, plus commercial and manufacturing facilities would be filled. The few existing residents would have many new neighbours or potential buyers for their houses.

If you're still not clear what I'm saying, think in terms of the hundreds of Mexican-Mennonite families that have rejuvenated many hamlets and villages throughout our province.

There are lot of red flags with my idea, I know that. Even I have some cautions. (Maurice, obviously, I haven't thought everything out, so cut me some slack.) There are cultural, vocational, and religious issues to work out...no kidding. I am simply saying fill up the empty (and willing) hamlets and villages in a controlled, purposeful manner. Make sure there's plenty of accountability for their re-location—unlike our native reserve debacle.

Just biding my time for Justin to phone.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I am a Christian

Had I been in Roseburg a few weeks ago, there's a good chance I would have been shot to death. Roseburg, as you know, is not in Libya, Somalia, Iran, or Yemen. That would be Roseburg, Oregon, and Oregon, as in the state below Washington.

Never saw the day coming where there would be bloodshed for being a Christian on North American soil.

You likely know the story, but let me refresh your memory. In short, an unstable, warped student in a junior college moved among his classmates, asking them one question: “Are you a Christian?” If they identified themselves as a follower of Christ, he shot them dead on the spot; if not, he shot them in the foot. By the time he was finished, nine fellow-students were dead.

Out of this Roseburg story, two public figures' responses stood out in my my mind:

Barak Obama: His response to the massacre was “unfortunate.” (I wanted to say “disgusting,” but, though that was a more accurate word, it seemed too harsh.) He attempted to turn this national tragedy into a political issue with his gun control stance.

Earth to Obama: The guns were, in fact, legally registered, but that didn't stop the bloodshed. From a human standpoint, nothing could have stopped the massacre. I don't know when the powers-that-be will understand that people's hearts must be changed, not federal laws.

On that day, had someone been allowed to carry a gun to school, the bloodshed would have been negligible. What we needed that day were more guns, not more rhetoric.

I find it offensive, even from this distance, that the president would controvert a very sad day for many Oregon families into a platform for one of America's most divisive issues.

Ben Carson: Ben Carson is the poster boy for what's right with America. Like millions of other blacks in America, he was raised without a father. His mother decided that no dad and no money, and that skin colour and social inequality, were not excuses for failure.

Through grunt labour, self determination, and seized opportunities, through the long, arduous road of determination, Benjamin Carson became Dr. Ben Carson, exceptional neurosurgeon. Just after the Roseburg massacre, he also made it clear that he was a Christian. (I knew that already, but he made it public by holding up a sign with the words, “I am a Christian” written on it).

Rather than make a lame political statement (like Obama) that has no basis in logic, fact, or common sense, Carson repeats the very statement that got others killed. If I were in the States, I would be very happy to have that man—and not the other one—as my president.

What a juxtaposition of responses on the part of these men! There are some uncanny similarities between these two men: Both are black, both involved in politics, both are professing Christians, and so on. There are some significant dissimilarities, too, but I'll leave the research up to you.

Those two people contrast in their responses, though we can't forget that there were others that day. One was an army vet who prevented further bloodshed; and the others were the martyrs themselves, especially starting with the second victim.

Sgt. Mintz: I don't know why we're don't hear more about this guy than we do. He's took a number of shots in his attempt to save others. Strange how that works: some took one shot and died; he took five and lived.

You would think that President Obama would have spent more time lauding this hero, taking the opportunity to highlight unselfish heroism, honouring this living example of what makes America great. We need heroes to inspire us, not tongue-lashings to discourage us.

The martyrs: It takes supreme courage to live for one's faith, and just as much to die for one's faith. The first victim didn't know what would happen when he or she answered “Yes” to the gunman's question. But the second student did...and the rest did. They are the unsung heroes, too, in this story.

Dr. Carson and I are quite different. You name it: profession, skin colour, citizenship, religious affiliation, and the list goes on. He has more courage than I would have after such a terrible event. But the main thing we have in common is a Bible-based faith.

Like Carson, I am a Christian. But unlike those nine martyrs in Oregon, I am still living for my faith, not dying for it..yet.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I Believe in Gun Control

Okay, okay, maybe I tricked you with my heading. But I do believe in gun control, just not in the popular, de-fanging way the mindless media and sappy socialists choose to use it. I'm using the word “control” in a very different sense—a common sense way, if you will.

I like to think that they have failed to consider the ramifications of a defenceless, vulnerable populace. I can't believe that their agenda is more sinister than that, namely, to disarm, then effectively control their own citizens.

So here's my take on gun control:

Control your temper over the injustice that is being foisted upon you and all other freedom-loving and crime-hating fellow-citizens. For myself, I tend to be a little naive about guns and rifles. When I was younger, I used to “gun” my car when I was in the mood (sorry Officer Jones); and sometimes I was able to “rifle” a football when I played Monday night sandlot football with my Gospel Hall buddies.

But that inexperience with guns and rifles hasn't stopped me from really examining the issues at stake. I just cannot fathom elected officials and bleeding hearts taking a stand against law-abiding citizens owning their own firearms. If I do think about it, I have trouble controlling my own temper.

Control your dread when you realize that a gun registry (so euphemistically presented here in Canada) is closer to reality, now that the L-people are in power. That is one of the most powerful reasons I was alarmed with Canadians voting in Trudeau and his cronies a couple of weeks ago.

Do you think for one moment that deadbeats and lowbrows are going to register their guns? Me neither. Basically the good guys comply, but the bad guys don't. Then the good guys die and bad guys get away with murder...literally.

Control your arsenal of guns and rifles that you own. Everyone should have guns--that's a given, at least from my perspective; but don't have so many that other good people can't. Share the booty with all rational people who have that innate sense of responsibility towards themselves and their neighbours.

We need more guns, not fewer; and we need more grassroots citizens and less politicians making these decisions.

Control your emotions as you understand how many deaths could have been prevented if there had been a “concealed carrier” at this school, that store, or church across town. It will only get worse, as more and more deranged gunmen understand that a defenceless populace is ripe for the sniping.

Space does not allow a clear presentation of the empirical evidence of gun-free versus “gun freedom.” The former is an illusion, the latter is a right. I suggest you do some research: What is the death rate when it is known that the citizens are armed versus when they are not armed? The facts may astound you.

Control your urge to shoot haphazardly; you really need to know what you're aiming and shooting at. Random, senseless shooting marks those gunmen with a grudge against life. Rational, normal humans don't do that. Think, warn, then shoot.

Go to a shooting range. Get licensed. Take a course. Join a rifle club. Spend Saturday morning with the kids in target practice. Learn the ropes from veteran hunters and gun owners. Whatever you do, get your ability to shoot under control.

Control your understanding of what is being touted as an airtight argument: “Guns kill people,” they say. No, people kill people. It's wrong people who need to be made right that's the solution. We need to disarm the bad guys and equip the good guys. Guns in the wrong hands wreak irreparable damage, for sure. But guns in the right hands create a safer environment.

By the way, using the above argument, should we then ban cars because “cars kill people”? How foolish can our leaders and anti-gun lobbyists be? Are they that simple-minded or short-sighted...or is there something?

Well, that's just for starters. I think anyone who actually has had a brush with some mad man with a gun would be even more passionate about this matter than me. There is so much good that comes out of a well-equipped (= ready and prepared but not necessarily active) populace .

With the blur of immigration chaos and the rise in our own dysfunctional (mostly young) people, this matter is not going away. But this is not the time to disarm the citizens of the land.

“O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: The Collapse of Infrastructure

I think most people are clear on “infrastructure.” So when I use that term, I am referring to such things as banking, utilities, highways, and common laws—in other words, any system that supports a civilized society.

And I think most people would agree that without adequate infrastructure, every city and country would be the doomed. Re-stated: If there's no appropriate infrastructure, all civil order is reduced to a primitive existence. (Think cavemen without the loincloth.)

Imagine any weather-ravaged city or war-torn country in recent years. Or just consider the chaos that is mounting with the hordes of desperate refugees surging throughout eastern Europe. In both cases, there is an immediate need for an epic re-build to take care of all the basic needs of a desperate populace.

On that note, however, I believe we have foolishly overlooked another aspect of infrastructure, one that is slowly falling apart before our very eyes. And the irony is as follows: We will pour millions of dollars into some foreign country to help in them in their hour of need, yet ignore our own imploding situation.

I am speaking, of course, of the diminishing support for families right here at home.

Just as we need appropriate banking, utilities, highways and laws to keep a civilized society from falling apart, we also need the family structure to do the same for the nation—this nation, that nation, every nation.

If you want to work with an analogy, try this one: Families are the foundation and framework of the house, not the sheeting or the shingles. You may tweak the siding or roofing and not make a difference; however, you mess with the foundation or framework of the house, and you have “structural” damage.

Without effective family infrastructure, any civilized society is finished. This is not a moral rant from a rabid right-winger; this is the conclusion of empirical, historical evidence.

The effects of such an implosion may not be felt for a generation or two, but it will still come. And to put things into perspective, we're probably looking back at the 60's or 70's when the family unit started falling apart. That's why we are seeing the moral mess now.

As the framework of traditional marriage crumbles, the greatest impact is on the children. The home is where children are reared in a stable and supportive home of a mom and dad, where character, faith, morals, ethics, and behaviour are taught and caught. And the children of today are the adults of tomorrow. What sort of future are we grooming?

And as the traditional family model continues to lose it role, rights, and relevance (at least in the minds of too many), we should all be alarmed at the consequences of such short-sighted thinking. Any, and I repeat, “any” civilized society—pick your millennium, please—that endured always had strong family infrastructure.

To be sure, there is a place for the church, school, and state in this process. They need to be supporting families, not running them; alongside them, not over them. We've got it backwards today, and we're paying the price.

Let's go back to the usual use of the word “infrastructure,” using power as an example. You don't have the grid, the wires, or the bills before you have the water. Water is the foundation of everything else. No water, no power. Everything comes out of the wise use of the water.

Get the water source first, the dams to generate the power, the wires to transmit it, the lights and outlets to utilize it, then the administration to service it, and you have a successful electrical infrastructure.

The same thing follows with the family infrastructure. As our power comes out of the effective and proper use of water, so too our societal success comes out of the appreciation and need for the family. From that basis, citizens are are developed, homes are established, laws are maintained, and so on.

You might say that, either way, no society can survive without laws or light.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I'll Be Honest With You (2)

For me, one of life's greatest pleasures is playing and working with words. Mostly I express this through writing and speaking: one form of writing comes via this column; and speaking comes through teaching, preaching, quipping, and just plain old talking.

Ironically, the above is also one of my greatest weaknesses. (I'm just being “honest” with you here.)

I have done much damage with my talk in various relationships over the years—you know, the husband, father, teacher, and preacher roles. It bothers me and I wish I could repair all the damage I've done. It's like throwing a dandelion to the wind, then trying to piece it back together again—it just can't be done.

So now I try to think more before I speak, and respond better by using appropriate words. Even then, I don't always succeed.

That's one advantage of writing this column: I can delete, edit, and re-work before everything before it goes to print. I can't do that when I speak. There's no verbal “delete button” for my words.

Most thinking people reading this can probably relate to such miscommunication. If not, what's wrong with you, loser? (Oops. Let me edit that. What I meant to say was: I'm sorry you're struggling with that, dear friend.)

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that we want open, honest relationships. However, we can be too timid or touchy, and that's a real problem. I know there are times I am just too thin-skinned. Makes it hard for those around me, but it also makes it hard for me, too.

However, the inverse is true, too: We can be so bold and brash that we say whatever is on our mind, to whomever is within hearing range. “Just being honest,” we say; “just speaking our mind.”

No, just being an inconsiderate and insensitive oaf, I'd say. (Did I say that kindly enough?)

There's a balance somewhere in between: We need to speak openly and accurately, yes, yet with as little offence as possible. Doesn't always work, but at least we can try. I have to work at this on a daily basis. (Just another “honest” confession on my part.)

The other side of the honesty discussion is when we're on the receiving end of someone's so-called honesty. Too much “honesty,” or whatever you want to call it, and we get hurt. It happens to me all the time, but at the age of 61, I have to suck it up, keeping smiling, and try to control my temper and tongue...or tears.

When someone offends me in a conversation, am I at ease to speak my mind? Can I assert myself (without tone) and push back? Seldom, if ever, have I developed the art of (what appears to be) a mature and controlled response.

If there is hurt, I usually just move on, without really dealing with it.

To date, I have never figured out whether that is actually the right response: Am I being mature or wussy? Under self-control or under an illusion? Choosing to push back or push on?

Obviously, we can be too touchy. This becomes yet another problem. But when there needs to be a frank response, when we need to speak our mind and we don't, we complicate matters. Oftentimes the offender doesn't know they have offended. Body language, vague words, or even stoney silence, say something, but they may not be honest, caring responses.

Honesty is the best policy, to be sure, but it is the most difficult policy. We have to develop the ability and courage to articulate our responses. Lashing out, screaming, or having some form of a hissy fit, are not the way to go. Never.

We need to take more risks with each other, then prepare to suffer some collateral damage along the way. It's short term pain for long term gain. Open but discreet, vulnerable but firm, these qualities make for stronger relationships and deeper friendships.

Friendships. Remember how it was with your best friend in grade 5? You could be frank and fun with your pal-of-all-pals when you were ten. Too bad we can't turn back the clock.

I'm sure we would all like to be more transparent with people. For myself, too often I have my guard up a mile high, as I tend to be consistently misunderstood. Foot in mouth? I have room for a rackful of shoes.

It starts with me (and you—you're not of the hook. Oops, did I say that nicely?): We need to be a safe person (remember that column?) and we need to be around safe people. A safe person (me, you or the other guy) is one who is always there, shielding others from the waves of misunderstanding and the rocks of insecurity. We all need that deep harbour of warm, honest relationships.

I mean it, honestly.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Right is Right, Right?

Exactly one week from today, you may be waking up to a different Canada. Oh, the mountains and prairies will still be here; Hockey Night in Canada, Burger King, and Walmart will still be here; and I'll still be here, so it won't be all that bad.

No, I'm talking about the results of an election that will have taken place the night before. Strangely enough, I'm not as worried about Harper losing (remote possibility), as I am worried about one of those other two guys winning. I know there's a third party running, but I don't want to waste space and time using the G-word. Our gracious democracy has a few quirks, you know.

Traditionally, Canada has always had one of two parties ruining, er, running the country. One is the L-word and the other is the Conservatives. But I sit somewhere between baffled and piqued, with a touch of scared, when I think that the next ruling party of Canada might start with the letter N.

Too many people here in Alberta were stupid enough to vote NDP—so now the rest of Canada follows suit?

Purists may argue that the Liberals have always been more liberal (play on words intended) than the Conservatives, and shouldn't be lumped in with them. True, but the Liberals of the past are no match for what's coming down the pike in the person of Justin Trudeau.

If you thought those clowns that have led the Liberals in the past decade or two were scary, buckle up for a new ride. While I don't think they will form even a minority government, their popularity among some of the electorate intrigues me. Could they become, God forbid, the official opposition?

Where did the old fashioned qualities of discernment and insight go?

Even if you don't appreciate Mr. Harper's policies in every decision, he is still the best choice out there...bar none. Or better stated, if he's Number One, the other two are tied for Seventeenth. It's just unthinkable that we could wake up to a Canada ruled by either the NDP or Liberals.

If that was the case, let's hope to God in heaven above that it's a minority government, so another party can hold their feet to the fire. If we get a majority NDP-led government, I'm moving to Idaho. I would look forward to living under President Huckabee and Vice-president Carson.

Most of my venom (read: acidic opinion; nothing personal, Tom, nothing personal) is directed toward the NDP. I don't actually think the Liberals will make much headway and the other party isn't worth mentioning. (Mind you, I didn't think the NDP would have made much headway here in Alberta either.)

I've seen the irreparable damage the NDP have done at the provincial level. Federally, I gag when I see their platform Not only do they have contempt for big business, now I'm hearing of their contempt for small business. How else do you explain the devastating impact of a $15/hour minimum wage? They say they're for the little guy—but that must no longer apply to small retailers and manufacturers. I don't even have an economics degree and I can see that.

I am also aware of their mistaken support for same-sex marriage, feminism, and abortion. A true conservative, on the other hand, would struggle with those positions.

Let me mention a couple of themes that have shown up in this space before:

One, a conservative government in every aspect is what's best for the nation and the provinces. Re-stated: They must be conservative economically, morally, socially, and environmentally. These are not the right times to bring in a newbie, with a brand-new, sweeping agenda, one who has no regards for precedent or caution, or no experience in running the country. There's some frightening turbulence out there, at every level. We need calm, measured, and experienced leadership.

And two, whether it's the Liberals or NDP, a left-of-centre opposition is healthy opposition. I have always appreciated an NDP opposition, even if they're cranky and loud. They just belong on the other side of the parliamentary floor.

So, next week you have the privilege and duty to vote. Sitting home and whining about it does nothing to correct it. Even writing about it (like I do) isn't enough. We need to get of the couch and into the polling stations. And bring your brains along: We don't need to make anymore goofy choices like Albertans did a few months ago.

We need to take advantage of the opportunity of voting in free elections seriously. The practice of voting is one hallmark of a free society. Cherish it while it lasts.

“X” marks the spot, they say, and the only spot on the ballot is beside the name of the Conservative candidate.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I'll be Honest With You (1)

One of the most difficult tasks today is to be honest with each other. Most people, if asked about their level of honesty, would claim to be somewhere between honest and quite honest.

That “lie” would be a dead giveaway.

We think we're honest when we do certain things in a certain way by a certain time. “Truth” be told, it's not quite that way. There are so many examples, I hardly know where to start. Birthday or anniversary cards might be the worst (or best?) example. They may say more (but rarely less) than we want; however, they make for a better relationship.

Kids will say they got a chore done, when, in fact, it was almost done. Did they or did they not get the dishes done? The homework done? The bed made?

The child answers “Yes,” when, in fact, it's “Almost.” Is that “dishonesty”? It seems harsh say it is, but it is. There may be a deeper reason why kids cannot be as open as we want them to be.

The child becomes an adult, so the questions change a little: Were they exceeding the speed limit? Did they mean everything that was said on that anniversary card? Was it just one beer? “Yes,” should be replaced with “Nearly” or “Pretty well.”

The answer, right or wrong, is actually not the issue. The reason behind the answer is. Why are we hesitant to come up with the correct and frank answer? Kid or adult, why can't we say we didn't do the laundry, we didn't trim all the grass, or we stayed out later? Why can't we say we bought something extra that we shouldn't have, why we don't actual feel about that person the way we said we feel, or why we hate our job?

One of the more noble motivations for this “dishonesty” is that we don't want to hurt or disappoint whomever we're talking to. In the main, this is good. We want them to feel positive about us and be happy with us. So it's back to “us,” and that includes you or me.

We may not tell the whole truth (“whole truth”: Isn't that redundant?) because we don't want to suffer any consequences. Dishes not done, for example, could mean punishment for a messy kitchen, more dish duty, or some form of grounding.

Whatever is the issue, we don't want to suffer consequences for telling the truth.

A second reason for not telling the truth is that we may lose a relationship. If we lie about a personal vice, we are simply hiding something. They may not understand us, and might tend to mock us or reject us.

So a third reason for not being honest is to cover up some form of weakness. I think most of us find it hard to be vulnerable or transparent with each other. Part of that problem is trust (or lack thereof) and feeling insecure in our relationship(s).

See how complicated not being honest can get?

This column is an example in being pretty honest with you—maybe more honest than pretty, at that.. Always? No, almost always. But when I say that, I wonder if you're thinking that I'm not being truthful with you. See how these word games show up?

I'm always truthful in this space. I just don't express my fears or outrage or confusion to their fullest extent. I don't think there's a place for that here; that is, a personal opinion in a public arena. There has to be some socially-acceptable caution exhibited.

I know we would have much better relationships (pick your preference: husband-wife, employer-employee, teacher-student, teacher-parent, retailer-consumer) if we could develop the art (and science?) of being more open with each other.

If that was the case, issues wouldn't fester, resulting in blow-ups, ulcers, divorce, rage, shootings, or a whole host of other reactions. Pick any fractured relationship you know of-–or are involved in. If the two warring parties could have just been honest with each other, most of what is said and done would not have happened, and the relationship would have been so much smoother.

Let me start the list: eating disorders, anger, unemployment, divorce—and I'm just warming up.

So, if nothing else, learn to couch your feeling with some tact; learn to push back gently without shooting your mouth off. Short term pain (read: awkwardness, embarrassment, fear) should give way to conversation governed by a hope for long term gain.

And that's the honest truth.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Conserve your Vote

There are certain professions that I could never do. I know I've used that line before, but it's still a good one, and after all, it is my column.

For example: I could never be an actor, for example. My whole life would be consumed with trying to impress people, living up their expectations, saying things that were not my words, and I would only be as good as my last movie. It would also mean that I would strive to be as liberal, brainless, and out of touch as most of Hollywood is.

Nor could I be a paramedic, EMT, EMR, or EMS (or maybe EMP-TY). It takes a really special person to answer that sort of call. With the first emergency phone call, I would go home, grab my teddy, and hide under my bed. The closest I would want to get to “blood,” “gore,” and “death” would be in the dictionary.

And though I have played with the notion, I could never be a politician. It's a thankless job at every turn, including in one's own party. I could handle the kissing babies part, and I could certainly handle the cushy pension part, but it's the years between running for office, then running from office, that would get to me.

Unless you have a pickle for a brain, and peas for eyeballs (why not add a “banana for a nose” while I'm at it?), you will have a sense from reading my columns that I would land somewhere on the right side (in more ways than one) of centre. Not extreme right, just right of centre.

Re-stated: I would never be left, lefter, and leftist, as we have in the Libgreenew Party.

I know there's no Libgreenew Party, but in so many ways those guys way over on the other side of centre are indistinguishable. When it comes to morality, climate change, abortion, Indian affairs, business (big and small), gun control, the environment and the economy, and the military, they seem to be the same—but not in a good way.

And I resent the notion that someone, or some party, with such unbalanced views could be representing me and mine. But in all fairness, I', sure that's what a lot of lefters are saying about this present government. Isn't democracy grand?

For me, I will vote happily and confidently for my local Tory, feet of clay and all. I believe in conservative everything, though that may not be “Conservative” everything. They simply represent the best option. I suggest to you that would be prudent for you to investigate the facts and positions of each person in the party before you vote. I know I have.

The essence of my conviction is that I don't believe any party left of centre is fit to run government at any level. The federal Liberals (not to be confused with the BC-type of Liberals) are really no different from Mulcair's NDP. They are closer to the NDP since Trudeau took reins of the party. Perhaps their greatest contribution would be that of spoiler.

Again, when it comes to the NDP, any thinking electorate should investigate their history as a provincial government in the last twenty to thirty years (hello, BC, SK, and ON). So it 's unfathomable to think that anyone would want an NDP-led government in Ottawa.

Can you spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R?

Finally, I don't really want to waste time calling out the Green party. They are really wannabe NDP, but are more ineffective and incompetent. I think their greatest ambition is to get more than one elected representative.

There are people who can't stand voting for anything conservative, but would never stoop to voting NDP, and the Green party is not an option. So they place a spoiler vote and vote Liberal. We just saw that here in Alberta with out last election, only in reverse.

It remains a very bad joke, but now we're the laughingstock of Canada.

Me? Obviously, I will vote Conservative, warts and all. (I'm not blind to their faults, but they make the best case for leading Canada.) I appreciate conservative in everything; it works best for all, in my opinion.

I admit that my conviction and conscience motivates me and the world I live in. It's for my kids and their kids; it's for today, but mostly for next year, next decade, next generation.

You know, considering the public facade and the blood and gore, I'm thinking that the politician has the worst job of the three that I would hate to have. That's why we need the right men and women representing us in Ottawa. A uncalculated vote on the wrong type of politician is a throwaway privilege.

That's why Stephen Harper and his ilk are getting my vote.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Water, the Great Equalizer

What do baths, broccoli, and beaches have in common? Well, they all have vowels. Good answer. And they're all pretty dramatic and traumatic. Very good. (I think that comment came from a reader in Frog's Croak, Saskatchewan).

The answer I'm looking for is, of course, they all involve “water.”

This may not be the best time to talk about the pleasures and pastimes of water, what with the worse drought in Alberta in recent history (at least my recent history). And with the drought, everything is tinder-dry, and so the forest fire situation was one of the worse on recent record.

And with forest fires, the one thing they need is—you guessed it—water. A vicious circle here: no water, then ripe conditions for forest fires, which need water, of which there is little, followed by more forest fires, and the circle gets viciouser, er, more vicious.

That's bad, but a column on water is not all bad. Some of the happiest memories I have both as a kid and as a parent revolved around water.

As a kid, my mother could never keep me out of the water. We always spent two glorious weeks at Cultus Lake, just out of Chilliwack, BC. Everyday I was in the water. When there as no lake, there was always a pool. And when there was no pool, Lulu Island always had ditches.

(Maurice, I'm kidding: I never swam in the ditches...much).

Then as a parent,, some of my fondest memories are of those times when we would travel and end up in a motel with a pool. We always had to have a pool on those long days. I see a motel pool as a combination playground, bathtub, and babysitting service.

One of our favourite pool games was “Marco Polo.” (So the pool was also a history class, yes?)

Whoever was “it” (with eyes dutifully closed) would shout “Marco” and the rest of the family would respond with “Polo.” Theoretically, the responders would give their whereabouts away, and “it” would try to tag them—or punch them, if frustrated enough.

I was often “it,” but I swear on a stack of buoys that I never punched my kids. Maybe some hapless swimmer who got in my way, but never my own flesh and blood.

We humans are not made to live in the water, other than in a recreational way. No matter what the Darwinists propose, we did not come from some cosmic soup millions and millions of years ago.

We can enjoy water, but we generally need flippers, boats, life jackets, and other forms of floatation devices to keep from drowning. Without any of the afore-mentioned, we're out of our element.

I would be remiss if I didn't encourage another form of an external use of water, namely, baths and showers. I rarely have a shower myself. You might think people can smell me coming before they see me coming. Not quite, Tonto: I always have a bath...at least on certain holidays and celebrations. And job interviews.

We also can enjoy water internally, not just externally. That is, we really need to drink a lot more of it. They say eight cups a day is good for you. And good water makes great coffee, though even the best cream in the world can't improve coffee made from tap water.

Where would we be without water to cook our vegetables in, water for washing our clothes with, or water for our lawns? Probably eating at McDonalds in stinking clothes, waiting for the raindrops to fall on our head and on our parched green space.

In or out or over or under, water is the greatest equalizer of all natural entities. It's that one thing that is good for all ages, all colours, and all cultures. We can't live without it yet, we can't live with too much of it.

Too little is a desert, too much is a flood. Harnessed, it produces power; unharnessed, it creates incalculable damage in its pathway.

I've got more to write about, but there's a birthday coming up, so you know what I have to do.

And “Marco” to you.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com