Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (3-4)

Friends:  Here are the other two of the four-part series.

Part of the urgency of sending three of these out within the same week, is that my newspaper editor refused to publish the first in the series (the one on vaccination).  Just found out tonight.  I sent him the one on abortion yesterday, but I strangely haven't heard back about that, but I assume he won't publish that either.  I have sent him the last two, as I have done to you.  I asked him to respond ASAP on these two, as I need to rush a column to replace the banned ones.  As this weekend is a holiday weekend, my deadline moves up a couple of days, from the usual Friday or Saturday.  Not my fault...

I'll try to remember to keep you abreast of what's happening.

In the meantime, I did write two this morning on turning 65 , but I need to edit them some more, then get Russ to re-edit them. They're kind of melancholy.

He should approve of them as they don't mention anything really critical or touchy, although I make a passing comment on some public institutions.

Reap 'em and reap.  (Yes, I do know the actual expression.)

CF

El Fungo Says (3)

I am trying respond to Cousin Reggie's questions, as you know. He is really going for the jugular, isn't he? First, vaccinations, then abortion. Now, politics.

"Hey El Fungo, I see you have a new government in Alberta. Any passing thoughts?"

I have a lot of thoughts about a lot of things, but "passing" (read: shallow) thoughts on the new UCP government isn't one of them. That is to say, I have some very detailed thoughts that I cannot pass along in just a few paragraphs. Suffice to say, I was so relieved that the government got in with such a landslide. I was happy that Albertans finally woke up from the serious mistake that happened four years ago, and then the consequences of that mistake for the past four years.

I see Jason Kenney and his team are starting to implement their election campaign promises. One thing of many that I like about the UCP is that they are keeping their word. And the word they keep will benefit all of Alberta—left, right, and center—not just a select few.

As an example, even the re-working of the vile Bill 24, now known as Bill 8, is a vast improvement. It just doesn't go far enough, but it's headed in the right direction.

The UCP victory is part of an all-Canadian trend , namely, a shift to conservative politics. It seems that so many provinces have finally woken up to a better form of governance.

Socialism is a failed experiment, at both the provincial and global levels. It has also been a deadly one, at least on a global one.

Just as an aside, if you're not clear on what the above means, please do some homework: Research any socialist state within the last, say, fifty years. Examine how they came to power, what was the immediate and long-term impact on the citizens and the economy. And note the trend: High personal net worth = free market, low personal net worth = socialism.

It is very unnerving and disturbing, indeed.

Alberta was heading in the same direction, namely, economical and social catastrophe.

Financial matters and people matters are the two essential planks of true conservatism. Keep those in focus, and we have a thriving economy and and motivated citizenry.

I think you get my view, Cousin Reggie: I am delighted that a conservative, free enterprise party got in. I don't think any party is perfect, and we're bound to see some flaws in this group as time wears on. Needless to say, this party is a massive upgrade on every count from the previous government. We need to support them to the best of our conscience and ability, to revive this province, in order to bring it back to its greatness of a generation ago.

Are you satisfied with my attempted responses? There are no facile answers for anything these days, as you know. I am sure everyone on the other side feels that they are right, too.

As I have stated many times before, follow your conscience, consider the other person's viewpoint, and discuss the differences affably. It matters of ethics and morality, life and death, that could be a stretch for most of us!

Just make sure you come up with easier questions next time. Maybe something about the weather (global warming?). Not everyone wants to deal with the ones you posed, even though they are all very pertinent and pressing, with deep, deep ramifications for future generations.

I see you have at least one more for me. You must have a lot of time on your hands these days. I will deal with it next time.

Thanks for asking.

El Fungo Says (4)

This is the fourth and final set of questions that I am responding to. Cousin Reggie is not playing around, is he? I need to remind him sometime that this is not acceptable (especially if one wants to be popular). After all, to question the status quo is just not politically correct these days. We are a nation of groupthink, where we think as a crowd.

The crowd may be right, but the crowd may also be wrong. We need to think for ourselves.

We are losing our freedom to think and speak out loud, not to be confused with anarchy (which is strangely acceptable). Freedom of speech from a conservative perspective is often linked with extremism, though that is not an accurate assessment at all. Believe me, there is plenty of extremism on the Left.

Rational conservatism is thus unwelcome in most contexts. It is unwelcome in North Korea, Somalia, France, or Albania, but here here in freedom-loving Canada? Where have we gone wrong?

So here's another question: "Hey El Fungo. There are a number of really frightening restrictions floating around there—such as the use of plastic straws, meatless burgers, fossil fuels, and climate "emergency," just to name a few. Do you see a pattern here?"

Good questions, Cousin Reggie. Each question stands on its own merit, but I think I will draw this series to a close, so I'll have to answer briefly. I am scrambling to see if there is a common thread with all of them.

There may be a commonality, but I hope you don't see me as a conspiracist (which I'm not). There are a lot of unproven and unscientific ideas being crammed down our throat(s) these days, that's problem one. This is most worrisome.

Problem two is how arbitrarily it is being decreed that all plastic products are useless, that plant-based burgers are better for you than meat patties, that fossil fuels are dangerous, and that so much of this world's ills are caused by climate change.

Including Donald Trump. Okay, I jest.

I say "whoa" on all these and more. Where's the true science in all this? Where's all reasonable discussion in all of this? Or has there been any discussion at all? What's behind these trends? I have an idea.

I see an over-arching, top-down, no-questions-asked approach on all of these (and other) matters. It means there is too much intrusion on the part of the government and its cronies. That is perhaps my greater concern, well beyond the plastic, beefless (not a real patty nor a real word), oil, and wacky weather theories.

I am not questioning the sincerity or intelligence of some of the people who are pushing this agenda. I do question their tactics, though. For our part, we need to push back and stand up for what is proven.

Can't we get more creative with our use of plastic? Yes. What are the ramifications of a beefless diet? Very serious. While it is not being crammed down our throats (yet), it seems that there is a strong push away from animal-based food.

(Just for the record: Cows eat grass, and we eat cows, so aren't we eating plant-based food already?)

And the fossil-based energy is taking a serious hit, but where's the science in the discussion? Is there truly a connection between fracking and earthquakes? Is our bad air quality because of the oil sands?

And now climate change has been ratcheted up to new level, namely, climate "emergency." Seriously? That's a new word in the discussion. What will the wholesale changes be like with this unproven phenomena, beyond the rhetoric? Not good.

The basis of these brief "El Fungo" series has been a tongue-in-cheek approach, though with sincere underpinnings. We really need open-minded, reasonable discussions on these and other matters. I'm just not clear why that is not happening. Why are there are no sane alternatives (if actually needed) proposed by the Left and the government.

I also fear that the compliant masses who just simply accept what comes down the line, with few questioning the government's edicts along these lines. This is where the "groupthink" term comes in. A few more taxes here, a few more restrictions there, and it's all solved. Hardly.

Dearest Cousin Reggie has posed some great questions. I have some more, and you likely have some yourself.

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the liberty to exchange differing ideas. When there is no forum for discussion, we are in serious trouble.

And people, we are in serious trouble, and only getting worse. If you don't fear for yourself, at least think about your kids and grandchildren.

I want to thank Cousin Reggie for his questions. Next time, pal, don't use Morse code. I hear that there's this new method out there. It's called smoke signals.

Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (2)

Dear fans in Newspaperland: Cousin Reggie has sent a few questions to me, which I dutifully want to answer. I have already dealt with one in my previous column. He seems bent on asking me contentious questions, but I will try to respond as rationally and politely as possible. I don't want to be rude or ignorant in my responses. There is really no place for that, is there?

I really like writing witty columns, ignoring the deeper, more pressing matters. However, from time to time, someone somewhere needs to speak up for what I see a serious injustice in health or education (for starters). My motive is sincere, a good place to start.

He writes me: "Hey, El Fungo. Do you care to comment on that abortion brouhaha in Georgia, as well as in other places?

Reggie, old boy, you sure like controversy, don't you? Do you know that if you keep on bringing up these taboo subjects they may call you names, and lump you in with wingnuts like me?

Whether it's the life of a living child (vaccination) or a pre-born child (abortion), the stakes are too high to simply turn a blind eye.

It's just that it can be such a heated, irrational discussion that it's almost not worth the headache.

But on the other hand, I feel a moral duty to speak of the killing of innocent babies (or better, infanticide). That's tad inflammatory, but this is a highly inflammatory issue.

You know, dear distant relative of mine, the real issue is not a woman's right over her own body, though we would discuss it endlessly if it was that basic. But it is that simple; it's just that the so-called pro-choice faction are focusing on the wrong issue.

The matter hinges on whether the "fetus" within is a living human being or not a person. Everything in this argument starts (and ends) right there. Or at least it should.

If that fetus within (though I use this word loosely; I would rather say "life [or baby] within") was a mere blob of cells, it would be no big deal, wouldn't it? But I have often wondered why the medical professionals perform in utero corrective surgical procedures on what is just a blob? Why the fuss over caring for a mother who goes into early labour, if what she is delivering is just a cluster of cells?

Why is that fetus within subject to an ultra-sound , gender identity, and even a possible name, if it is really just extra flesh within the mother? Even using the word "fetus" (instead of "baby") minimizes the reality of a living, human being.

It really boils down to terms: blob or baby? Cells or child? The mother is indeed a significant player in this matter, but real issue is the child within.

I'm not sure if you have sensed some serious inconsistencies when it comes to why people kill, or permit others to kill, a defenceless little human baby. That action is barbaric, sadistic, unnecessary, and inconsistent with all that decent humans stands for.

Again, that is really provocative talk, but this is a really a provocative matter.

If that human being is not wanted by its birth mother, there are tens of thousands of families that would be willing to adopt it and raise it.

The state of Georgia (and now others) nailed it: Blobs don't have heartbeats, but living human beings do. Good on Georgia. It would be great if our provinces had the same courage.

Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (1)

Sometimes Cousin Reggie —that distant, but still not distant enough, relative from the East—sends me a brief note, via Morse code. Morse code? Yes, indeed, he hasn't quite caught up with modern technology.

He addressed me by my Spanish name, and that's a bit of a code in and of itself. Between you and me, I think he's trying to be witty. He 's about halfway there, if you get my drift.

Anyway, he's often pushing the envelope when it comes to questions—real zingers, indeed. He recently Morse-coded (is the verb form even a word?) me the following questions; here's the first one:

"Hey El Fungo. Do you have any serious thoughts on this vaccination rage that is sweeping the land?"

Good question, Cousin Reggie. That's really brave of you to bring this up. It's not popular to challenge the status quo these days. And I think the word "rage" is a good choice on your part. I cannot understand how people who promote injections into kids get so enraged when this discussion comes up. And as well, they get all up in arms with those of us who want to take care of the health of our own kids. Go figure.

It seems that almost everyone in the pro-vaxx camp refuses to even discuss it rationally. In one sense, I don't blame them, but not for the reasons you may think.

You asked if I had any thoughts about this serious matter. Yes, I do, but mostly what I would say wouldn't likely be listened to. There are a lot of reasons, mostly scientific, and it's so sad that these cautions are not being heeded. And I wouldn't know where to start, anyways.

As you know, hundreds thousands of families like ours are completely committed to pro-life and pro-health. Just in case you were wondering whether pro-vaxxers are anti-health or anti-science, we are very pro-health and pro-science.

It's very divisive matter, I get it, and there are a lot of raw emotions on both sides of the argument. This includes a wide diversity of walks of life, including some health and medical professionals.

I recognize that I am making broad-brush claims. This column is not a detailed, footnoted treatise. In fact, for this column and the three more to follow, it is simply a response to a fan (Reggie, you're really a fan, but you did write me a letter. I sense you speaks for more others.)

It is really important to consider alternative viewpoints. But there is no real platform in the public arena to work through this issue. I really wish both sides could come together and discuss their differences, as much as possible.

I would have to say that I see a lot of intriguing secrecy and inconclusive evidence in this whole process from the pro-vaxx camp. It is not totally conclusive with either side, though I have seen, heard, and read enough to alarm me. So I say, when in doubt, hold off.

We're talking about the health and welfare of our children, so we need to be very, very cautious. There are many other issues that there are two distinct sides (e.g., fluoridation),  where there seems to be a reasonable truce, so why not regarding vaccination?

One of the most egregious matters that comes to mind is how the State is overstepping parental rights in this matter. That is very worrisome, and may be the bigger issue in this discussion.

You must be aware of the warnings about restricting shopping and school attendance—e.g, in New Brunswick and New York, respectively—based on flimsy yet popular evidence. And my fear is that it will be a growing trend, but in the wrong direction.

It worries the you-know-what out of me when the State can take such draconian measures by prohibiting non-vaccinated kids in their personal lives. I know "shopping and attending" is in the public area, but aren't vaccinated people safe from health risks?

If the issue is Ebola or cholera, established diseases that often lead to death, I see the need for protection. We need to be so careful when i t may appear to be a some unproven witch hunt.

Speaking from a scientific perspective, do we have any idea what is in the vial that kids are being injected with? I hear it is really dangerous stuff. This comes from qualified medical people, not health quacks. I believe if parents knew what was being injected into their children, the argument would be dead in its tracks.

And maybe they do; hence, the outcry.

Another point, Cousin Reggie, is this: If immunization is so effective, what's the fear? If a vaccinated child comes in contact with a non-vaccinated child, why worry? The vaccination is supposed to be effective, so there should be no risk of taking ill, right? Apparently not. That is dangerously ineffective logic (and inconsistent) to me.

I have even heard of kids who were vaccinated still coming down with the very disease they were vaccinated against. Funny, I don't read that in the mainstream media.

Aren't you proud of me for not even mentioning the "autism" argument? There are so many other legitimate reasons why we need to be be so very careful these days.

I should develop this further, but space and the nature of this column forbid. I don't doubt that many medical practitioners are sincere is their position on vaccination. I just say, as in so many other quirky notions these days, do what you (as a parent) think is right, and please let the rest of us do the same.

Oh, I see you you have a few more questions for me. Let me answer them in the next column.