The Yak-Yak Cafe

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

2019-06-25T20:07:00.001-06:00

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.)

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)

2019-06-24T07:50:00.001-06:00

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)

2019-06-20T21:03:00.001-06:00

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.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Saint

2019-05-23T09:03:00.001-06:00

I doubt very much that you have heard of St. Craig, but if you have, don't worship him. I, er, he doesn't exist.

If I ever used the title "Saint" ( or St.), it would only be as a joke. The term I use a lot, "M'Lord," but all I ever got was laughs, which is the intention.

There are Saints and then there are saints and then, saints. The Saints is a name of an NFL team from New Orleans. Nice name, bad label. There are a smattering of other non-professional teams scattered throughout the land, usually of the high school or junior hockey flavour.

Then there are the saints of a religious order, as in St. Augustine or St. Agnes. There are many towns, schools, and roadways scattered around Alberta bearing those names and others. These have usually come about because the early settlers and missionaries were of the Catholic persuasion.

Speaking of "religious persuasion," with as much respect as possible, there is some misunderstanding as to who, what, when, how, and why a person is a saint. The following will fly in the face of religious tradition and conventional knowledge of sainthood.

And this is where I finally tie in my "confession" of a saint.

I am not a saint for a number of reasons. One, I am living and I don't know of any religious saint who is living. To be a saint, in that tradition, one must have been dead for a long time. Two, I see no precedent of a canonized saint in Scripture (saint, yes; Saint, no). And three, "saint" is applied accurately to any living follower of Jesus Christ, and not limited to dead ones.

So at any given time, if you were so inclined, you could say the following about me: "He's such a saint." That may or may not be true, but we all would know what you mean. But you shouldn't say the following about me: "That St. Craig is such a wonderful dude" (Is "dude" still in vogue?).

I may be a saint, but certainly not a Saint.

If "saint(s)" and "sainthood" are based on the Scripture, now augmented by tradition, it's best we reference the Good Book for what a saint is and isn't, to see if any of us measure up. Few of us would; most of us will think of our dear mothers (but not fathers, for some reason) as a saint, but that could be more on sentiment than anything else.

Sentiment aside, a true saint is one who is holy and set apart, usually in a practical everyday sense. Don't be picturing those 15^th Century paintings in which the so-called saints have that pious glaze, wearing those stained halos, sitting around with other saints doing the same thing.

Sainthood has been invested by God, and God alone, and I confess—there's that word again—I rarely measure up. Maybe you do, but this column is not your confessional! I rarely exhibit those virtues of patience, love, grace, etc. (marks of a true saint) in the cauldron of everyday life.

Being a true saint is one who is not caught up (yet "dragged down" at the same time) with secular values and habits. Being a true saint is one who lives in view of a better place beyond the grave. Being a true saint exhibits the virtues of the only true Saint (not the team, thankfully) Who ever lived on earth.

So my confession, then, is that I don't always exhibit those virtues. I don't always live up to the title. But it's not about perfection. Rather, it's about character and a standing before Almighty God.

Even playing for the Saints wouldn't help.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Dad

2019-05-23T09:02:00.001-06:00

It's only a few weeks before we "celebrate" Father's Day. I may to be jumping the gun by coming up with a dad-themed column. It's actually part of this mini-series of "Confessions."

So far, I have made some admissions about being a writer, teacher, saint, and now father. I have a couple more up my sleeve, but we'll see if I write them.

Most dads I know feel very inadequate for fatherhood. Most of us are quick—likely too quick—to admit our shortcomings and failures (and too often "helped" by others to feel that way). The strident voices of the warped media, academia, and feminists don't help.

As if fathering isn't tough enough, I find it tragic beyond civil words that we get stomped on because of our skin colour and gender (with "white male" becoming such a vile standing in life). If the skin colour was reversed, there would be no end of the hue and cry.

My comments today are directed primarily at dads, but moms and potential dads can read along if they want to.

I know that I have failed multiple times as a father—and that would be only before breakfast. Some of my kids would likely tell you that in a heartbeat, if asked. Owing to the fact that I pass through this journey once, it's impossible to back up and do it again. One just hopes that as the kids grow up and mature, there's room in their heart and conscience to forgive and move on.

Sort of like me with my dad.

Now I am not speaking of physical, sexual, or mental abuse, nor am I sugarcoating it in other homes. That must be dealt with thoroughly, either through accountability groups, the law, and even the church. I just don't believe I have ever been guilty of those evils.

My failure as a dad has been of the short temper, the non-listening, and the general disconnection variety. Perhaps you are guilty of the same? As an example, my own dad was guilty of that, though he had other complicating factors, as he was a product of his generation. They did things differently back in the '40s and '50s.

I know I mentioned this line before, but it bears repeating: Any one can be a "verb" father, but it takes some serious effort at being a "noun" father. Re-stated: males are created to father a child, but it takes a lot more work to be a father to a child.

If I could do it over again, which is impossible, I would do some things differently. Here are four to consider:

1. Create more meaningful family time. I did a lot of that, via trips, traditions, and special nights, but I see now that it wasn't enough. And part of that "meaningful family time" is to block out many outside-the-home demands. Some of us Type A personalities often take on more and more responsibilities outside the home at the expense of family. Not a wise move at all.

2. Take time to listen more and speak less. That could be one reason why our Designer gave us two ears and one mouth, not the other way around. I know I would have benefited from that as I was growing up. That's not a shot at my own father, by the way. As I said before, he was the product of his generation. And he didn't have the privilege of reading a county-famous columnist...

3. Get to know each of your kids individually. That sounds bizarre on the surface, but I am not writing this one on the surface. Each child you help bring into the world is an individual, and must be treated as such. This takes time and effort on your part, but it is part of your duty.

4. Let them know you love them. That could be expressed in all sorts of ways, but really needs to be done and said. Even a simple touch once in a while works wonders.

It strikes me that if more dads had more meaningful family time, listened more often to their children, got to know their kids better, as well as showed love, there would be a marked change in our crime rate, street safety, and we would be a better nation overall, no doubt about it. We would see a nation of happier, more well-adjusted, and productive children.

And in advance of this next Big Day, may every day be a "father's" day for you.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Saint

2019-05-17T09:15:00.001-06:00

I doubt very much that you have heard of St. Craig, but if you have, don't worship him. I, er, he doesn't exist.

If I ever used the title "Saint" ( or St.), it would only be as a joke. The term I use a lot, "M'Lord," but all I ever got was laughs, which is the intention.

And this is where I finally tie in my "confession" of a saint.

I may be a saint, but certainly not a Saint.

Even playing for the Saints wouldn't help.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Teacher

2019-05-15T11:47:00.001-06:00

As you have read here before, I think one of the noblest professions on this planet is that of a teacher. When you read "teacher," I assume you are thinking of a classroom teacher. That's essentially what I'm saying, though there are other types of instructors that I admire.

I have always held that view, even when I was just a student and had the highest regard for some of my own teachers—a Mr. Redmond. There were other types (=non-Redmond) that I have endured, and perhaps you have, too,

Now to be clear, I have absolutely no time for classroom teachers who abuse their power and influence over impressionable minds, indoctrinating them in areas that are hurtful and harmful. That would include any number of ideologies that run contrary to common decency, common sense, and common conventional thinking—and I'll leave it at that.

I have always admired (and even tried to emulate) those teachers who inspire, instruct, and illuminate, for the good of their students. But those who incite and confuse them in the face of the common good are not worthy of their vocation.

The above paragraphs could become a three-part series sometime, but I am taking a fairly simple approach, limiting my comments to this column.

I was a teacher for over a twenty-five years, running the gamut of full-time, part-time, and substitute. Over a span of forty years of working, teaching was only my third (of three) full-time vocations. That was because after I graduated from UBC with my B. Ed., the last job I wanted to do was teach.

It wasn't till twenty years after I graduated that I finally ended up in a classroom. I got the paper that said I was qualified to teach in 1977, but I found I needed twenty years of life experience to flesh that out. "Life experience" meant raising my own kids, living in a practical world (as opposed to a book-learning one), and being a student of the school of hard knocks, that rounded out my own education.

Technically, I am a "certified" teacher. That means I got the valid paperwork to teach; whether I was "qualified" to teach is another matter! Getting that paper does not mean I am a teacher by any means. It just means that I have taken the appropriate training to teach.

Now, having been out of the classroom for three years, I often reflect on my teaching career and wonder to myself: Was I ever any good at teaching? In what I thinks makes for a good teacher, I think so.

The so-called jury of students, parents, and colleagues, scattered from San Salvador (El Salvador) to Kamloops and Langley, (BC) to Bow Island and Medicine Hat, (AB), would have some say in that. I believe I would come through fine, with supporters and detractors in both sides.

By the way, my best years were right here in Bow Island, teaching at Cherry Coulee Christian Academy.

In addition to the degree and experience, there are many other qualities that are equally important to teaching. Enjoying being around kids is one. Patience is certainly a key ingredient. And I think a wide streak of creativity in methodology is up there.

For me, those so-called boxes didn't all check off, but I came fairly close. I liked most kids I taught, I struggled with patience betimes, and I was occasionally creative.

I have often thought of what made a good-to-great teacher when I was a student back in Richmond, BC. I remember fondly Mr. Redmond and Mrs. Matthews, in particular. I think their genuine warmth and kindness stand out in my mind. But in my case, if I were anything like them, my warmth would be more "heat," as in temper; and my kindness that could be construed for "weakness."

Looking back, I certainly measured up in what made for a good teacher. I still think my greatest training for the classroom was the responsibilities I had at home. With nine kids of my own, we pretty well had our own classroom! We all know that there are many habits and rules in the home that apply to the classroom.

With the recent election of the UCP, I sincerely hope that parental choice in education will be restored. This is vital in a healthy, balanced educational landscape. As there are many types of teachers (good, bad, and ugly), there are also many viable types of education models (public, charter, day, home, and everything in between).

And in all those models, parental involvement and choice is ideal, which brings me to where I really see the value in the private and home school options, each of which entail a high degree of parental involvement.

Me, a teacher? I would probably give myself a passing grade.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Writer

2019-05-01T15:39:00.001-06:00

"Relevant" is one of those multi-faceted words that can be understood in a number of ways. It has multiple applications and contexts. Here are a few considerations: It could mean changing an application of any truth by disregarding the past and exchanging it for the present. It could mean doing anything and everything to gain favour with the current market. Or it could mean embracing change for change sake, but leaving truth and orthodoxy in the dust.

While I should limit my comments to the writer, it is the challenge of the retailer, preacher, media, and other spheres where people intersect with people.

The retailer, for instance, may be stuck in the 50's when it comes to marketing his wares (as well as the merchandise itself), and thus, be irrelevant for today's market. That is, of course, unless that is his market. There are many retailers who cater to that era and are very successful at it. But does that make him relevant or irrelevant? Is that even a fair question?

The preacher must be relevant, though certainly not at the cost of truth. Truth is always relevant, but it may be "packaged" in an irrelevant way, thus diminishing its effect. His style, stories, outlines, topics, and other techniques may come under the microscope of discernment, as he attempts to be relevant

In a preacher's context, sometimes how he presents his material may trump what he is presenting—how unfortunate!

The same can be said of the apparent relevance of the media personality (just the latest in technology and graphics), the school teacher (strictly a cool dude, friend of the students), the contractor (only the latest designs and patterns), and other vocations that involve people with people. At what point, if there is one, does relevancy overshadow effectiveness?

One may ask the following question when serving as a retailer, preacher, media icon, school teacher, and the others just above : Am I relevant?

I just think that's the wrong question.

The real question for all those above, including writers, is: Am I making an impact?

It really doesn't matter if I am cool, hip, or modern, so long as I am having some sort of positive impact on my readers. While that may be hard to gauge, changing and encouraging my readers' lives is the real litmus test.

There is always the need for each writer to apply good writing techniques, ample illustrations, while dealing with matters that are current (and thus not lost in the past), all the while scratching where it itches, soothing where hurts, and stimulating to the mind and conscience.

To me, as a writer, that is the mark of relevance! Needs of every sort demand relevant solutions, and writers are responsible to rise to the occasion.

Some of my favourite writers are not necessarily relevant, but their writing moves me, enthralls, me, and excites me. Does that make them relevant in the strictest form? Probably not, but their writing is having an impact of my life (and my own writing as well), and that's where true relevance kicks in.

Of course, I need to ask myself: Am I relevant as a writer? Well, certainly not in a cool, hip, or modern way, for sure. I certainly try to be relevant, but I do it as one who wants to make an impact on my readers (even as I write this paper). We are only relevant to the extent that we are impactful (not a legitimate word, but what's a little slippage among friends?). Often that means digging deep into the past, a place where some writers who are consumed with relevancy rarely go.

It's not a matter of going into the past for past's sake. But, as in so many other contexts, knowing where we have come from will aid in where we are going. The past and present are seriously linked, and will produced a significant form of relevance. We draw from lessons learned, mistake made and corrected, and something very relevant called life skills.

I write this paper essentially as a writer, so the above examples are themselves relevant and current. The last thing I would want is to be irrelevant in my deliveries, whatever form they take. If I strive to make an "impression," rather than make an "impact," I am missing the mark.

However, if I aim for impacting my audience, then I believe I am truly relevant.

Something on my Mind: April Insanity (2)

2019-04-16T11:13:00.001-06:00

To carry on my listed thoughts from last week...

3. Obviously, the Tampa Bay Lightning is a shoo-in from the East, and quite probably for the whole thing. Washington is coming on strong, at the right time, and should be considered as a finalist. I am leaning towards the New York Islanders, mostly for past and present reasons, both for sentiment and skill.

I am not a prophet, but that has never stopped me from going out on a limb and naming the two finalists for Lord Stanley's mug. So (drum roll, please) in the grand scheme of things, I would call for the Flames or the Jets out of the West and the Lightning or Islanders out of the East.

When it comes right down to it, I call Calgary and Tampa Bay, with Tampa Bay taking home the Stanley Cup.

4. Under no conditions do I want to see the Toronto Maple leafs get anywhere. I am so sorry they have clinched a playoff berth already. I just hope they get swept in the first round.

Regardless of what sports source I read, it's "Toronto this" or "Toronto that." Every other Canadian team gets minimal coverage. Everything revolves around the Raptors, Blue Jays, Argonauts, in addition to the Maple Leafs. I get so weary of a Toronto-centred sports scene.

5. There are some really cool success stories out there, with the Islanders and the Coyotes coming to mind. The Islanders have struggled for years with mismanagement and were predicted to be well out of the playoffs by this time of year. Much of the turnaround can be credited to their current bench boss, Barry Trotz, and general manager, Lou Lamoriello.

But the really warm (pun mercilessly intended) story is the Arizona Coyotes. While Trotz will likely get the Jack Adams award, Rick Tocchet should get serious consideration. What he has done with those "desert dogs" is astounding. They didn't make again this year, but they were very close.

There are a lot of skilled players on that team and it seems that their talents have all been pooled together finally. I can't see them making it out of the first round, whatever year they get there. But, who knows: They've made this far on goals, guts and grit.

Like my thoughts on basketball, while I am neither player nor fan, at least with hockey I do enjoy it. I follow the game fairly religiously, but not to the point of being of being "holy" consumed with it.

You see, I am cool, calm, and collected, so that makes me a fan. It's when I am consumed with madness that I'm a fanatic.

Here's to insanity.

Something on my Mind: April Insanity (1)

2019-04-16T11:06:00.001-06:00

This is the time of year, at the time of writing, that many sports fans are glued to their phones, tablets, and that old-fashion thing called television, to watch basketball. Not just any basketball, but college basketball. And not just college basketball, but something appropriately called "March Madness."

It is the best of teams from all over the Sates meet and greet to defeat other teams for college basketball supremacy.

I think "Madness" is a great moniker, but for different reasons, which may offend my fans. I would rather be beat up for my views on vaccination than on college basketball.

All I can say, in my defence, is that it's only a game: five guys on each side, with very long legs, and a peach-coloured bouncy thing that keeps on flying around the court and stands.

The "March" part I get, even though it rolls over into early April. It's the "Madness" part I'm still not clear about. Is it "madness," as in the team gets mad because they don't win? Is it "madness" because a favourite team loses? Or "madness" because a certain form of madness consumes you while watching? Probably a little "yes" for all three.

I have never been much of a basketball player or fan. My first experience as a player was being cut from the grade nine team. (I guess that would make me a non-player.) I thought that was unfair: I threw up that orange thing into the mesh with no bottom a hundred times, scoring twice. Wasn't that good enough? Apparently not.

Just before I was cut, I was thrilled when they told me I was a guard. But I was not thrilled when I found out that I was to guard the Gatorade from the other team.

I learned a new meaning for "foul line." Have you ever played with a bunch of stinky players, your own teammates included? Now there's a new meaning for "foul." I know they usually take showers after the game. But before and during would be in order, too.

I never got a grasp (pun intended) of which end of the ball to hold. I tried to grab it like a baseball or football, and throw it properly, but I couldn't even do that.

And I never knew how to keep my hands off the other team's players (though in the proper way, of course). There is a science to it, I'm sure, but jumping up and down, waving my arms in front of his face, yet keeping at least six inches from his body, was way beyond me. I always wanted to say, "boo!" but apparently that wasn't appropriate. That would have netted me a foul, but not the stinky type.

That was fifty years ago, and I remember it as if it was yesterday.

March Madness will be long gone by the time you read this. There will be fifteen teams grinding through their way through year-end exams, with only one team still hungover from celebrating their madness.

But that's okay. We will then be in the middle of another form of "madness." I call it "April Insanity," Though it will actually include May and June.

It's the NHL play-offs, where more than half of the teams qualify for the post-season. It could go for twice as long or more as the college championships, maybe up to two months.

A thousand thoughts flood my mind, but I don't have the space or time to develop them. Let me predict:

1. No, the Vancouver Canucks will not be in the playoffs...surprise, surprise. However, neither will Edmonton, Detroit, nor Florida. There are a few other good teams that will be golfing earlier than hoped for, all good teams in their own right...just like Vancouver. Vancouver will be more ready than ever next year, what with all these very gifted young players they're grooming. We Canucks fans say that every year, but it's becoming a closer reality. Maybe for the 2021 finals, yes?

2. Calgary Flames, ahem, could go deep into the playoffs this year. Or again, maybe not. It's not hard to like them, starting from the coach and his assistants. If they don't go all the way, my vote is for Winnipeg (from the West).

Something on my Mind: They're Only Acting (2)

2019-03-19T08:30:00.001-06:00

I suppose I could criticize any number of careers and be justified doing so. I have issues with parts of some of the ones in which I have been employed these past forty years—mailman, preacher, teacher, and writer. But none set themselves up for such legitimate criticism as the acting fraternity.

I have suggested some issues in my previous column. I will repeat them and add a couple more:

1. saying things they don't mean or didn't even think up (via a script);

2. pretend to be someone they are not;
3. assume a significance in society that is not deserved or earned;
4. once they are on the way to "success," they throw out morality and propriety;
5. and are abject failures in their private lives (continuation of #4).

I alluded to some good actors a few columns ago. I know little about their respective personal lives, so I can't claim them as paragons of virtue.

From what I can tell, though, in addition to their great acting, they were also great people away from the camera. I see those actors as a different breed than the current roster. They weren't as empty as the ones we have now. I don't recall any of them taking "centre stage," about "this issue" or "that controversy." They had the liberty to do so, but common sense to not.

I am trying to recall movie that the aforementioned have been in in where there was unnecessary sex, bad language or gratuitous violence. I don't recall where life was portrayed in a false, empty way, where it was always wonderful, the grass was always green, and everyone lived always happily ever after.

Hollywood has its place, I suppose, in some quarters. I like entertainment as much as the next person, but I have to remind myself that they're only acting. I must take everything with a grain of salt. The last thing I need is Hollywood instructing me about religion, sex, inter-personal relationships, economics, the law and such.

I am cutting Hollywood some slack, because every now and then they actually come out with some terrific scenes that are very, very good. Roma, I hear, is a good example of that.

In a general sense, though, we must watch for these characters becoming role models or beacons of instruction for our children...and even for us old guys! And that includes the "good" ones I just referenced.

I don't know what goes on when the camera is not rolling. All I know is what I see when I am watching.

I get weary is when these guys and their liberal bedfellows are anarchistic, defiant, and, well, stupid, when it comes to expressing their opinion. There is hardly a day where some member of the Hollywood cult isn't attacking the aforementioned institutions.

Ponder this: Given an opportunity to speak their mind, ie., not use someone else's words, they come up empty-handed (or would that be empty-headed?). Many of them, who are on their last dollar, or their last gig was years ago (hello, Darryl Hanna or Lindsay Lohan), feel they have to shoot their mouth off repeatedly (but are "firing blanks"). Or feel the need to get involved in some social or environmental issue, without doing the research and knowing what they're talking about.

Surprise, surprise.

These guys are way in over their heads. They're just against anything that resembles law and order, conservatism, or a well-ordered society. Or worse, there's enough truth in what they're saying that they sound credible.

Hollywood is a mess and is overrun with these sorts of people. I am thankful to say, there are some solid, sound actors—though few and far between—who also have strong, rational conservative views.

In the main, when it comes to actors and actresses, my advice is to stick to the script. The script may not be them, but it's better than what they could offer off the set.

Please keep the acting where it belongs.

Something on my Mind: They're Only Acting (1)

2019-03-14T15:29:00.001-06:00

I have found that one of life's greatest pleasures for me has been acting. Over the years, usually through grade school, I have played some interesting roles. In recent years, I have had a part in two movies: In one, I am old Isaac from the Bible in a western; and in the other, I am a Roman centurion, without a name. I think "Delirious" would have been a good one.

But acting is one thing, being an actor is another. Actors (and I include actresses; I just don't want to write both words repeatedly) may do well in front of the camera, but it's their lifestyle off site that I have massive issues with. Re-stated: in front of the camera they're somewhere between "okay" and "good"; outside, in the real world, they are out of control.

Like the antics of athletes that I wrote about recently, I think many actors are over-rated, mostly for off site persona. I have heard of many who are terrible to work with. I wonder where they get this sense that the sun rises and falls on them.

Only in Hollywood can an employee say things they don't mean, be given god-like status for any number of reasons, but mostly because of their acting prowess or the shape of their body. And get filthy rich (more filthy than rich) while they're at it.

They can be as promiscuous as possible, something seen as good thing by the general populace. And while they are at it, they can be as defiant or irreligious as possible, too, all simply because of their status.

And these are the same heroes and heroines that our kids look up to. And it's not just the kids that have created a cult following among Hollywood's elite. Are these healthy role models?

As stated three paragraphs ago, I like acting, but I like good actors (and by extension, good movies). There are many of the latter, though once they are involved in unnecessary sex, bad language, or gratuitous violence, I'm out.

I struggle with what goes on in front of the camera (see above). But I also struggle with what goes on off site. It gets worse when they start giving their opinion about any number of issues, most of which they know nothing about. And even worse yet, they're given some sort of credibility by the unthinking public.

It is so hard to believe how many people are duped by these dupes.

For people who never have an original line in their profession, how can they actually express an original thought about anything significant, issues such as pipelines, the oil patch, economics, abortion, or gender issues.

If you ever waste your time trying to listen to these people when they get in front of a mic, you'll hear them always bashing anything conservative. Their targets are values, families, worldviews, and, of course, the usual whipping boy, governments. This makes them very popular with their snowflake fans.

We are all entitled to our opinions, no problem there. I'm expressing mine here. This is what marks a free society, and that is why many of us conservatives are alarmed at the growing muzzlement (not a word, Maurice) we feel these days. That's why it is so ironic that those with really nothing positive or substantial to say are not muzzled.

Many of the actors and actresses have so little content, yet generate so much talk. And that's only when they are not reading other peoples' lines for them.

There's a lot of bad actors out there, in more ways than one.

Something on my Mind: Karate Kid, You Not

2019-03-04T07:48:00.001-07:00

The most recent buzz around our house is a brand-new, weekly karate class. My youngest got it in his head that he wanted to try it, so he's trying (and liking) it. It calls for a quick trip to Lethbridge every Saturday, but it's worth the ride...so far.

He has just started, so there's a bit of a pattern of what happens for the hour-long class, and it runs something like this (with a touch of hyperbole added):

1. I drop my son off, then flee to do some necessary shopping, before the violence starts;

2. that is, of course, after I bowed to Master Suzuki, and grunt appropriately;

3. I return in time to pick him up (my son, that is), and head back to the sticks.

I don't know if my boy is being groomed to be my bodyguard or my assassin. Or neither. Maybe it's just for the exercise and to get out of the house.

There was some talk there about different degrees in a black belt. Or something like that. Big deal: I have one degree and about four black belts. Apparently I misunderstood.

Master Suzuki is an interesting study. He's a working stiff by day (electrician, if I recall), but a karate instructor by weekend. I wonder how he reacts to a client not paying his bill? A chop here or there? I'm sure he bows when he gets his cheque.

I applaud (now I'm serious, not wisecracking) anyone who works at a real job, then adds a hobby to help others. And I can assure you, he can't be in it for the money. He's hardly covering his gas to get to and from the centre, plus its rental.

In fact, it's really admirable that he puts himself out for so few kids, because there are only two kids in my son's class, and only one in the next one.

Word is out that they will amalgamate the first two classes, which makes sense, but that will still mean there are only three kids in the class. At that rate, the money is still the same, but he will save time and rent for that unused extra hour.

My son will be given his kimono the next time he shows up. To me, it's a bland housecoat, but I'm not taking the class. If I were, I would have preferred one with Donald Duck figures; even "Frozen" would have worked for me.

And I use my housecoat for lounging, reading, or watching a movie—vegging, if you will. The kimono that Suzuki has his students use is for the complete opposite purpose, namely, moving, thrashing, twisting, and other karate-type gestures. I think that if a kimono had a lion or gorilla silkscreened on it, it would be fitting.

And the belt: Mine usually holds my pants up, whereas the karate one holds the kimono in. The colours are the difference: black, I get; I'm just not sure what my brown belt means—that I can't find my black one?

People like me think there's a lot of damage to be done if one becomes an accomplished "karate kid" and loses control. That hardly happens, I understand. Apparently there's a lot more to it than that. I don't know what it is, but it has a philosophical and traditional element to it, one that involves honour and respect, accomplishments and success.

My black belt represents relief—that my pants won't fall down.

I'm not sure if the contact (fist on chest) feels any softer if Party A thrashes the you-know-what out of Party B. Who actually gets hurt when A touches B? Maybe that's where the expression "this hurts me more than it hurts you" came from, though I doubt it.

I am hoping my son will learn some self-defense tricks for the years to come. He doesn't really need them for his older brothers, as most have moved away. I just hope he doesn't use them on me when I ask him to do some chores:

"Son, wash dishes please, especially the ones with mould." Whack to the knee. "Son, pick up those socks that have been there for a week." Chop to the neck. "Son (if I'm still breathing), shut the door on your way out." Thrash, as he tosses me through that door.

Maybe if I could get him to bow to me like he bows to his instructor it would be worth it all.

Something on my Mind: The Business and Entertainment of Sports (2)

2019-02-26T10:30:00.000-07:00

So much for the business side of sports. What about the entertainment side?

I say "entertainment," and you think cheerleaders. You're partly right, but it sounds like you're lost in the '70s. If it's any consolation, so am I. Some might say that we've come a long since then, though I may disagree.

Anything that entertains the fans before, during, or after the game, falls under that category of "entertainment." Even when I go to 'Canes games, there are gift cards to be given away and free food if a certain amount of goals are scored; then there's the kissing cam, muscle cam, and singing country music cam.

I pray to God that they never focus on me: I don't kiss in public, I have no muscles, and I think modern country music is, well, I best not print what I think of it.

At other venues, there are tailgate parties, coupon for sponsors after the game, weekends away through lotteries for winners, 50-50 for those at the game, car displays on the ice in between periods, million dollar baskets if one can hit the net with the hole in it from the centre (and the same for placekicking from mid-field), and the list of fun and games goes on and on.

I'm just combining various sports, at random. I know which is which and I trust you do, too. So, no, Maurice, you can't have a tailgate party in February at a hockey game (try football in July), and no, again, you can't punt a ball at a basketball game (again, maybe in July at a football stadium).

Then there are the merchandise options galore for the consumer, er, fan. In jerseys alone, I think the Raptors (aka Canada's team) have five options they can either wear or sell—just not at the same time. There are major bucks in jersey sales, with suckers, er, fans, ready and willing to buy everyone of them.

I am focusing on jerseys for the purpose of brevity. If you ever have a slow night, trace the jersey history of any professional hockey team over, say, the past thirty years. Consider the colour logo design of the Vancouver Canucks, as an example. Very intriguing...and lucrative.

I know the above comments border on the business side of things, but it's actually entertainment, with the bent on bringing in people, keeping them happy (= entertained), and making tons of cash at the same time.

Some team should develop a new theme song, namely, "Ka-ching, Ka-ching." (It goes to the tune of "Sh-boom, Sh-boom.")

The NHL all-star game and the NFL Super Bore, er, Bowl, are cases in point. I suppose somewhere in the midst of the clamour of the halftime ruckus at the Super Bowl, or the hullabaloo of every NHL all-star weekend, there is a game. There's playing before the game, playing the games, then playing after game. It's gets a little overwhelming.

Can there be an actual college football game without the marching band? I didn't think so, either. Any team worth anything will have its own mascot, and sometimes it is actually more entertaining than the game itself. I can't comment on anything to do with the NBA because I don't watch it or follow it at all.

By the way, is Lew Alcindor still playing?

So my simple point is that we have turned basic sports into both a business conglomerate and Hollywood production. Is that bad? I don't think we have a "good" or "bad" discussion here. It's more, "Is it healthy? Wise? Meaningful?"

I answer all those questions in the negative. And I also see it as a refection on where our culture is going, and what the values it's embracing. Glitzy and ditzy are the order of the day, and the wilder, the better.

At this stage of my life, I like watching and analyzing most sports, and one of life's few pleasures. As this pattern of business and entertainment increases, I see a weird scene: hundreds, even thousands, of fans (who need the exercise) sitting on their respective duffs, watching the twelve or twenty-two players (who don't need the exercise) run, dash, and skate.

Something will have to give, and I fear it will actually be the fans. By the time it has all come crumbling down, the players will get the stardust, owners will get the gold dust, but the fans will get nothing but mere dust.

Maybe it's time to focus on something tame, like dart-throwing, bowling, or table tennis. I'm sure it would take a couple of decades to corrupt them.

Re: Something on my Mind: The Business and Entertainment of Sports (1)

2019-02-25T21:27:00.001-07:00

I agree with you.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM Craig Funston <funfam@telus.net> wrote:

I'm sure you recall when hockey was on television they played hockey and hockey only. Same goes for the other three major sports, namely basketball, football, and baseball.
And it's the national, even international, stage I'm thinking of, not some bantam hockey league in Taber.

I am neither a jock, nor the son of a jock. In fact, I'm even a crummy fan. I have my team favourites, but I don't follow any team, or any sport for that matter (okay, I have a few, but nothing serious). I follow the NHL the most of all the professional sports, and I suppose I am most loyal to the Lethbridge Hurricanes of the WHL.

Whether they win or lose is no big deal to me. Whatever the outcome, I still have to get up the next day and do whatever I have to do the next day. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

I find playing an armchair quarterback exciting, especially in hockey (though the word picture doesn't mesh). I would probably do well in a fantasy hockey opportunity. I love making trades, switching lines, and mimicking what general managers do in a real world context.

Where I am at odds with real world sports these days is how much the business side has taken over the sports side—and that's more on the part of the athletes themselves. (I'll address my concern for the entertainment side in my next column.)

As you may gather, I get caught up in all the trade rumours, as I hum, "Show me the money"—even though I don't believe it's a song. The outrageous salaries and terms are unconscionable (okay, maybe a little envy here). The decisions to shift from one team to another are often based on the money that's being thrown at the athletes.

Professional hockey is bad, but basketball and baseball are worse. I'm sure you've seen the salaries that I have, at millions of dollars a year. You must agree that they are staggering and unsustainable.

Some players are moved in, others are moved out; even franchises change cities, all because of the business side of the sport. This includes endorsements on the part of a select few players. Merchandise, such as hats, jerseys, pennants, mugs, and such, are such a big part of the team business, while the owners rake in a lot of dough.

That borders on the entertainment side of this theme, something I'll develop later.Players are toyed with and kept, so long as they can meet the business aspirations of the owners. Mind you, they are not victims: They get plenty of cash for being temporary toys, so I certainly don't feel badly when they get moved out or on to another team. Their wives and kids? Well, that's another sad story.
I am not minimizing the travel and training, the injuries and schedule, but that's a pretty small price to pay for the mega-salaries they get paid. It's not about the three-point line, blue line, scrimmage line, or foul line. It's only about the bottom line, both for the owners and the players.

I often wonder what athletes from these sports of twenty or thirty years ago feel about the direction professional sports is going these days. They never got in on the windfall that these current players get. I'm sure there are a lot of bitter former players out there.

It's just not healthy to maintain this trajectory of obscene salaries. It's not healthy for the individuals, the business, er the team, and even the fans, who have to pay increasingly high ticket prices.

And it's misleading, too. On a local level, take the 'Canes or the Tigers, as an example. How many eligible players even get drafted from these teams each year? And of those players, how many even end up the farm team? For that matter, how many even end up in the NHL?

Very, very few, that's how many.

Maybe that's why there is such an urge to get as much as you can, as often as you can.

Something on my Mind: The Business and Entertainment of Sports (1)

2019-02-20T11:00:00.001-07:00

I'm sure you recall when hockey was on television they played hockey and hockey only. Same goes for the other three major sports, namely basketball, football, and baseball.

And it's the national, even international, stage I'm thinking of, not some bantam hockey league in Taber.

I am neither a jock, nor the son of a jock. In fact, I'm even a crummy fan. I have my team favourites, but I don't follow any team, or any sport for that matter (okay, I have a few, but nothing serious). I follow the NHL the most of all the professional sports, and I suppose I am most loyal to the Lethbridge Hurricanes of the WHL.

Whether they win or lose is no big deal to me. Whatever the outcome, I still have to get up the next day and do whatever I have to do the next day. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

I find playing an armchair quarterback exciting, especially in hockey (though the word picture doesn't mesh). I would probably do well in a fantasy hockey opportunity. I love making trades, switching lines, and mimicking what general managers do in a real world context.

Where I am at odds with real world sports these days is how much the business side has taken over the sports side—and that's more on the part of the athletes themselves. (I'll address my concern for the entertainment side in my next column.)

As you may gather, I get caught up in all the trade rumours, as I hum, "Show me the money"—even though I don't believe it's a song. The outrageous salaries and terms are unconscionable (okay, maybe a little envy here). The decisions to shift from one team to another are often based on the money that's being thrown at the athletes.

Professional hockey is bad, but basketball and baseball are worse. I'm sure you've seen the salaries that I have, at millions of dollars a year. You must agree that they are staggering and unsustainable.

Some players are moved in, others are moved out; even franchises change cities, all because of the business side of the sport. This includes endorsements on the part of a select few players. Merchandise, such as hats, jerseys, pennants, mugs, and such, are such a big part of the team business, while the owners rake in a lot of dough.

That borders on the entertainment side of this theme, something I'll develop later.Players are toyed with and kept, so long as they can meet the business aspirations of the owners. Mind you, they are not victims: They get plenty of cash for being temporary toys, so I certainly don't feel badly when they get moved out or on to another team. Their wives and kids? Well, that's another sad story.
I am not minimizing the travel and training, the injuries and schedule, but that's a pretty small price to pay for the mega-salaries they get paid. It's not about the three-point line, blue line, scrimmage line, or foul line. It's only about the bottom line, both for the owners and the players.

I often wonder what athletes from these sports of twenty or thirty years ago feel about the direction professional sports is going these days. They never got in on the windfall that these current players get. I'm sure there are a lot of bitter former players out there.

It's just not healthy to maintain this trajectory of obscene salaries. It's not healthy for the individuals, the business, er the team, and even the fans, who have to pay increasingly high ticket prices.

And it's misleading, too. On a local level, take the 'Canes or the Tigers, as an example. How many eligible players even get drafted from these teams each year? And of those players, how many even end up the farm team? For that matter, how many even end up in the NHL?

Very, very few, that's how many.

Maybe that's why there is such an urge to get as much as you can, as often as you can.

Something on my Mind: An Election in the Air (2)?

2019-02-11T08:09:00.001-07:00

So we've established that this smell is not from a pig farm. And we've also established that any stinky business is unnecessary. But it seems inevitable. And unfortunately, it's going to get worse.

It's also inevitable that the political hopefuls or returnees will come to your door. Out of the goodness of my heart, I have come up with some helpful hints for you when talking to them:

1. Be civil. If you are very opposed to his or her policies, that's your call. But acting like a moron because of that disagreement is wrong. Not only is it not proper, and it implicates those in your camp as being equally equally guilty of imbecility, and besmirches the movement as a whole.

If we act by them, we could all be lumped in with that behaviour, and that's not fair. We see this already with those who reject the notion of, say, climate change, abortion, and other very touchy, personal matters. Someone sounds off about their view of these matters, but as right as they might be, they're wrong in how they go about it.

2. Be coherent. This means to be marked by critical thinking and clarity of speech. There is no place for f-bombs, inarticulateness (with an over-abundance of "you know," "like," "huh," as examples), and an overall inability to express oneself clearly.

As you will have a position on some issue, such as gun control, lay it out reasonably, so as to show why every citizen should be armed and responsible. Or if you have some common sense traditional views, based on finances, history, logic, and biology, speak them...well.

3. Be cogent. This is almost the same as #2, but it is a little different. You want to think through your concerns and expresses them well. You have concerns, but you're not trying to defend them—that's where it's a little different.

You simply want to see where Politician A or B stands on certain issues. As a voting citizen, you have every right to know. And he or she has a responsibility to tell you—and more so if he or she gets elected. If they are not clear, get them to work at it again.

A few issues come to my mind, so I will pass them along to you, just in case nothing comes to your mind. These are three of many that I have, and I will develop more for you beyond them. The following may or may not be provincial matters, but it wouldn't hurt to bring them up in a civil, coherent, and now cogent manner.

a. what is their position on parental rights? This is a very big one, and a paragraph or two is embarrassingly inadequate. This involves the rearing of children, their education and protection; it covers vaccinations, and a host of evidences of the state taking over essential family responsibilities.

b. what is their position on electoral recall? I have a feeling you'll be seeing this more and more in this election. I am hearing all sorts of concerns about the complete lack of accountability these days. If Politician A or B is not doing his/her job well, or even not doing anything at all, they are a detriment to the honour and privilege their elected office. There needs to be a means for recall, and the sooner the better.

c. what is their position on climate change? There has been a shift in semantics,from "global warming" to "climate change" in these last few months., to say nothing of a shift in logic and focus. "Why the change?" you may want to ask them. Ask them about the historical and scientific evidences against climate change. bThen while they are on the ropes about this one, talk about the financial mess that climate change is creating, and the lack of justification for making these massive, economic shifts and the ramifications to humans.

On that note, your list may include other matters close to your heart. That's good. My list includes a few of the many that are close to my heart.

If they are still in one piece after your pleasant grilling, good on them. If they are not, I hope it wasn't because you weren't civil, coherent, or cogent. This election is bound to be one of most significant elections in decades.

And when it comes time to vote, do it with your eyes open and your nose plugged.

Something on my Mind: An Election in the Air? (1)

2019-01-24T20:34:00.001-07:00

There's something in the air these days, and I'm just not clear what it is—a new pig farm around the corner? Or could it be a provincial election?

I partially jest: There's no pig farm within miles. So that odour must be the smell of another political fight—the whole gamut of feisty political bickering.

I should be happy that there will likely be a provincial election called sometime in March, with the big day sometime in May. I say, "Bring it on": I have strong political interests, and a deep concern for the state of affairs here in Alberta. I have expressed my views on occasion in this space, and I am sincerely glad I still have the freedom to do so.

Even if you don't agree with me on every point, I have no problem with healthy, civil discussion. It's one of the hallmarks of a democratic society, and long may it last.

Unfortunately, I am finding that healthy discussion both stateside and provinceside (not a word, but quippy nonetheless) is hitting some troubling times these days.

It's the "healthy" part that concerns me.

So when I say "healthy," I mean concerns that are well-thought out, thinking that is constructively critical, the absence of mudslinging, and the right to disagree without lying. I think that covers all the bases.

A case in point is the government shutdown in that large country just south of us (commonly know as the "United States of America." Maybe they should be called the "Divided States of America.) It is unfathomable how badly things are going down there. We certainly don't want to head that way ourselves, do we ?

When I hear the venom, vulgarity, and vitriol, and the threats, tripe, and taunts, I shudder. These are the leaders of one of the greatest countries and this is how they treat each other in public? Oh my, what do they say to each other in private? No wonder there is a complete disrespect for the political process. No wonder we are losing a lost generation of voters.

I trust, as we slink into a provincial election, that those vying for office won't stoop to that behaviour. If they do, that is part of "stench" I referred to earlier.

We need government, but from my vantage point, just a lot less of it. We have currently far more ministries than necessary. I trust that if a different party wins, one of the first things they do will be to reduce the cabinet.

Another thing I trust they will do is to be answerable to the people. Granted, every whim of every citizen cannot be met, but I would like to see some attempt at least in listening to those they represent. This could come in the form of a townhall meetings. After all, the word "minister" actually means to be a "servant " to the people, something that has been lost in the expression of leadership.

Even as I write, a number of promises have been made, along with a number of fabrications about the other party. How true is each one? That's really up to the discerning voter. I won't say who said what, but I'm only working with the real contenders, namely, the NDP and the UCP.

My greatest concern at this stage of the unofficial race—and it's going to get worse once the election gets some traction and desperation takes over—is the blatant animosity that will mark and (ultimately) mar the race. I've used a bunch of words about five paragraphs ago that would describe it, so I don't want to use them again.

The question begs: Why?

It's not only Left vs. Right...NDP vs UCP...Albertans vs. Albertans. No, it's every every political stripe, every jurisdiction, every country. It's not just Alberta nor even Canada, either. It seems worldwide.

It's down and dirty from the get-go, sad to say. Just watch the legislature channel sometime. That channel should be censored, so your kids don't see how our leaders treat each other.

It's just too bad when an election gets confused with a pig farm.

Something on my Mind: I Love Lucy...and Mary...Bob Newhart (2)

2019-01-14T14:19:00.001-07:00

Now where are we? Oh right, snuggled up on a couch, watching Ralph Kramden threatening to send Alice to the moon...

Here are further reasons why getting old DVDs from the local library is a great past-time.

4. real lifestyle This reason is the most serious of them all. There are a number of other series from that era (mid-'50s to mid-'70s) that don't cut it for me. Either they are too racy, at least by the time they get into the '70s, or they're too lame, as in sterile and stereotypical. You can pick your own examples.

I have been amazed at the real life issues that have come up in each of these sitcoms I've mentioned. Money matters, employment challenges, inter-personal misunderstandings, health setbacks, or tensions in the home and the workplace, are often covered.

Sounds like a dose of real life to me, unlike the so-called reality shows of today.

The two extremes I hate about the other types of sitcoms are: 1. there's nothing more important than sex; and 2. life is wonderful, easy, and problem-free. Nothing could be further from the truth in either case, these days more than ever.

I think these oldies but goodies nail it, namely, playing out life in a balanced, realistic yet humourous manner.

5. inexpensive entertainment I don't know how important inexpensive (or even free) entertainment is to you, but it is to me. I don't do many movies in any given year, but considering I am almost an hour from a theatre, it can be an expensive evening. There's the ticket(s), popcorn and drink (not for me, but maybe for the kids, if they're with me). Then maybe a coffee and snack afterwards. I will likely have to pick up the tab for any kid that comes along with. And did anyone consider the extra gas?

On the other hand, the advantage of staying home with a good comedy is multi-fold:

a. there's a savings in time: no hours taken up with driving there, watching, eating out, then driving home;

b. there's a savings in energy: all that effort in getting dressed up, even casually (we do that still) is replaced by dressing down. After all, a movie night routine isn't complete unless one is in one's "jammers" (funny talk for pyjamas);

c. there's a savings in money: I already mentioned the cost of snacks, gas, and wear and tear on your real fine "409";

d and there's a savings in food: if you go out to a movie, you can can have popcorn or...popcorn. At home, you can still have popcorn, but you can have so much more, if you so desire. I don't "so desire," so this savings is lost on me.

6. free therapy Maybe "therapy" sounds too heavy a reason for watching a DVD at night, but it is true. Call it what you like, but it is a nice change of pace, a break from the norm, something different, or a place to take your mind off the usual routine.

They don't call it "amusement" for nothing: To "muse" means to think or ponder; put the negative prefix ("a") in front of it, and it means "to not think or ponder"--hence, amusement, amusing, or even amusement park. So if someone finds you "amusing," that actually may not be a compliment.

Consider movie watching a place to put your thinking on hold, to have a mind fast, if you will.

Obviously, too much of anything is still too much, and that even includes pizza—although I am not sure how you can ever have too much pizza.

Being consumed with too many movies over too many nights with too many mindless plots, gratuitous sex or violence is just, well, too much. Nothing--I repeat, nothing—good comes from that.

Here's to a night out (by staying in), stimulating entertainment (yet it's free), and a break from the routine (without going anywhere).

Happy brain fast.

Something on my Mind: I Love Lucy...and Mary...and Bob Newhart (1)

2019-01-08T22:33:00.001-07:00

The Christmas break (which is when I am writing this) is the best time of the year for me to catch up on watching really old television shows, via a DVD here, a DVD there. I indulge a little (30 to 60 minutes, every few days) just before I go to bed. It's nice to fall asleep with a laugh track ringing in my ears.

A little background is in order, though.

I was born and raised in the '50s and '60s, respectively, and by the mid- '70s, I was off to university. The point being, I was raised without a boob tube in the house. I finally got around to getting one for my family about ten years into our marriage (early '90s). I dropped cable after a little while, but hung on to the box. So as you can tell, I have had very little exposure to television, even as an adult, the odd hotel stay notwithstanding.

I guess it's a coincidence, but the DVDs that generally come out of the '50s and '60s, with the early '70s thrown in. It seems I can relate to that era, even though I was never exposed to television while I was being raised then.

The afore-mentioned box allows me choose what I watch, which is the basis for today's column. And all my DVDs come from the public library. It's actually quite a broad and safe selection. And it's free: But that doesn't mean I'm cheap, just frugal.

Back to the Dark Ages, my kidhood (not a word, Maurice) for a moment: I really believe that the absence of a television in my formative years has been instrumental in framing my rational and creative mental processes--a stark contrast to many children who have been dumbed-down by sitting in front of a screen during their early years.

No offence or bragging; just a passing observation.

However, there are studies to prove that statement, but I want the next two columns to be light and winsome, not heavy and ponderous. If you're interested, you can google it.

But having one's thinking, outlook, and applied intelligence diminished by a small or large screen is an unfortunate way to be raised, isn't it? Occasionally, maybe; regularly, not so good.

Where was I? Right, watching goofy sitcoms in my old age, or more precisely, explaining the value and pleasure of doing such. And why do I find watching Dick, Morey, Rose, and Mary (their real names), followed by Mary, Ed, Gavin, and Ted, then by Lucy and her gang, so enjoyable? And I can't forget Jackie and Art with their television wives, either.

Glad you asked. Let me count the ways:

1. clean humour They provide safe time and place to wind the day down, without being insulted and assaulted with crude, toilet humour. I don't need the innuendos nor the blatant, in-your-face garbage that is passed off as humour.

I have found that in "I Love Lucy" (most of the '50s), "The Honeymooners" (one season in the '50s), "The Dick van Dyke Show" (early '60s), and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" (most of the '70s), the quips were short, obvious, well-timed, and clean...for the most part.

I'd be remiss to leave the two memorable series with Bob Newhart, one as a psychologist and the second one as an innkeeper. There are others (eg., "Get Smart"), but I'll stop right there.

It's noteworthy that as these shows moved further and further into the '70s (including "Hogan's Heroes"), the jokes got cruder and cruder, and more sex-related ones popped up. By the time the '80s rolled around, it was an unfortunate display of both lame and dirty jokes.

2. clever script Believe it or not, I really enjoy the dialogue for these shows. I just appreciate great gags and witty repartee anytime. There have been many very clever and refreshing exchanges that I enjoy and finme them amazingly crafted.

3. family affair The various sitcoms are very family-friendly. That means that it's safe for my kids to sit with me and watch them, without any fear on my part that something shady or suggestive, or more blatant than that, could show up unannounced.

Of course, my kids wouldn't be caught dead doing that with me for a host of reasons.

I've got a couple more reasons next week. In the meantime, why don't you dash down to your local library...for a laugh?

Something on my Mind: New Year's Wishes (2)

2018-12-31T15:16:00.001-07:00

We're continuing our wish list for the New Year...

Think better This wish for the New Year follows naturally from assessing eating and sleeping habits, then changing them. I have found many "brain-dead" people (and not just junior high students) who are so sluggish mentally because of poor eating and sleeping habits.

In other words, poor physical health will invariably lead to poor mental health. (That is a much, much bigger [and sensitive] topic than I have room for a in few lines in this column.)

My advice for your New Year's Wish List is to become a critical thinker. And it's "critical," as in analytical, forensic, and objective—not as in nitpicking and cranky. The two can be confused for each other, but they are polar opposites.

Thinking better means to examine all news stories, information, and opinions of celebrities, politicians, and even religious leaders and friends. It should lead to healthy dialogue and exchange of ideas, even if we don't necessarily agree. It's hard to find common ground these days at any level, over any matter, in any medium.

I have found that things would be better if we could just think things through.

Speak better This wish is all about proper communication, which includes "writing better," too. As an aside, my writing is still a work in progress, and I am constantly trying to improve my written communication skills.

But "speaking better" is my focus here. This involves elocution skills, namely, articulation, pronunciation and enunciation. It means having a good vocabulary and colourful words (versus "colourful language"). I'm thinking of deleting words such as "like," "huh," "wha," (not to be confused with "what") and "you know," unless absolutely necessary.

I suppose there's also a place for coded language (aka slang) among peers, but in any conventional setting, it is best to speak in such a way that your hearers understand you.

I use a lot of idioms and colloquialisms (that's part of the "colourful words"), only to discover my listeners didn't get them. That usually means I spend probably a third more of my time explaining what I meant in the first place, which is a serious (but necessary) waste of time. It's better to be clear in the first place.

Spend better This may strike you as an oddball wish for the New Year, but actually it's not. This is a wish that is so essential for all of us. While we may vary in how much money we have, at least we all have some.

Do you ever use coupons? Do you usually wait for sales before you purchase things? What about shopping at thrift stores, or is that beneath you? Eat out a lot? Buy in bulk? Prepare food at home in advance of the weeks to come? Is fresh versus frozen an option for you?

My folks were not wealthy by any stretch, but they had exceptionally good money habits. My wife is likewise a very good money manager. She learned that from her mother.

In terms of our family, she had to be: We have always lived on one salary, with nine kids, for years. In fact, at one point, I spent ten years living a without a regular income (a Christian worker, with a "guaranteed" monthly income of only $400-$600). The rest came in the mail...usually. We got by, by God's grace, and lived to write about it.

My desperate concern is for our institutions (schools, churches, and mostly governments) to be far more responsible with how they work with budgets and taxes. Money management with either will make us or break us as a nation—and mismanagement is breaking us these days.

Much of good money mismanagement starts in the home. Children who observe the careful spending habits of their parents grow up to be adults who know how to handle their money wisely.

So there you have it: eating, sleeping, thinking, speaking, and spending better are five key New Year's Resolutions that we should all aim for.

Happy (and better) New Year!

Something on my Mind: New Year's Wished (1)

2018-12-26T16:37:00.001-07:00

If this is early January, then this is the time of year that we are driven to make significant changes in our life and lifestyle. Doughnuts are replaced by granola bars, milkshakes give way to skim milk, and a walk to the fridge becomes a walk around the block. Add the cheesy smile to your next door neighbour.

But by the middle of January we throw in the towel, and drop the diet, and stop the exercise routine...at least till next January.

It's really hard to implement all these great ideas into one's daily regimen. It's even harder to wake up one day to discover you can no longer stand drinking almond milk and eating fewer carbs on a regular basis. That includes no longer being able (or willing?) to walk for twenty minutes, or to spend thirty minutes on the treadmill on a regular basis.

It's tough to realize it isn't going to happen anymore, and that you just have to be that flabby and cranky old person you always were—no matter how hard you try to improve. Or, as someone might say, " another piece of cheesecake, please, and will you hurry up and shovel my driveway?"

Well, that makes 2019 a new year but the same old you.

What you need is a change that is not quite so drastic. Make small changes in your current lifestyle, that's all--one day at a time, one step at a time, one gulp at a time.

Let me work with the word "better," and see what I can come up with for you. And this advice is free of charge, or at least till the middle of January, when I get cranky again myself. It is as follows:

Eat better I say "better" because a. you already eat; and b. you probably have some things in your diet that you could possibly cut down on, though not necessarily cut out. The battle with carbs, dairy, and sweets, is a never ending one. And it's important to focus on the battle and not the war with this one.

I am not "Dr. Fun," a nutrition or diet specialist, but I am fully aware you are what you eat. Of course, if that was the case, I would be a chicken, but I don't think that's what it means.

Eating better could mean that you scrap most of your pills, like I have, and you just get serious about a well-balanced diet, like I do. It means you eat what you want, but in moderate proportions. I think there is a lot of "weighty" misinformation out there and this obligates you to buckle down to investigate for yourself. Investigation is a good "exercise." Every body (versus everybody) is different, and you should eat whatever works with yours.

That means fewer supplements, less processed food and sugar, more fruits and vegetables, more bran and vitamins. if necessary, spend more money on healthy food, You only have one body and one life, and it's worth the investment. The Bible calls your body a "temple," and you should care for it accordingly.

Sleep better It has taken me years to get this down pat. For years I would stay up late, sleep in later than I should. In my first full-time job (a letter-carrier), forty years ago, it was really, really tough to get to work on time, 6:30 am. Today it would be a breeze.

In fact, at this point in time, I consider sleeping in till 6:30 naughty and slothful (okay, slight exaggeration). I find if I go to bed regularly (and that means well before midnight), I have a better sense of physical and mental balance for the next day. Do that every day, you'll be more productive and sweeter for weeks and months to come.

Maybe even "forever," but forever is a long time.

I don't know your evening habits, and how much junk you watch late into the night, but I suggest that could be tweaked. And that also includes surfing for hours on your electronic toys. There's no doubt that changing your habits will clearly benefits your sleeping habits.

Some people are night owls, something I once was. Now I'm an early bird and it works for me. And you know which one gets the worm...if it's worms you're after. You can't be both. If you try, though, then you become sleep-deprived and that's very unhealthy. I know some who live that away, because I can count the bags under their eyes.

So, promise yourself that you'll go to bed earlier than usual this coming year, then get up a little earlier than usual, even if it's 30 minutes earlier at each end. You'll want to increase it to an hour as soon as possible, working up to something well before midnight in order to get your eight hours in. After that, feel free to text me and gush over my helping you feel so much better.

If you want to reward me for my wonderful advice, a gift card for "Sleep Country" could work.

Please, though, don't do it any time after 9:30pm. I'll be asleep by then.

Something on my Mind: Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus

2018-12-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, the following song may not have the same rhythm or appeal as, say, "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer," to be sure. But there is a historical, biblical, emotional, and sociological depth to it that I truly appreciate.

And it alarms me that, as a society, we continue to become more secular, we are losing an appreciation for these old Christmas spirituals. I am not saying that that's all we should sing. Nor am I saying that some of these "newer" ones (at least from the '40s, '50s and '60s) should be banned, not at all.

I just find so many ditties today cheapen the real meaning of Christmas.

The following songs are just a few that I really enjoy: "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas," "I'll be Home for Christmas," "Deck the Halls with Balls of Holly." They are uptempo and uplifting, with a lot of fun lyrics.

The author of the following Christmas hymn was Charles Wesley, brother of the preacher, John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodist church. As I am neither a Methodist nor a musician, so I can write about this man and his songs without any bias.

This Charles Wesley was an interesting character: He was the eighteenth child of nineteen, and a prolific songwriter (having written almost 9,000 songs in his lifetime).

The song? I thought you would never ask! Think about the following words of one of the most venerable Christmas hymns that has been around for over 300 years:

"Come, thou long-expected Jesus, born to set Thy people free.
From our fears and sins release us; let us find our rest in Thee.

Israel's Strength and Consolation, Hope of all the earth Thou art;
Dear Desire of every nation, joy of every longing heart.

Born Thy people to deliver, born a Child and yet a King,

Born to reign in us forever, now Thy gracious kingdom bring.

By Thy own eternal Spirit, rule in all our hearts alone;
By Thine all-sufficient merit, raise us to Thy glorious throne."

Were things as bad then as they now? Was he writing a social commentary on the state of affairs with England? I'm thinking "yes" in both cases. It is so meaningful that what he sensed in his culture was the need to have a Deliverer—just like today, yes?

Let me isolate a few phrases for you: "...born to set His people free. From our fears and sins release us." That part is still so relevant to us today, isn't it?

"By Thy own eternal Spirit, rule in all our hearts alone." Again, that's a real sentiment that applies to us today.

Believe it or not, I'm actually not trying to preach here. My suggestion for you and yours is to pull these old hymns from somewhere in your house. If not, pull them off the Internet. Are you up for singing them? I promise that I won't sneak in and listen, if that's any consolation.

There is a depth of meaning for everyone who cares to listen to these types of songs. I find intriguing that what Mr. Wesley observed and "commented on" back then is still as relevant today, perhaps even more so.

Your journey into the hallowed world of these old, stalwart hymns could add a little zest to this year's celebration. And I assure you, it won't involve your grandma getting hurt by a reindeer.

Something on my Mind: It's the most Wonderful Time of the Year--sez who?

2018-12-07T08:30:00.000-07:00

I basically agree with that song. You may remember from previous columns the many reasons why I love Christmas, despite it being trashed and thrashed by the culture at large. But then again, maybe you don't remember

Hey, I write this stuff and I can't always remember what I wrote over the years.
But what I do know is not everyone thinks this is "the most wonderful time of year"--and for different reasons. More on that later.
Let's look at the positive side of things first. There are four groupings of people (maybe more) who love this time of year, for a host of different reasons.
1. Retailers. The precise percentage of their sales during this season has escaped me, but it is disproportionately high. Apparently the profits from November and December's sales exceed the other ten months combined. I too would consider that a wonderful time of the year, if my profits were that good.
2. Kids. Every child I know loves the gifts, food, decorations, even the break from school. I know that because, well, I was a kid once. And there is a kid in every one of us, whether we're 25 , 55, or 85.
3. Lovers, especially lovers who have just gotten engaged. There is something special about the rush of anticipating spending the rest of one's life with Mr. Dreamboat or Miss Hotstuff. And if those feelings persist over the years, then Christmas is so much more special.
4. Churches. This is a really exciting time of year for Bible-believing churches. Those that take the Bible literally see the story of Jesus' birth, and the peace and hope that comes out of it, as very meaningful.
So it always baffles me when the secularists try to eradicate anything to do with Christ at Christmas (after all, it is CHRIST-mas, you know). Not only is it shortsighted and unfortunate, it's wrong.
That's a natural segue into why not everyone thinks this is "the most wonderful time of year."
1. Secularists. I have alluded to them already, as I know this season grates on their nerves. To them, they hate the thought of celebrating the birth of someone they question ever existed, or if He did, wasn't too significant. It's hard for them to get past that Babe, but if they could, they would see the goodwill and joy that His birth has brought to humanity.
2. Anti-Semites. That's a fancy-schmancy term for Jew haters. I'm not sure if there is a rational reason for such contempt, but it is prevalent and growing. The basis for their feelings is that Jesus was born a Jew in what has become Israel. Anti-Semites include all secularists and religions that despise anything to with Israel.
3. Bereaved ones. These are people who have lost family members: literally, through death; or, figuratively, through broken relationships. To celebrate the joy of the season over the years, then to have that bond ripped away, makes this season very painful.
My wife herself lost an uncle (her dad's brother) and aunt (her mom's sister) in 2018. It will impact the season for her, as well the closer relatives.
Others may not get their own separate category, but I am thinking of those who just received some bad news from their doctor, those workers at the GM plant in Oshawa, as well as members and parents of the Humboldt Broncos—just a few groupings that have come to me as a I write. It will not be the same for them as it was for last year's Christmas.
So, is it "the most wonderful time of the year" for you?
Maybe you're not up for it, but why don't you try to do something special for yourself and for others. Try a different dish, play a different board game, or have someone different over for games and snacks?
And have yourself "the most different time of the year" this time.

Something on my Mind: Gift Exchange (2(

2018-11-29T08:29:00.001-07:00

Just a few more thoughts today on gift exchanges and other traditions over Christmas holiday.

The allure of a gift exchange is multi-level. Not only is there the appeal of teasing the receiver, but there's the novelty of getting something quite unexpected, of tapping into people's ingenuity, and if you don't like the gift, at least you have something for next year's gift exchange.

What sort of other things do you do around this time of year? There are some really questionable ones that people do over the holidays. I am speaking specifically of mistletoe and drinking.

In terms of mistletoe, I don't mind kisses, but I prefer a. the chocolate type; and if not, b. the private non-chocolate type. Public smooching with anyone other than one's wife (in my case) is degrading to all involved

And excessive drinking is nothing less than a tragedy, when you think of the wasted money, the resulting behaviour, and God forbid, the permanent damage caused by a drunk driver.

By now you may have gathered that there are neither mistletoe nor drink at my place over the holidays.

While we're looking at things we do at Christmas, what other traditions do you have? Or what games do you play during this season? For ourselves, we don't have a lot of traditions, though board games are a top priority.

Games can be therapeutic at every level. It's good for the family to sit around a table, laughing, ribbing, chilling, and drinking...eggnog. It's kind of like the old-fashioned days when families talked to each other.

And winning isn't everything, but playing one's best is. Although I must be honest with you, do like to win.

I even see playing games as an education tool. There are a lot of word and number games out there that are very helpful. It's just a different way to appreciate Language Arts and Math, where you can use "education" and "fun" in the same sentence. There are so many ways to approach learning the basics, and games are just one of them.

Christmas is a slower time of year, thus allowing greater time to do things like this together. It seems so old-fashioned, I suppose, in this day and age where too many family members hide behind a screen for the evening, rather than play face-to-face with family and friends alike.

Being a wannabe wordsmith, I am naturally drawn to games like Scrabble, Boggle, and Taboo. And on the numbers side of games of things, I like Rummikub (the last syllable is pronounced "cyube," not "cub" for some reason).

In fact, like many math-based games, it's really hard to cheat at Rummikub (see previous column on gift deception). As you most likely know, you start with so many tiles, each with a number and a colour assigned to it. It's pretty upfront with what you're doing. The goal is to get rid of all of your tiles as quickly (and honestly) as possible.

Rummikub is that sweet balance of luck and happenstance, on the one hand, and intelligence and strategy, on the other. You are dealt so many tiles to start with—that's the "luck" part. After that, you need to take charge and make something of what you've been given.

Can you see where I'm going with this? No? Let me help you:

1. There's a metaphor of life found in Rummikub. We're all born with certain inherent and different qualities. We're "dealt" with a set of tiles with which we must do something positive with.

2. What we do with what we have is up to us. There is no place for entitlement (neither demanding it nor flaunting it). There is no place for floating or free-loading through life. We all have that same God-given opportunity to make something of our respective lives.

At least, those are the lessons I get from playing Rummikiub. I'll be honest with you, though: I don't actually think such heavy philosophical thoughts when I am trying to win.

And unlike a gift exchange, it's really hard to cheat. And that may not be a bad thing, whether it's a gift exchange or life itself.

Merry Christmas...and may the best man win.