Blogging at the Big Dog

There is such a thing as too much tolerance.

Take the case of more than 400 children removed from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compound in Texas last week. The leadership of this absent-when-God-was-handing-out-brains cult would have us believe their way of life is protected by the United States Constitution because it ostensibly falls under the umbrella of "freedom of religion." This, of course, is a red herring designed to distract from the fact their beliefs deprive their membership of the more fundamental right to liberty.

Advocates who want to hand these poor kids back to their parents argue the equally abused mothers don't know any better because they have been brutally conditioned by the megalomaniacal, polygamist male leadership. The answer to that is quite simple: just because you don't know something is wrong doesn't make it right. Many serial killers don't know what they are doing is wrong either, but, as a society, we would never tolerate murder under the guise of tolerance for disparate belief systems.

The authorities did the correct thing in removing those kids. Ultimately, right or wrong (I would argue right), their way of life is against the law. The First Amendment doesn't protect Catholic priests from being prosecuted for child abuse and it doesn't give Muslims licence to practice Shariah law. Why should the FLDS be above the law?

As tragic as this situation is, however, the truly scary thing is that the FLDS is merely the radical outermost fringe of a much more mainstream movement bent on a campaign of historical revisionism the like of which the world has rarely seen and which is currently the gravest threat to humanity.

The big problem with groups like FLDS, is they make the much more dangerous core wingnuts look moderate by comparison. It has been dubbed "the religious right" or "moral majority" (and is neither right nor moral), but whatever you want to call it, evangelical Christianity American-style has much more in common with the FLDS than not. In fact, it is more similar to militant Islam than to traditional Christianity (the Inquisition and Crusades notwithstanding).
 
They have convinced millions of Americans to embrace ignorance over education. They are slowly but surely rewriting American history to reposition the world's largest secular democracy as a Christian nation. They would have us believe biblical literalism is as legitimate as scientific evidence simply on the basis of the strength of their faith. They are waiting, indeed praying, for the apocalypse as set out in Revelations, a book that almost didn't make it into The Bible in the first place. And, while they may not be promising 72 virgins, they are recruiting martyrs for Christ in much the same way as their militant Muslim counterparts with the same carrot of eternal life in Paradise. Their insidious influence has infiltrated Congress, The White House and the public education system. Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon Church, of which FLDS is an offshoot, was almost a contender for the presidency.

Chris Hedges, in his book American Fascists: The Relgious Right and the War on America, likens these blood-thirsty, Bible-wielding zealots to the Nazis and warns it is time for sensible people to take a stand lest we be undone by our own tolerance.

I whole-heartedly concur. It is poignant the same First Amendment that promises religious freedom also guarantees freedom of expression and the press. The evangelical movement is doing its damndest to supress the latter in favour of the former, providing the former corresponds to their own narrow interpretation. They claim religion, specifically their religion, is under attack, a classic fascist tactic, even though it has become politically incorrect to even question someone's religious convictions.

It is incumbent upon all thinking persons to question and to take action against what is quickly becoming an imminent danger. Granted, it is a tricky balancing act. We wouldn't want to fight fascism with fascism, but remaining silent is de facto acceptance and we've all seen what a mess that can create.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel sorry for Seamus O’Regan?

Half the time, the Canada AM anchor looks like he’s squirming in his seat with the inane antics of the seemingly obligatory wild and zany weather guy, in particular, and the forced upbeat and hip format of the show, in general. It’s like a viral infection of stupidity spreading through all broadcast media. Curse you, Regis Philmon!

By all appearances, O’Regan seems to want to be a serious journalist and I can just imagine him thinking ’I gotta get out of here and onto a legitimate news program.’ If there are any left, of course, (apologies to Lloyd Robertson).

I know, I know, ’if you don’t like it don’t watch it.’ I wouldn’t, except when I get up at 6 a.m. to drive my lovely and oh-so-tolerant wife to work, she is invariably watching it. Thankfully, she puts up with my cranky rants in her--ungodly for that time of the morning--cheerful way saying merely, "I like it."

Maybe I’m just getting crotchity in my middle age, but all the superfluous (not witty) banter, ridiculously un-newsworthy fluff pieces and general cheeriness just gets on my nerves and grates against my journalistic sensibilities.

Don’t worry, it’s nothing a little yoga and caffeine won’t cure. I used to look forward to being a crotchity old man, but I’m working on a new plan of becoming just eccentric.

I am such an idiot. To think a glass of sour milk could have made me rich and I didn't take advantage of it.

In 1990, I sat down for breakfast at the Newport Restaurant, a popular Ottawa eatery, not knowing that my life was about to be ruined. The milk was tainted and it made me sick. To this day, I can't drink the stuff without first smelling it. My bones are getting brittle from lack of calcium. It's ruined relationships with laissez-faire, milk-swilling girlfriends. All I got was complimentary ham and eggs. I should have hired a lawyer.

What really makes me sick is the case of Wadda Mustapha who found a couple of fly carcasses, probably well-sterilized fly carcasses, in a Culligan water bottle. Boo hoo. Get over it. The Ontario Superior Court judge who originally awarded Mustapha $345,000 should be giving his head a shake. This is the worst kind of example of the victim culture we're importing into our country from our southern neighbours.

Now the Supreme Court of Canada is being forced to waste more public resources to hear the case after the Ontario Court of Appeal rightly overturned Mustapha's ridiculous suit.

Instead of revisiting Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada, the country's highest court should be prosecuting Mustapha and, especially his lawyer, for frivolous litigation.

I also found a cigarette butt in an unopened bottle of Labatt's Blue one time. I was thrilled to get a free 2-4 out of it.  

A third of a million bucks worth of psychological damage from a couple of flies? Give me a break.

What child hasn’t dreamed of greatness?

 

As a kid, I whiled away countless hours pitching a tennis ball against the brick wall at St. John the Apostle Elementary School in Ottawa.

 

More often than not it was the seventh game of the World Series, bottom of the ninth and I was simultaneously the star athlete and colour commentator.

 

“It’s a full count with two out and runners in scoring position for Reggie Jackson. A hit now and the Yankees will be world champions again. Barker winds up and delivers a blistering fastball. Strike three! The rookie from Canada has struck out the Yankee slugger and won the World Series for his Montreal Expos!”

 

I was a pretty decent ball player back in the day, but my capacity for fantasy far surpassed my capacity for the discipline and sacrifice becoming an elite athlete entails.

 

As my focus turned to the arts, my dreams of glory did not diminish. I can’t tell you how many times lapses of concentration while creating songs or writing stories has turned into Grammy Award or Nobel Prize acceptance speeches.

 

As a little girl, Janelle Yardley dreamed of curling with the best of the best. As she competed in the drafty, corrugated aluminum rinks of Northwestern B.C., she no doubt had visions of making the perfect draw or double raise against Colleen Jones to win the Scotties Tournament of Hearts.

 

The difference, of course, is that last week, while I was scribbling notes at the press table at that very event, Janelle was living the dream.

 

The hard truth of the matter is that, while we all have the same capacity to dream, very few of us ever actually reach an elite level in whatever it is we wind up doing. By middle age, the vast majority of us are looking back on a series of near misses, squandered potential and reduced expectations.

 

I’ve interviewed my fair share of people who have reached the pinnacle in their fields: athletes, politicians, business magnates, musicians and scientists. You’d think it would be a little bit depressing, a reminder that I may be around them, but I’m not among them.

 

It’s not depressing, though, on the contrary. There are a few characteristics all of these people share. Paramount among those traits is the attitude that losing is not a failure, or even a setback, but an opportunity for growth. They remind as that dreams do come true; that glory is achievable; that success is not necessarily in the result, but in the trying.

 

I offer my congratulations to Smithers’ latest great achiever, Janelle Yardley, and thank her for reminding me it’s okay to dare to dream.

There is a new breed of environmentalist emerging, one that has traded in altruistic ideology for a form of pragmatic fatalism.
Mark Jaccard — the Simon Fraser University professor who shocked his environmental buddies when he did an about face in his 2005 book Sustainable Fossil Fuels advocating oil, gas and even coal as humanity’s best long-term source of sustainable energy — is one.
In his new book, Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge, Jaccard predicts consumerism will quadruple the world’s energy consumption by 2100. Furthermore, he argues, because even the most difficult to extract resources are and will remain more economical than renewable alternatives for the foreseeable future, the only solution is to use fossil fuels more cleanly.
Steve Whipp — the ethical investing guru who breezed through his former hometown of Smithers last week with his seminar on climate change and investments — is another. Although Whipp is an ardent environmentalist, he is not above investing in oil companies. His message: there is nothing wrong with making profits.
Whipp, like Jaccard, recognizes there is no stopping the runaway train of energy consumption so the best bet for sustaining an environment fit for human habitation is not to change what we’re doing but the way we are doing it.
The bottom line is people are selfish. That is how we got ourselves in the environmental predicament we’re in and that is how we will get ourselves out.
We have to admit to our human nature.
We want.We want SUVs and toaster ovens and beer fridges and trips to Europe.
We also want pristine lakes and abundant wildlife and clean air.
The best thing the environmental community can do is embrace practical thinkers like Jaccard and Whipp. The lofty, esoteric morality of the climate change and global warming high priests is not going to curb our asquisitive disposition because most people care more about themselves than they do about “the planet.”
I’ve said it for years, this has nothing to do with “the planet,” but it has everything to do with us. The sooner we call a human a human, the sooner we can start balancing our wants.
The recent panel decision not to recommend approval of Northgate Minerals’ plan for the Kemess North mine is a perfect example.
Northgate Minerals selfishly wants to maximize profits. Miners selfishly want to keep their jobs. First Nations and environmentalists selfishly want to protect Amazay Lake.
Northgate is not going to walk away from hundreds of millions in potential profits from Kemess North. They will find an alternative for dealing with their tailings, just like oil companies will find a way to safely extract coalbed methane and airplane manufacturers will find a way to burn fuel cleanly.
Reducing consumption is not an option. Reducing the impact of that consumption is self-preservation.

The family farm, which has provided Bulkley Valley residents with local food choices for more than a century, has died.
It was 107.
The farm suffered a non-lethal but life-threatening case of Regulatory Disease (RD) in 2004 when the B.C. government enacted its new Food Safety Act and Meat Inspection Regulation. It finally succumbed to complications of RD including corporate land-ownership, globalization, biotechnology and genetic engineering in September 2007.
Those that knew the family farm well remembered it as a generous and environmentally-friendly provider.
“I always enjoyed knowing where my food was coming from, how it was produced and that copious quantities of chemicals and fossil fuels didn’t need to be used to bring it to my table,” said the health-conscious consumer, a close friend of the family farm.
The farm was born in 1900 when Gabriel Lacroix became the first non-Aboriginal settler of the Valley, setting up an operation on the east side of the Bulkley River.
He was soon joined by the Fred Heal family arriving in 1903 to farm on the east side of Tyee (now Tyhee) Lake.
As the area prospered with the founding of Smithers in 1913 as the divisional headquarters of the Grand Trunk Railroad, the family farm flourished.
In 1919, it gave birth to a strapping child, the Fall Fair. It became a grandparent to the Smithers Farmers’ Market in 1992.
The family farm is predeceased by its cousins the pot luck dinner and children’s adventure camp, which also recently passed away from bad cases of RD.
It is survived by brother wild game hunting, although Regulatory Disease is known to be genetically carried and many fear it is only a matter of time before wild game is also diagnosed.
Also barely hanging on are ailing relatives personal freedom and free speech, which are suffering from a particularly virulent strain of RD known as political correctness.
In memory of the family farm, a great-grandchild, the Northwest Premium Meat Co-op, will begin operations later in the fall.
The Co-op intends to honour its deceased forebear by pooling the resources of formerly independent producers to keep local food options available.
An open funeral will be held on Saturday Sept. 22 starting at 1 p.m. at the provincial government building on Alfred Avenue.
In lieu of flowers, mourners are asked to send a letter of protest to Bulkley Valley-Stikine MLA Dennis MacKay.

Legal or not, people are going to drink at or around the arena. Council should be looking at ways to take advantage of it.

I learned a very important journalistic lesson from the feedback to my column posted below and originally published in the July 18 print edition of The Interior News.
Headlines can be a double-edged sword.
In retrospect, I think the headline "Smokers living under a Nazi regime" detracted from the intent and impact of the piece.
It would certainly be an exaggeration to actually equate the status of smokers in Canada today with the status of the Jews under Hitler all those years ago or with anyone who has ever lived under a truly oppressive regime.
Nevertheless, I stand by the content of the column and the feedback of anti-smokers proves I am right.
Let's start with the language. One guy wrote about an inconsiderate smoker who decided to light up near "people." Not near "other people," not near "people who don't smoke," near "people" implying smokers are not.
Another complainant asked: "You think smokers should have more rights?" From the context of the letter you could virtually hear the derision in the question.
No concern for their fellow man, but outright hatred for these modern social pariahs, scapegoats for all the ills of society.
They complain about going to shopping centres and being subjected to second-hand smoke by the non-persons smoking near the entrances. They decry sitting on a restaurant patio as evil-doers puff away nearby.
Meanwhile, hundreds cars are driving by and tractor-trailers belching deisel fumes idle by the delivery bays. They're not worried about that, they're worried about accidentally catching a whiff of some tobacco smoke.
Other writers objected to my use of the word hysteria. Let's have a look at that. Hysteria is a reaction totally out of proportion with reality.
That is the nature of scape-goating, you don't need a rational argument or any kind of proof, you merely need a majority of people who believe it and willing to blame some arbitrary minority group.
The fact of the matter is, most smokers are more than considerate about where they smoke and legislation has already made the places where someone can light up so restrictive I'm wondering where exactly are all these innocent non-smokers being subjected to supposedly life-threatening quantities of tobacco smoke. Aside from a very occasional, accidental and cursory exposure, I challenge the anti-smoking zealots to demonstrate exactly how smokers are actually infringing on their comfort and health.
Even if they're willing to grant second-hand smoke exposure isn't that much of an issue, they say merely seeing people smoke is a bad example for kids. Whose responsibility is that? Once again, we are trying to legislate something that should be in the hands of parents and educators. It's not up to me to set a good example for someone else's kids. I think driving recreational motor vehicles is a bad example for kids, but I don't go around advocating outlawing ATVs and dirt bikes.
I think obese, sedentary people in revealing clothing are a bad example for kids, but that's their business.
Finally, let's talk about health. After the anti-smoking hysterics have vilified the smoker with all the irrational arguments, they go for the jugular citing the cost to society. Billions of dollars devoted to smoking-related diseases choking the health care system, wasting their tax money, they say.
First, smokers are taxpayers, too, but not only that, the B.C. government will rake in $745 million this year in tobacco taxes alone on top of the income, sales and other taxes smokers are paying.
Even if it could be proved smokers are more of a drain on the health system, which it cannot, smokers are paying for it.
Many years ago, I took a smoking cessation course. The leader was a doctor and member of the group Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. He told us about a royal commission that was engaged to prove smokers were a drain on the health system. It did not, so the study was buried.
Few people, smokers and non-smokers alike, would argue smoking is good for your health. We know that's not true, but let us not forget, tobacco is a legal product. As such it is taxed to max. If the government and anti-smoking lobby were really serious about stamping out tobacco use, they would help smokers quit.
Why are drug addicts and alcoholics eligible for rehab, but smokers are not? Why are nicotine patches more expensive than smoking and why aren't they covered under medicare?