Sharing with you things that are on my mind...Maybe yours too. Come back to Wrights Lane for a visit anytime!

29 December, 2015


I have written stories all my life...It is what I do...It has put food on my table.  It has given me satisfaction on one hand and a certain amount of anguish on the other. It all goes with the territory!

From time to time, I have given readers a peak into my personal life on the outside chance that there will be those who may be able to relate to my experiences.  I would like to write the complete story of my rather complex life too, but even in twilight years it is constantly changing (for the worse?) and that is what tortures me.
"Merrily, merrily we go...!"

In the early years I was under the rather naïve impression that I would land a fulfilling job, marry, have children and live happily ever after.  I knew that there would be ups and downs along the way but, heck, I was up for the challenge.  What I was not "up" for was the seemingly unfairness with which one's life can unfold.  The biggest toll-taking challenge for me in the past 25 years has been fighting battles with cancer along with two wives, one of which we lost and the other currently being waged.  The second time around, some 15 years later, the unanswered question remains: Who will survive the longest -- second wife Rosanne, or her 10-years-older primary care-giver with his depressingly diminishing ability to cope emotionally and physically.

I literally find myself progressively a little bit older and deeper in debt in most aspects of my life as I prepare to experience my 78th New Year, and I struggle to fashion a new life story with a happier ending than might otherwise be the case if I allowed the status quo to persist.

I have read that one of the most critical aspects of the transition into living what may be termed a quantum life is to realize that change is actually the foundation to one's entire existence.  I acknowledge that in every moment we live, our thoughts and experiences change us in some way.  For most people, this change is so small as to essentially go unnoticed, and as it is all too easy to become invested in resisting change and keeping things known and comfortably/uncomfortably the same, that tends to slow things down even further.

Perhaps once we begin to embrace the truth of this constant state of change, it is then up to us as to how profoundly that change unfolds in our life, through the thoughts and experiences we open ourselves up to or consciously choose to pursue.  So, for me, it becomes exceedingly important that I not hold on so tightly to whatever I see my "story" being at present time, but to instead create a daily experience of wonder and astonishment that reinvents that story as it happens in real time.

How may I accomplish this, you might ask?  Simply by taking hold of the moment and making choices that will lead to the story I want to live, discovering new ways of engaging myself in even the most mundane of everyday activities -- things like getting dressed in the morning, preparing food, doing laundry, providing for Rosanne's daily health needs (she is almost totally disabled and on oxygen to keep her lungs open), grocery shopping, housekeeping, exhaustive three-hour early-morning drives to the hospital for chemotherapy treatments on back-to-back days, as well as finding time to welcome new and inspiring challenges (writing, of course, is my major diversion) -- all of which are nothing new for me.  I've been doing it for the better part of 25 years.  It is my destiny.  But it does not get any easier with the doing.
The key is to move out of conditioned habits and into experiments, exploring new possibilities for interactions with oneself, others and the world.  It has been so easy for me to fall into a rut of self-deprivation which automatically feeds self-pity, depression and changes in temperment.  And that is no way to end the story of anyone's life!

I cannot predict the future...I have no idea of how much longer my health will hold up.  Rosanne's oncologist in London says that her type of Mantel Cell Lymphoma cannot be cured, but it can be controlled with properly-monitored treatment.  So far, so good!  We struggle to be hopeful in writing the ending to a life story that began so happily.

As opportunities arrive that begin to fit into the new "story" we have set in motion, we will meet each one with deep gratitude and joy for the gifts they bring to us.

In putting the finishing touches to this post I can hear Rosanne singing in the next room "Merrily, merrily we go...everywhere we go!"  She needs a bushel basket to carry the tune and I don't know where she's getting the words, but it's making her happy...and me too.

"Merrily we go!"  That has to be the theme for the rest of my story.

28 December, 2015


A few days ago on Wrights Lane I talked about Canada's established United Nations commitment to accept a certain number of immigrants and refugees each year and concluded by suggesting the time might be right for us to review the Biblical "Good Samaritan" story.

Those of us who adhere to the Christian faith know that the First Commandment is to love God with all our being. The Second Commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Generally, the perception of the Good Samaritan  parable conveyed by Jesus of Nazareth is that the intended moral was to do good deeds for those we meet along life's highway. And for the most part that is correct, but there is a much deeper meaning to this parable that is worth exploring. 

To understand this deeper significance, one must take a look at the troubled Jewish and Samaritan relationship in First Century Judea where Jesus and his followers lived at the time.  The Samaritans were a mix of Jew and Gentile and the Jews, who followed religious law to the letter, considered them to be spiritually unclean and polluted; so much so that a deep hatred prevailed between the two camps. This, in spite of the fact that the Samaritans were actually considered the first followers of Jesus Christ.

The Good Samaritan Parable was precipitated by a series of rather testy questions posed to Jesus by a lawyer who was an expert in Mosaic Law, not a court lawyer in today's sense. As Jesus was having a private conversation with his disciples, the lawyer interjected by asking: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responded by asking a question of his own: "What is written in the law?" and the lawyer quickly answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself."

"You have given the right answer," Jesus responded... "do this, and you will live." Pushing the issue a little further, the lawyer then asked what many scholars have interpreted as a natural and sincere final question: "And who is my neighbor?"

It is pertinent to clarify that the lawyer was from a class of Jewish people who prided themselves on how carefully they obeyed God -- they, along with the Pharisees, were fastidious about observing the law in every detail. As a "teacher of the law" he genuinely sought an answer to the neighbor question.  His answer from Jesus came in the form of a carefully worded parable involving a priest, a Levite, a Samaritan, and a badly beaten man who had been stripped of his clothing, robbed and left to die at the side of a treacherous stretch of road between Jerusalem and Jericho, called by reputation "The Way of Blood" because so many travelers had been brutally attacked and robbed there.

Jesus intentionally left the beaten victim unidentified. The audience, being Jewish, would naturally assume that he was a Jew. Being in this half dead state he would be unconscious.  Since he was stripped of his clothing, he then was unidentifiable. Historically, a person can be identified in one of two ways: his dress and his dialect. The man in this case was void of ethnic background, void of stature, void of position.

In the Gospel According to Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25-37, the parable unfolds. The Jewish Priest was the first to come across the bloody, crumpled form of the naked man, but rather than get involved, he passed by on the other side of the road; no doubt influenced by religious law implications of purity and the act of touching. 

In the priest's defence, how could he be sure the wounded man was a neighbor since he could not be identified? If the person lying there was a non-Jew, the priest could be risking defilement, especially if the person were actually dead.    Priests were supposed to be ritually clean, exemplars of the law.  There would be immediate shame and embarrassment suffered by the priest at the expense of the people and their peers for such defilement. 

If, in fact, he had just completed his mandatory two weeks of service, for instance, he would then need to return and stand at the Eastern Gate of the temple, along with the rest of the unclean.  Furthermore, in addition to the humiliation involved, the process of restoring ritual purity was time consuming and costly. It required finding, buying, and reducing a red heifer to ashes, and the ritual took a full week.

The priest was in a predicament. Moreover, he could not approach closer than four cubits to the dead man without being defiled, and he would have to overstep that boundary just to ascertain the condition of the wounded man. The Levite, a temple worker, followed close behind and he too avoided the helpless victim, perhaps influenced by the same concerns as the priest.

The Samaritan on the other hand, governed by the very same Jewish law and a complete stranger too, stopped and gave the man his immediate attention, tended to his wounds and proceeded to take him on his donkey to a nearby inn. He handed over two silver coins, the equivalent of two weeks wages, to the innkeeper for the man's lodging and promised reimbursement on his return trip for any further expenses.

What an exceptional level of assistance this was, especially since the victim was a total stranger and one who may well have been a social enemy. The Samaritan's act was truly one born out of compassion for a fellow man -- a "neighbor" he did not even know.

Jesus concluded his deceptively simple little story by asking the lawyer: "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The lawyer's answer was a convinced "The one who had mercy on him."  The lawyer got the message, but do we truly grasp the significance of it today? Do we fully understand that we, as humans, cannot always meet the perfect requirements of the law? Even those who fully dedicate themselves to it, are subject to falling short.

All these centuries later, we still write people off because of the color of their skin, how they dress or because of where they live, or what they do, or even how they relate to us. We are living in a society that has become dehumanized, where life in some quarters is not worth much.

In not granting the benefit of doubt to those seeking Canadian refuge in times of trouble in their own homeland, we let our lack of true Christian compassion show.  The inevitability of some undesirable individuals slipping through immigration security is always assumed...It simply goes with the territory.  It is a crying shame, however, when everyone ends up being undeservedly tarred with the same brush.  

We should be asking ourselves today..."Do we want to take the safe route, wearing blinders, as we travel life's highway or do we aspire to being a 'Good Samaritan' who stops along the way to come to the aid of a neighbor in need."

Let your conscience be your guide, my friends!

27 December, 2015


This post is intended for those who are under the misconception that the Canadian government should not allow refugees into this country until it can first provide jobs, food and housing for the poverty-stricken souls already living here.

Let’s get something straight once and for all…The Canadian government does not bring refugees into this country willy-nilly and on a political whim. Forget ISIS and the current influx of Syrian refugees for a moment…

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that almost 960,000 refugees are currently in need of resettlement in a third country. These are refugees who, according to the UNHCR, can neither return to their country of origin nor integrate into their country of first asylum.

Together, the international community has committed to resettle around 80,000 refugees each year. Historically, Canada has resettled approximately 10% of this total; the government’s current goal is to resettle between 8% and 12%. In 2010, the government committed to increase the number of refugees resettled each year from abroad by 20% (2,500 people). For 2015 and before Justin Trudeau’s overly ambitious goal of 25,000 by the end of the year (since realistically downgraded to 10,000), the government had agreed to accept up to 14,500 resettled refugees, out of a total of 285,000 new immigrants.

Canada admits refugees for resettlement on a humanitarian basis. Resettlement also provides a way for Canada to alleviate the burden for host countries and share the responsibility for displaced persons. In addition to commitments to resettle refugees, Canada has international obligations to those who come to Canada on their own and are found to be in need of protection (refugee claimants or asylum seekers).

In order to be eligible for resettlement in Canada as a refugee, a person must meet the criteria of the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees: he or she must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Further, the person must be outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence and not able to find protection there.

In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations stipulate that those outside their country who are “seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed conflict or massive violation of human rights” are eligible for refugee resettlement. The regulations also state that the applicant must be without a reasonable prospect, within a reasonable period, of a durable solution in a country other than Canada.
Finally, the applicant must normally show potential to become successfully established and must meet admissibility criteria related to medical condition and security screening.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) visa officers stationed overseas generally determine if an individual is eligible for resettlement and admissible to Canada. Some refugees are referred to CIC for consideration by a designated referral organization (primarily the UNHCR), while others are referred by private sponsors. Applications are generally considered individually, except where the mass movement of refugees (i.e., as a result of conflicts or generalized violence) has caused the UNHCR to declare a group “prima facie” refugees.

Resettled refugees come to Canada in the following ways:

-- through the federal Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) Program (which includes the Joint Assistance Sponsorship Program);

-- with the assistance of civil society groups through the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program; or

-- through the Blended Visa Office–Referred Program, which combines government and private support.

Bigots can rant and rave all they want about closing our borders but, simply stated, Canada is committed to accepting a certain number of immigrants each year. There is no getting around it. Ideally, we are a humanitarian country, prepared to be our brother’s keeper when crisis situations arise in the world community. That is not to say, however, that immigration has to be at the expense of those already living at the poverty level in Canada.

As private citizens, we all have a responsibility. The onus is on us, the Canadian public, to provide for the needy among us -- not the government with its humanitarian commitment to the United Nations and limitations in being all things to all people with our tax dollars. Our individual response to the poor, hungry, hurting, and destitute is clear. 

Conscience and compassion only lead to one conclusion…we must help wherever we can! Together we can be part of the solution. We must educate ourselves about the plight of the poor, what life is like for one-third of the world’s population, and how socio-economic and political forces impact the quality of life in different parts of the world and within our own Canadian borders. We should put real donations where our critical mouth is by being morally supportive, contributing to community food banks and organized outreach programs. If there is no "help the needy" initiative where you live -- then start one! Our actions speak far louder than our (negative) words.

Poverty is by no means exclusive to Canada where we have an unquestioned affordable housing issue that only increases with each passing year...We must understand that the problem is widespread across the globe and will never be completely eradicated. An estimated 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.25 a day. There is no denying that such poverty assaults human dignity and robs people of their human potential. Fortunately, poverty is a disease with a cure. There are countless stories of poor persons and committed communities rising above crushing poverty. The mission for those of us of good will is to work with the poor and victims of circumstance to achieve greater economic opportunity. Local councils, churches and service clubs are the natural starting points.

Continually taking our government(s) to task and beating them up for humanitarian action on the world’s stage, gets us nowhere. What does get us some place is when government and the public 
(researchers, policymakers, social entrepreneurs, nonprofit development groups, microfinance institutions, corporations, and philanthropists) work together to provide necessary sustenance for our homeless, unemployed and hungry brothers and sisters.  It is all about taking action by sharing resources and some of our bounty, alas -- inevitably more of our tax dollars.

Let’s not turn our individual backs and leave solutions entirely to the government which we are so fond of criticizing at the least provocation. We can be part of the overall solution if we are true to our Christian teachings and not conveniently selective with our good works, as is so often the case.

Perhaps this is the perfect time and place to review the Good Samaritan parable as told in Luke 10;29-37.

22 December, 2015


Whenever possible I have shared human interest, good news stories on my web sites and with friends on Facebook. In a perfect world, that is what I think social media network participation should be all about.

Every community has at least one special character...You know, someone who attends all community events and cannot be missed trudging along downtown streets...Everyone knows them by their first name and they delight in acknowledgement.

A case in point is how the Saugeen Shores community of Port Elgin has accepted and taken to heart an 80-year-old developmentally-challenge woman.  Vi Cottrill turned 80 on December 19th amidst a sea of pink -- her favourite colour -- and it was an occasion that would turn out to be a day-long celebration for the town's  favourite "superfan".  That's just a small town for you!

Vi Cottrill, pretty in pink

The celebration began with a tea held at Port Elgin United Church where more than 100 guests turned out to bring birthday wishes.  Even Mayor Mike Smith presented her with a special certificate.  Those who came to say 'Happy Birthday' were of all ages. From the very young to the young-at-heart, all those who have played any kind of sport in Saugeen Shores, know Vi Cottrill because she very rarely misses a game, whether it's baseball, bowling or hockey.
Throughout the decades, she has been presented with team trophies and individual player medals. Those who attended the tea were amazed to see that she had kept each of the hundreds of medals she had been given along with all the trophies.  She even has a centre-ice seat at the arena with her name on it.

Vi's many awards.
From tea time, it was then game time in the evening as she came out to watch her favourite Saugeen Shores Winterhawks WOAA Sr. Men's team play. As she has on past birthdays, Vi dropped the ceremonial puck after being escorted on to the ice by the team Captain and then was ushered to her own special seat. Following the first period of play, fans had the chance to personally wish her a happy birthday and enjoy Tim Hortons' doughnuts provided by the Winterhawks for everyone in the arena. 

Vi has watched young players grow up in local sports and now watches as their children and grandchildren become involved. Her phenomenal memory is a data bank of jersey numbers, names and statistics. She knows when teams are playing and who they are playing and what the final score is ... long after the games are over. She walks countless miles on arthritic legs to all local ball fields and the arena. 

She and her sister, Wilma, grew up in Port Elgin on a small farm owned by their grandparents. Today she has become a steadfast integral part of the community where everyone recognizes her...and treats her like a celebrity.  She volunteers at Elgin Lodge retirement living centre, attends church faithfully, helps at the annual Christmas Eve dinner at Living Hope Church in Port Elgin, is a part of the Rail Trail Association volunteer group and never misses a church or community dinner.
You approach Vi with caution...She will talk your arm off.  I once made the mistake of standing beside her during a minute of silence at a Remembrance Day service...You wouldn't believe the frowns we got...I should have known.  Served me right!

(With thanks to the Saugeen Times)

20 December, 2015


As the days dwindle down to a precious few before December 25, the media gives constant updates on dollars spent on retail sales.  We are reminded that there are fewer days of shopping left and made to feel guilty if we do not shop 'til we drop.  At the same time we increasingly see and hear the salutations "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy Holidays."
The late Pat Salmon
For some reason, the past dozen years or so I have been holding on to a clipping of a newspaper column written by the late veteran journalist Pat Salmon.  I always enjoyed Pat's take on issues of the day and was particularly impressed by this one piece: "Please keep Christ in Christmas".  Pat's stand on this subject, in truth, was the best that I have ever seen.  We often chatted about things that he had written, particularly nostalgic, homespun pieces which were Pat's forte.  He was published in a number of weekly community newspapers, including Mississauga and Brampton where I usually picked up on him when I was editor of the Brampton Daily Times.

Pat wrote that it seemed to him that the word "Christmas" had become synonymous with shopping and our most sacred Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus had been reduced to "Tis the season to be jolly."  "Too many of us think that Christmas Spirit is a product sold by the LCBO," he stated.

"In our rush to please everyone, we are losing our heritage," he contended.  "I know that Canada is not a 100 per cent Christian nation, but on other festive occasions like the Feast of Eid or Ramaddam or Channakuh or Roshashanna, no one tries to water down the tradition.  I am sure that no religion in the world objects to the simple message of Christmas -- 'Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men'."

Pat made no secret that he doubted the Virgin Birth, but did believe a very special prophet was born in Bethlehem at that time and He had a special message for us all.  "That message has been confused by theologians over the ages," he said.  "The Golden Rule has been turned into 'he who has the gold makes the rules' and 'do unto others before they do it to you'."  He simply felt that cynicism should not stop decent people from being decent.  "The detraction from the message given so long ago points to a major malaise in our material national thinking."

We agreed that society was becoming molecular in as much as our current philosophy was one of listening to single purpose viewpoints.  Fashion a decade or so ago, as is the case even more so now, dictates that if one molecule in a mass objects to the behavior of any other molecule (or the mass itself), the objecting molecule is right.  That means the mass as a whole is wrong.

I am especially offended, too, by the fringe few who take up causes simply because of some sick self-serving need to be heard. They delight in upsetting tradition and the beliefs of others.  In taking away, they contribute nothing in return.

This new law of behavior allows single purpose groups to prevail over established customs without regard for the good of the whole.  Kind of like the tail wagging the dog.  This establishes the dangerous tyranny of the minority and imprisons the thinking and voice of the majority.  How many cases of this happening today can you think of?

Our so-called leaders, in their haste to displease no one, end up pleasing only a few.  We have no leader with a genuine opinion; we only have elected mutes who are paranoid about having their say for fear of a tirade of objections from a vocal minority.  They exclusively spew scripted party lines.  Political oneupmanship is the dominate modus operandi. For the majority of the country that was founded on Christian faith, we should be celebrating Christmas as the religious festival that it is and not the commercial binge that is taking over this most sacred time of year. 

Pat Salmon truly had a single purpose cause and it was called "Canada".  He wrote always in favor of his adopted country.  He demonstrated his love and did not care who knew it.  He believed that developed potential in this country is enormous if only the current populace would view the mass and not the molecule.

I'll let the words of Pat close out this post:

"I wish all readers a very Merry Christmas with Tidings of comfort and joy. It seems we have turned our backs on the Queen...Please don't try to shut out God.  We aren't that strong!"

17 December, 2015


I was having my usual cup of coffee over The Toronto Star one morning a few years ago. Flipping through the pages of the Entertainment/Living Section, a strangely familiar face starred back at me from behind a white beard on Page E6.

"Good God almighty...That's me!" I shouted out loud. I really could not believe my eyes, but "the eyes" behind a billowy white beard were the coincidental giveaway.

The photo (above clipping) of two children, one visibly upset, sitting on Santa Claus' lap, was included in a Star feature entitled "Holiday Histrionics: The Santa Sessions".

Clutching the newspaper page, I ran to my computer to bring up an almost identical photo of me as a Brampton City Centre Mall Santa Claus in 1990 with my granddaughter Alyssa sitting rather pensively on my lap (see photo below). No question about it -- a match! How unbelievable. How absolutely magical. What are the chances?

The caption accompanying the 25-year-old photo, told the story: Heading: "In the twinkling of an eye, a Christmas photo shot can turn upside down as Star readers prove -- and generously share with their pictures..."

The story went on to explain that Little Adriana Lawrence was calm until she turned to look at Santa. "You might as well take the picture, whether she screams or not," said grandmother Maureen Lawrence of Brampton, who took the baby with her brother Peter, 3, to meet the mall Santa in 1990. " Dressed in Christmas outfits, the kids were quiet until Adriana turned to see St. Nick, and that was it -- she just bawled and bawled." (Believe it or not, I remember the scene and the little girl's big brown eyes looking up at me before she broke out in screams of terror. I tend to have that affect on women, even when I'm not wearing a beard.) Mrs. Lawrence, a retired nurse, described it as "a treasure picture." Adriana, 20, and brother Peter, 21, were college students when the flashback photo appeared in The Star.

Twenty-five Christmases later, my granddaughter Alyssa, 26, is a business office manager about to be married this coming spring.  Adriana and Peter are, likewise, no doubt firmly entrenched in careers of their own.

Oh yes...About the eyes: As a Santa, I tried to be as authentic as possible and always painted my eyebrows white to match the beard. My special eyebrow makeup? I used Whiteout correctional fluid which was unmistakable in the Star photo, as it was in my scrapbook photo with Alyssa. 

I attempted to contact Mrs. Lawrence to let her know how much she had pleasantly surprised this old pretend mall Santa and followed up with a letter to The Star, but did not hear back from her.

Photo of Lyssie and Santa Me appears in my book Wrights Lane: Come
On In, accompanying a story "The Magic of Playing Santa Claus."

15 December, 2015


What would the arrival of another New Year be without a few words about resolutions from the old Wrighter? 

Here is a list of the top 10 New Years resolutions for 2016...You know, you've probably made and broken every one of them yourself over the years:

1 -- Lose Weight

2 -- Getting Organized

3 -- Spend Less, Save More

4 -- Enjoy Life to the Fullest

5 -- Staying Fit and Healthy

6 -- Learn Something Exciting

7 -- Quit Smoking

8 -- Help Others in Their Dreams

9 -- Fall in Love

10 -- Spend More Time with Family

Now consider the following statistics on New Years resolutions.

-- Percent of those who usually make New Year’s Resolutions -- 45%

-- Percent of those who infrequently make New Year’s Resolutions -- 17%

-- Percent of  individuals who absolutely never make New Year’s Resolutions -- 38%

-- Percent of people who are successful in achieving their resolution -- 8%

-- Percent of those who have infrequent success -- 49%

-- Percent who never succeed and fail on their resolution each year -- 24%

-- People who explicitly make resolutions are 10 times more likely to attain their goals than people who don’t explicitly make resolutions.

Rather revealing data, don't you think?

It’s well known that New Year’s resolutions don’t have a high success rate. While many people opt to ditch the annual goal-setting event, about 40 to 45 percent of adults set at least one resolution come New Year’s. Unfortunately for many, the results turn into a pattern: January 1, we start off determined to follow through on our goals. Excited and energized, we think that this year will be different from the last, when our resolutions went by the wayside. But come February or even mid-January, the majority of us have abandoned our goals altogether.

So why do we continue to make resolutions every year even though so few of us follow through?  One reason is the allure of starting from scratch. I suspect that the beginning of the year offers a fresh start and a clean slate. The idea of bettering ourselves is another motivator. “Most of us have a natural bent toward self-improvement,” said John Duffy, Ph.D, clinical psychologist and author of The Available Parent: Radical Optimism in Raising Teens and Tweens. And even though the New Year is an arbitrary date, Duffy explained that it “gives us time and a goal date to prepare for the change, to fire up for the shifts we plan to make.”

Moreover, it may have something to do with “Tradition! Tradition! Tradition,” as the characters in the musical Fiddler On The Roof famously sing. Setting New Year’s resolutions is believed to go as far back as Babylonian times. It’s said that Julius Caesar started the tradition of making resolutions on January 1st as a way to honor the Roman mythical god Janus, whose two faces allowed him to look back into the past year and forward to the new year. Romans mostly made morality-based resolutions, such as seeking forgiveness from their enemies.

To my way of thinking, wanting to make resolutions is a good thing. The fact that people keep making resolutions even when they don’t always follow through ultimately means that they have hope and a certain level of belief in their ability to change and be more of who they really want to be.

Some research confirms that setting a resolution can get you closer to your goals. One study found that 46 percent of individuals who made resolutions were successful compared to four percent who wanted to achieve a certain goal and considered it but didn’t actually create a resolution.

So, statistics aside, go ahead and make some New Years resolutions in the next few weeks. Who knows, for once you may actually keep at least one of them if you are sufficiently motivated. If you don't, at least your intentions were good. Nothing ventured nothing gained!

And there's always a new year in another 12 months.

08 December, 2015


"...IT WAS MY RANT, I didn't need your intelligence & logic, facts & figures. If I do, I'll ask you."

We talk a lot about freedoms and rights these days. Well, here is the newest one -- the perceived freedom, yes the very right, to "rant" on Facebook...a rant meaning to speak or write in an angry or emotionally charged manner; rave. 2. To express at length a complaint or negative opinion.

Sadly, all-to-often even well-intended and perfectly rational social media network posts can be labeled a "rant' by anyone wishing to belittle or demean the contributor for some biased or mean-spirited reason.

It’s not hard to mistake the Internet rant, often characterized by its run-on sentences, uncouth and inflammatory remarks, capital letters and liberal use of the exclamation point. Often rooted in a heightened level of expressed emotion, uncensored anger or frustration, the rant is accessible to anyone armed with a computer keyboard and an Internet connection.

It is my recent observation that dispensers of bonafide "rants" on Facebook are adopting a strange pride in authorship that absolutely rejects or resents anything other than a "like" from friends subjected to the emotional outburst. Heaven help anyone countering with balanced dialogue or suggestions on how to rationalize the irksome tale of woe. It's as if people want to bath in the misery of their negative rantings and resultantly they drag others along with them.

Unsubstantiated rants generally end up reflecting poorly on the ranter and upsetting readers, in retrospect accomplishing very little of a positive nature.

When a friend writes a Facebook rant it is as if they are vomiting, quite deliberately, all over your day, states novelist and Huffington Post contributor Lucy Robinson. It starts like this:

"I'm sorry but . . .

And it ends like this:

..Right. Rant over!!!"

"The 'Rant over' is, in many ways, more offensive even than the rant itself," Robinson contends. "'Rant over' says I know! I know I just vomited all over you without asking your permission, but I've finished now and have gone back to being a really great person! You'll still like me, won't you? WON'T YOU?"

"No, actually, I won't," she adds. "Not for a while. You've just used me and several hundred other people as unpaid therapists...And now -- don't you dare deny it -- you're logging back on every five minutes to see if anyone's clicked LIKE or, better still, written something like, "Go girl! Totally agree!"

Believe it or not, the italicized quotation at the top of this post was part of a reactionary response to me today after I had attempted to rationalize a troublesome social issue (would you believe use of the Merry Christmas salutation) for a Facebook friend. As laughable and convoluted as it was, she wanted no part of my "intelligence and logic, facts and figures." It was her rant and she didn't want to hear anything from me, thank you very much! She did not welcome reasoned comment that may detract from the impact(?) of her tangent.  In the process of getting back at me for having the audacity to give her the benefit of my thoughts, she has lost me as a friend.

When I established a Facebook friendship with this middle-aged woman several years ago, we had a mutual interest in nostalgia and I reflected with fondness my memories of the home in which she now lives.  We exchanged frequent pleasantries and Facebook likes.  I offered support when she shared some timeline anxiety in her personal life, just as any friend would do.  Suddenly, the worm began to turn and her personality changed as she began to express herself in the form of posts which she herself referred to as "rants".  Much to my disappointment, the mistake I made was to continue talking to her as if she was a friend in real life.  Her mistake was having a closed mind, wanting to keep her emotional outburst to herself and not respecting my thoughts and the information I was providing in good faith and for her benefit.

On another occasion an old school friend (again a member of the opposite sex) accused me of being "impertinent" in imposing myself on her timeline rant about Middle East injustices.  Her emotional rebuttal was very personal and nothing short of vicious. Any wonder I am disenchanted with Facebook?

Like Lucy Robinson, I understand that life can be unbearably hard at times. For you, and me, and the millions of people living in varying states of famine and war. And I think the Internet is a wonderful tool for expressing that hardship; for giving a voice to those once silenced. Justified protest, expressed maturely and in the right media, is one of the great triumphs of the digital age. So too is the promotion of humane causes and the sharing of inspirational thoughts and good news stories that may otherwise get lost in the shuffle of everyday life.

But there is very definitely an unhealthy component to Internet ranting.  Research has shown that the emotional relief from getting a rant off your chest is only temporary. People experience a downward shift in mood after reading rants, and after writing rants they become more angry, not less.

Also from research: ranting is linked to fighting, both physically and verbally. By surveying visitors of rant sites, researchers found that those who rant online are more likely to experience consequences of their anger in the real world, averaging nearly one physical fight per month and more than two verbal fights per month.

So come on folks, resist the urge to rant just for the sake of venting.  If you have something that is bothering you, try to find answers for yourself first before commenting about it on Facebook.  Ask for input from others if you wish and welcome feedback.  Take time to research your issue and to consider the viability of other opinions.  Do some personal reasoning and soul-searching and then share your findings with friends in the form of a Facebook essay...Maybe we can all learn something from your experience...In so doing you will come away from the exercise with a feeling of lasting gratification that no rant could ever provide. 

The world feels very different when you start taking responsibility for your experience of it, rather than being a victim of it. That's the way I see it, anyway!  But maybe I'm confusing the issue with facts and logic.

After nearly 78 years I am coming to the conclusion that there is no accounting for some people...Why try?

06 December, 2015


Ever wonder about the origin of the salutation "Merry Christmas"?

"A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You" was the verse that was shown on the first commercially available Christmas card in 1843. Christmases had been merry long before that though. The use of 'Merry Christmas' as a seasonal salutation dates back to at least 1534, when, on 22nd December, John Fisher wished the season's greetings in a letter to Thomas Cromwell, recorded in Strype Ecclesiastical memorials, 1816):

And this our Lord God send you a mery Christmas, and a comfortable, to your heart’s desire.

The year 1843 was the date of the publication of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol and it was around that time, in the early part of the reign of Queen Victoria, that Christmas as we now know it was largely invented. The word merry was then beginning to take on its current meaning of 'jovial, and outgoing' (and, let's face it, probably mildly intoxicated). Prior to that, in the times when other 'merry' phrases were coined, for example, make merry (circa 1300), Merry England (circa 1400) and the merry month of May (1560s), merry had a different meaning, that is, 'pleasant, peaceful and agreeable'.

That change in meaning was apparently viewed with disfavour by Queen Elizabeth II, who wished her subjects a 'happy' rather than 'merry' Christmas in her annual Christmas broadcasts. The idea of a modern-day merry England was presumably unwelcome at the palace.

The best-known allusion to merriment at Christmas is the English carol "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen." The source of this piece isn't known. It was first published in William Sandys' Christmas Carols Ancient and Modern in 1833, although versions of it probably existed as a folk-song and tune well before that but weren't written down. Sir Thomas Elyot, listed the phrase 'rest you merry' in his Dictionary in 1548:

"Aye, bee thou gladde: or joyfull, as the vulgare people saie Reste you mery."It is often assumed that the carol's lyric portrays the wish that jovial gentlemen might enjoy repose and tranquility. The punctuation of the song suggests otherwise though -- it's 'God rest ye merry, gentlemen', not 'God rest ye, merry gentlemen'. In this context 'to rest' doesn't mean 'to repose' but 'to keep, or remain as you are' - like the 'rest' in 'rest assured'.

'Rest ye merry' means 'remain peacefully content' and the carol contains the wish that God should grant that favour to gentlemen (gentlewomen were presumably busy in the kitchen). It isn't the 'rest' that is being given but the 'merry'. Anyone misreading that comma is in good company though. God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen was the carol that Dickens was referring to in "A Christmas Carol":

"The owner of one scant young nose, gnawed and mumbled by the hungry cold as bones are gnawed by dogs, stooped down at Scrooge's keyhole to regale him with a Christmas carol: but at the first sound of "God bless you, merry gentleman! May nothing you dismay!" 
Scrooge seized the ruler with such energy of action that the singer fled in terror."

Sadly, Scrooges exist to this day but we won't let them deter us from wishing each other a "Merry Christmas"...Will we?!

The dates of Christmas and Epiphany may well have resulted from Christian theological reflection on such chronologies: Jesus would have been conceived on the same date he died, and born nine months later. In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.

19 November, 2015


I have spent most of the last 64 hours researching terrorism, the reasons for it over the centuries and contemplating the almost impossible task of defeating it in the world today.  I have not been alone in this exercise...A young woman by the name of Jamie Khoo, like me, is not impressed with the superficial commentary that overtook social media after the terrorist attacks on Paris this past weekend and suggests a more meaningful and supportive approach to the phenomenon that has reached global proportions.  I think her words are worth digesting.

By Jamie Khoo
I won’t be adding the French flag filter to my Facebook profile photo.  I’m also not writing condolence and prayer messages on my Facebook feed, tagged with #PrayforParis.  It is not because I don’t care, or that I don’t feel the profound shock and sadness for what has happened.

Jamie Khoo
Jamie Khoo has loved writing and words
 from the moment she started to read. After
getting her MA in English, she went on to
pursue a career in writing and has her work
published in Elle Malaysia and Time Out
Kuala Lumpur. Sick of  being told by mass
media and society what "beautiful" is or isn't,
Jamie founded the website "a beautiful mind"
 to challenge conventional beauty ideals and
create new definitions and conversations
 about what beauty can mean for everyone.

In fact, it’s because I find it so absolutely awful that I’ve chosen not to engage in this way. I feel that just changing my photo, writing a few words and a hashtag on social media minimizes (even cheapens) the tremendous, horrific reality of what is going on all around the world, not just in Paris. From suffering arises another trendy social media gimmick, another way for us to show the world how “clued in” and “with it” we are.

Why do we change our photos, really? To show solidarity? But what does that even mean and how does a temporary Facebook photo do it? I’m not trying to be provocative, insulting or offensive toward people who have changed their photos. I understand that people have of their own reasons for doing so. In saying this, I’m not saying we shouldn’t participate or that it’s all and only a bad thing.

I’m saying: Can we please just be a little more mindful as to what we are churning out on our feeds?  Personally, my own Facebook settings are highly private, so only my friends see my posts. For me to change my profile photo or make a statement will only be seen by my friends; I don’t think I need to prove my stance, solidarity or affiliations among people I call my friends.

The people I know in Paris—or any other place that is hit by tragedy—are in my thoughts and in my messages; I just don’t feel the need to broadcast this to the world. I’ve found ways to reach out to them directly to find out how they are, and offer support in whatever way they need now. This is my way of responding to a conflict that I feel is more meaningful than merely changing my photo.

Again, just because my profile pic remains un-filtered, doesn’t mean I don’t care or that I’m not engaged. A large part of my work now involves reading about and researching the violence that is implicit in our everyday lives, the insiduous harm that is done to people just like you and me in every corner of the world—in first or third worlds, in peaceful cities or conflict-ridden states, to every class, race, gender, sexuality, ability and age.

Every day, as I sit with the reality of all this violence, I wonder what it would feel like to have a truly equal, peaceful, respectful, loving world; and how we can begin to make that happen in our own small sleepy villages or heaving city centres, wherever we call home and whatever may be happening there.
I believe that’s the question we should be asking every single day if we really want to do something to show solidarity and support for France, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, the refugees, Syria, Palestine, the Yazidi community, the Nigerian girls, the shootings in the U.S., the Nepal earthquake victims, the women in your neighbourhood who risk assault every time they leave their homes, the young girls destroying their bodies trying to fit into the world.
Let me be clear again that I’m not saying you shouldn’t change your photo, or post a prayer for Paris (or anywhere else). By all means do. But please don’t let it stop at that. Please don’t just get swept up in a social media frenzy and do it because it “looks good” or “feels” like the right thing to do. Pause for a moment just to ask what it means to you to filter your pictures and hashtag your posts: What do you hope to achieve with it and will you be able to achieve it fully in this way?

Would you also change your photo if there had been an option for Lebanon, Kenya, Nigeria, Turkey, Palestine…or any other country in the world that suffered just as incredible a loss, even if you’d never heard of the place?  Why or why not?

What else could you be doing—whether or not the news is filled with distressing headlines—that would be (more) meaningful, bring about tangible support, in your world right now?

Please let those millions of lives lost in conflict be worth more than a quickie photo change or an easy hashtagged prayer.  Let them be the reason you do something different and really kind today, to share support and effect change for even a single person.


15 November, 2015


Bulletin:  French police have issued a warrant for 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam's arrest. French officials and the Islamic State group had both said there were eight attackers initially. Police said seven died.

While those responsible for the despicable terrorist attacks in Paris. France, Friday night were unknown, there was initial concern that they might be traced to Islamic State (ISIS) extremists, the very group that Canada and other nations are battling in Iraq and Syria.  The shocking incident ensures that the issue of terror and security will be thrust onto the Canadian agenda once again.  And rightfully so!

In a country where multiculturalism is holy writ and political correctness keeps many cowed, it will no longer take audacity to ask whether the presence of Muslims in Canada is a threat to Canadian society.

Woman with candle at a "silent gathering" in Toronto shows
support for those slain or injured in Paris.
Since September 11, 2001, a growing chorus has warned that Western society and its values are at risk of being overrun by a tide of Islamic immigrants. The Eurabia movement has popularized a set of assumptions about Muslim immigrants to the West: that they are disloyal, that they have a political agenda driven by their faith, that their high reproduction rates will soon make them a majority. These beliefs are poisoning politics and community relations in Europe and North America and have led to mass murder in Norway. Rarely challenged, this movement’s claims have slipped into mainstream politics.

Canada is rapidly changing culturally in ways our political elite, media elite and academic elite do not want to discuss. But the fact that this is not discussed, or is swept under the carpet, does not mean the public is not keenly aware of how much the country has changed in great measure in a relatively short period, and if this pattern continues for another few decades there is the likelihood that Canada will have changed irrevocably, and not necessarily for the better in terms of its political tradition as a liberal democracy.

The flow of immigration into Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim countries, means a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society of people from cultures at best non-liberal. But we know through our studies and observations that the illiberal mix of cultures poses one of the greatest dilemmas and an unprecedented challenge to liberal societies such as ours.  Problems are imminent when there is no demand placed on immigrants to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country to which they have immigrated.

National security threats do exist within refugee populations, and there are particular reasons to be concerned.  I am all for giving refuge to those fleeing the ravages of war in their homeland, but it is now worth spending time to carefully make sure that those being resettled into Canada will not bring tribal feuds or radicalism along with them. Canada is fortunate to have greater screening and selection abilities than the European nations scrambling to meet the demands of refugees on their doorstep and we can only hope and pray that those procedures are effective enough.

It goes without saying that it would be a tragedy if doors were locked against desperate refugees, and law-abiding Muslims were treated like criminals.  We need to ensure that those selected for resettlement in Canada intend to live peacefully and that they are committed to assimilation.  The new government’s first responsibility is to the Canadian public and to ensure its safety. That is why the Trudeau government could be forgiven if it did not fully deliver on the promise to rapidly bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada this year.

The hijab, burqa and niqab are not the real issue

Now on to a related topic.  Unlike a certain segment of society and especially on the heels of this week’s terrorist attacks on Paris, I cannot get myself bent out of shape over Muslim women covering their faces and bodies when immigrating to Canadian soil.  The hijab, burqa and niqab have become a topic of much controversy and heated debate.  A number of countries have banned the wearing of these religious garments, while others like Canada have considered banning or limiting their use.

Many arguments have been made against the wearing of the burqa and niqab, claiming they are anti-social, backward, oppressive, and not part of Islam.  “When in Canada do as Canadians do,” is a favourite anti-burqa and niqab chant.  Unfortunately, we have allowed this issue to overshadow the much more pressing and serious matter of Muslim immigration being a demographic and political threat to Western culture

I simply feel that a degree of tolerance is warranted in this one regard because we are talking about deeply-rooted religious beliefs that are not easily discarded overnight.  Having a debate over whether to ban a well-established religious practice is in itself discrimination, and goes against the very values which ought to be protected. Being tolerant does not only mean accepting people who look and act exactly like us; but accepting the choices of other people, especially, if we do not understand or agree with them. 

We are also talking about a double standard here because other religious symbols and clothing are not only tolerated in Canada, but respected.  If we are going to take an anti-stand in this matter we should at least familiarize ourselves with the three main types of Islamic dress relating to women when in public and the reasons for them:

  1. Hijab: This is the most common type of Islamic dress, which covers the woman’s body, leaving only her face and hands visible.
  2. Niqab: This type is like the hijab, except it also covers part of the face, leaving only the eyes visible.
  3. Burqa: This type is the least common, and involves covering the whole body as well as covering the face with mesh, so that the eyes are not visible.

The hijab can generally be found amongst Muslim women all over the world, while the niqab and burqa are more common in specific regions.  It is not obligatory for a Muslim woman to dress in one of the above fashions in front of other women. It is only obligatory in the presence of men who are not closely related to them, as prescribed in Islam.

The literal meaning of hijab is to veil, to cover, or to screen.  Islam is known as a religion concerned with community cohesion and moral boundaries, and therefore hijab is a way of ensuring that the moral boundaries between unrelated men and women are respected. In this sense, the term hijab encompasses more than a scarf and more than a dress code. It is a term that denotes modest dressing and modest behaviour. For instance, if a Muslim woman was wearing a scarf but at the same time using bad language, she would not be fulfilling the requirements of hijab.

The majority of Muslim women wear hijab to obey their God and to be known as respectable women. (Quran 33:59) However, in the last 30 years hijab has emerged as a sign of Islamic consciousness. Many women see wearing the hijab as indicative of their desire to be part of an Islamic revival, especially in countries where the practice of Islam is discouraged or even forbidden.

While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

Hijab, ideally, frees women from being thought of as sexual objects of desire or from being valued for their looks, or body shape rather than their minds and intellect. No longer slaves to consumerism, hijab is said to liberate women from the need to conform to unrealistic stereotypes and images dictated by the media. Women wearing hijab have expressed that dressing modestly and covering their hair, minimizes sexual harassment in the workplace.

It is true that in some families and in some cultures women are forced to wear hijab but this is not the norm. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256).  A woman wearing hijab becomes a very visible sign of Islam. While Muslim men can blend easily into any society, Muslim woman are often put on the line, and forced to defend not only their decision to cover, but also their religion.

Islamic scholars have agreed that both the burqa and niqab are part of Islam, but have differed as to whether they are also compulsory or optional acts of virtue. This explains why some Muslim women wear the hijab, while others decide to wear the niqab or burqa.  To me, this is not only a freedom of religion issue facing Canadians today, but one that boils down to women’s rights – and fashion.

But lest not allow the hijab, niqab and burqa to detract from terrorism and national security discussions in the crucial weeks ahead…Personally, it will be the least of my concern.  The far greater matter of our country’s security, on the other hand, is of grave concern and we can only hope and pray again that our government is capable of protecting it.  Given harsh realities, we must make the best of a looming messy conflict that defeats easy analysis.

A “veiled” threat is one thing…The real McCoy is quite another.

Vigilance is of the essence as terrorism reaches deadly global proportions.

14 November, 2015


FRIEND: noun. One who is personally well known by oneself and for whom one has warm regard or affection...Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary.

To me, a "true friend" is someone who has touched your heart and will stay there. Someone you care for, who cares for you. Someone you can do the stupidest things around and always be forgiven. Someone you'll instantly remember in 10 years because they are in your heart and not just your mind. They have the ability to change you, even if they don't. They will be etched in your memories forever.

Of course, we use the word "friend" very loosely in our society today. Dictionaries define it as "attached by affection and esteem". You can usually count those on one hand. "Acquaintance" is often a better description of a relationship, but it sounds awkward and cold. But Facebook has redefined the word to include people you worked with years ago but haven't spoken to since, people from high school that you weren't even friends with then, and someone to whom you gave your business card 12 minutes earlier. And of course, people you simply do not know.

Over the course of the eight or nine years that I have subscribed to the social media network "Facebook", I have accumulated a consistent average of 170 "friends" (give or take a couple of dozen or so who have either died or defriended me, or whom I have defriended for various reasons) which pales by comparison to some who have lists of friends numbering in the thousands. Because in all honesty, I can literally count on one hand the individuals on my list who meet the aforementioned "friend" criteria, I decided today to analyze my list of Facebook "friends".

But first, I had to overcome an inferiority complex resulting from the fact I had so few FB friends compared to others amassing far in excess of 500 (some as many as an almost unbelievable 3000). The Facebook obsession of collecting "friends" creates the impression that some users are wildly more sociable than others but in truth it is either an obsession or indicative of the fact that an individual is subtly marketing something -- a special interest, a product, themselves.

Oxford University Professor Robin Dunbar has conducted a study of social groupings throughout the centuries, from Neolithic villages to modern office environments. His findings assert that size of the part of the brain used for conscious thought and language, the neocortex, limits us to managing 150 fiends, no matter how sociable we are. Dunbar also applied his theory to determine if the "Facebook effect" has stretched the size of social groupings.

He compared the online traffic of people with thousands of friends to those with hundreds and found that there is no discernible difference between the two. "The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see that people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 individuals that we observe in the real world," he stated in defining "maintained" friends as those you care about and contact beyond Facebook at least once a year.

I cannot tell you how relieved I was to learn that I am not the social outcast that I had come to think I was. In fact, taking Professor Dunbar's theory into consideration, I probably have at least 25 more Facebook "friends" than my mind can comfortably manage. With that in mind, I set out to take a closer look at my list of FB "friends".

Off the top I have two daughters, one son-in-law, four adult grandchildren, four second cousins and two third cousins, a sister-in-law and a niece (a total of 15) who I consider to be more than just Facebook "friends". They are, after all, family/relatives. So remove them from the equation and I come pretty close to Dunbar's manageable limit of 150 Facebook "friends".

Interestingly, I have never officially met 55 of my so-called Facebook "friends" and have only met another dozen very casually or briefly on just one occasion. Some of those I invited to become Facebook "friends" because of mutual interests and, likewise, they me. Every single one a great person in their own right, but have they touched my heart?...Will they still remain friends down the road?...Would they be there for me if called upon, or vice versa? In a few special cases, I think that I can genuinely answer in the affirmative. In the majority of the cases however, probably not! So friends in a Facebook sense -- yes; but friends in real life -- no. I am sure the feeling is respectfully mutual.

Just as in real life where I am a relatively private person, I have never outwardly solicited Facebook friendships. Personally, I have been very selective in who I have welcomed to my inner-circle of Facebook "friends". Often to my detriment, I become too familiar with Facebook friends and begin talking to them like they are real friends, forgetting that they do not really know me nor do they understand my tell-it-like-it-is personality and strange sense of humour (a dangerous combination). I am not the easiest guy to get to know but I am always gratified when someone accepts my infrequent reaching out for friendship in real life or otherwise and in my mind a private bond is created that is difficult to explain.  That is just me.  I am either all in, or all out!

I am of the old school that considers a friend a friend, regardless. I want to hold on to them. I loose sleep over differences. I celebrate achievements. I grieve when I lose a friend in real life...and on Facebook too.

07 November, 2015


I find myself understanding the need for a certain amount of political correctness in Canadian society today but on the other hand I find myself being somewhat uncomfortable with its premise.
Who determines what is politically correct and what is not?  Who says we have to be politically correct and who, if anyone, polices political correctness?

Political correctness is loosely defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

...Believe it or not!

I even came across the phrase "politically incorrect", when researching this post...Now there's an oxymoron for you!

Political correctness is a hugely successful campaign that has effectively altered traditional standards of behavior in order to advance the political agenda of mostly left-leaning groups (the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system). From gay rights, to feminism to open borders, rules dictate that you conform with the prevailing group-think at the risk of social ostracism.  Christian traditions on which this country were founded (prayers at public assemblies, references to God in pledges of allegiance, the celebration of Christmas and Easter), are the latest targets of the political correctness movement.  This is where I have a problem.
Interestingly, a group of some 600 Canadian academics has stated that they do not deny that there is room to discuss and debate how contemporary democracies should respond to religious, cultural and linguistic pluralism. Indeed, Canadian legal and political theory is at the forefront of exploring such matters. But a common point of departure for these debates and discussions is a commitment to civility, decency and toleration. Toleration does not require that one like or endorse the cultural or religious practices of others, but it does require that we refrain from insulting the dignity of those with whom we disagree. 

I tend to side with African-American author and economist Thomas Sowell who when faced with politically correct statements made by self-righteous busy bodies, asks himself four questions that will determine the validity of any statement:

  1.  At what cost?
  2. Compared to what?
  3. According to whom?
  4. What hard evidence do you have?
By Sowell's standard, pretty much every politically correct statement and/or idea does not pass this simple test. If you're content to allow others to define you, by all means, keep playing by the politically correct rules. If you're OK with allowing others to manipulate your sentiments to achieve their own agendas, feel free.

As a society we are always making judgments about what language and ideas (not to mention people) are acceptable and which ones are deemed unacceptable.  I agree that once we acknowledge this, it becomes clear that “political correctness” is an inherently biased meme.

How did all of this come about? Over the last 40 years, North America has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. 
So runs the controversial thesis of a collaborative book recently published by the Free Congress Foundation—a U.S. conservative think-tank—on its website, entitled “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology.

The authors of “Political Correctness” attempt to trace the movement back to its origins—Marxism and the Frankfurt school of thought. By so doing they claim to uncover the true and sinister purpose of political correctness—the complete eradication of traditional Western Culture. They also attempt to demonstrate how deeply political correctness has penetrated into every aspect of Western Culture, and how damning its presence is.

Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can. The ideology that has taken over our country goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has.
Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now? Just what is “political correctness?”  A predominant theory is that “political correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “political correctness.”
The lineage is clear, and it is traceable. The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or political correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.

Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over other groups.  Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Political correctness defines Blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and the white race as basically evil.
These types of parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because political correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact merely a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.

Political correctness now looms over or society like a colossus. It has taken over political parties and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education. It has even influenced the clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment. Correctness then, is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes.
That, to me, is extremely troublesome.  When we allude to political correctness with an air of self-satisfied nobleness, we should remind ourselves of from whence it came.

Personally, I and most people I know were raised to embrace and practice Christian principles of respect, decency and toleration.  I resent being pressured to be “correct” by someone else’s self-serving, flavor-of-the-day cause, politically legislated or otherwise.  Likewise, I resent being placed in the position of having to prove that I am not sexist, racist or homophobic and having to suppress the fact that my beliefs are Christian in nature.
After Remembrance Day on the 11th of November, without apology, I will resume the custom of wishing a "Merry Christmas" to the people I meet in the course of my day! 
God willing, I will also continue to express myself freely without fear of reprisal.