Should Mitt Romney release more than 2 years of tax returns?

Democrats and even many Republicans agree that Mr. Romney should release his tax returns for the last ten years. The fact that he refuses to do so should raise important questions in the minds of the American people, those who oppose him and his supporters as well. Why would he not do so? There are at least three possibilities that occur to this writer.

 1. Is Mitt Romney just plain stubborn? Having once decided that tax returns for the past two years are sufficient, is he refusing to be pushed further by the media and increasing public pressure?

If so, the fact raises troubling concerns about the character of the man who seeks the presidency. Citizens hope that their future commander-in-chief will be attentive to the concerns of the people and  anxious to put to rest any uncertainties they might have. His obstinacy in this matter would indicate disregard for his fellow citizens.

Also, in these days of international conflicts, the president needs to be a master of negotiation. Why does Senator Romney not offer to release the tax returns from the last five years, if that will satisfy the questioners?

2. Is he afraid that his ever-increasing wealth and opulent lifestyle will alienate voters, many of whom have struggled just to make ends meet during the recent economic downturn?  His tax return for 2010 shows that his income was $21.6 million. He promises to release the 2011 figure before the election.

According to Forbes Magazine, Mitt Romney owns $18 million in real estate. With his wife,  he owns 3 homes and 2 Cadillacs. His net worth is about $250 million dollars. He also has an undetermined number of offshore investments.  Perhaps he fears that voters will judge that he may have difficulty relating to the average American. In this instance, the voters may well have a legitimate concern.

3. Prior to be elected governor of  Massachusetts, Mitt Romney headed a company named Bain Capital. In 1999, Romney claims to have taken a leave from the company to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

He says that during this time, he had neither knowledge of nor control over the decisions Bain made. However, from 1999 to 2002, Mitt Romney was listed on the Securities and Exchange Commission documents as Bain Capital’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.” In addition, he received a $100,000 annual salary from the company.

During those years, Bain Capital ran companies that laid off workers, outsourced numerous jobs and invested in a business called Stericycle, whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses. All of these activities would be embarrassments to Candidate Romney who did not wish to alienate pro-life supporters and American workers, many of whom were unemployed because of outsourcing.

For these reasons alone, Senator Romney should release his tax returns for at least the last ten years. His father released tax forms for the previous twelve years during his bid for the presidency in 1968.

 Even if they reveal that he is as stubborn as a mule, outlandishly wealthy, and had approved Bain Capital decisions that were unwise in view of his present situation, it would be better to reveal them now and deal with the consequences. If these facts come to light just before the November election, they may result in a disastrous ending to a hard-fought campaign.  

 

Is it right to use animals for medical research?

My husband is currently awaiting open heart surgery. He needs an aortic valve replacement. Several bypasses will be performed while the surgeon has access to his chest cavity. His damaged heart valve will be replaced with that of a pig. If I had to make a choice about whose life to save, my husband's or the pig's, there would be no contest.

Undoubtedly, many pigs were sacrificed while the valve replacement operation was being developed and perfected. However, the end result would be that thousands of human lives would be saved or prolonged every year through the use of this animal tissue. I have no ethical problem with this.

Of course, experimentation on any living creature should be performed humanely, by competent and compassionate scientists. Pain killers and sedatives should be administered as needed to eliminate any possibility of pain or trauma to the animals. In Canada, medical laboratories using animals are routinely checked by government monitors to ensure that humane procedures are strictly followed.

Most people routinely consume meat from cattle, pigs, poultry, fish, and even wild game, without a thought as to how the animal progressed from being a living creature to being a part of the dinner on the plate before them. Periodically, horror stories are reported of inhumane practices on factory farms or in slaughter houses owned and managed by insensitive, money-hungry individuals.

In reality, humans can live quite well without meat, as evidenced by the thousands of vegetarians living healthy lives around the globe. Those who don't object to the slaughter of animals solely to tantalize their taste buds, are surely being hypocritical when they complain about the use of animals in research which will culminate in the saving of human lives. Let's keep our priorities straight.

Most religions allow the comsumption of at least some meat, knowing that this form of protein is valuable in achieving and maintaining good health. In his letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul advises his followers: " Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for the earth and its fullness are the Lord's." (1 Cor 10:25)

Humans have a duty to be responsible stewards of the earth and all its resources. We are obliged to preserve them, to use them with care and never to destroy or waste any of the products of natural world. Some plants, animals, birds and sea creatures provide human food and medicine. Other organisms exist for a variety of reasons: sheep give us wool, hens provide eggs, etc. Still others, as does the whole of creation, reflect the beauty, versatility and awesome power of the Creator.

When my husband is wheeled into the operating room for heart surgery, my first prayers will be his safety and health and for the success of the operation. Then, I will thank God for the plants and animals used to improve and prolong life, and for scientists and doctors whose knowledge and skill enable them to appropriate these tools for the benefit of humankind. Without medical reasearch, some of which must be on animals, these achievements would have been impossible.

Should former US presidents speak out against a current president?

The rest of us speak out quickly enough. Why shouldn't former presidents have the same right?

Seriously, of course former presidents should speak out against a current president if they disagree with him or any of his policies. In addition, they should speak out in his support when they agree with him.

Under the American political system, the people elect the person they consider the brightest and the best in the country to be their president. The individual doesn't lose these qualities when his term of office is finished. By speaking out on issues of the day, he can continue to offer guidance to the ship of state, though from a greater distance.

Sometimes as citizens, we tend to become preoccupied with our own lives or, at times we become just plain lethargic. We fail to pay sufficient attention to government activities, to foreign affairs or domestic policies being formulated in Washington. But wait a minute!

If, suddenly, several former presidents speak out strongly in support or against a particular law, or issue being discussed in Congress, and it is widely reported in the media, many people will snap to attention. They may even be motivated to become involved and influence the outcome of the matter.

During their terms of office, former presidents were made aware of background information that may not have been available to the general public. Because of this, their judgements are apt to be more informed and should carry greater weight. Shrewd listeners will pay close attention.

These men still have connections with influential friends and associates they met while in the White House. They hear the rumours and back room gossip to which ordinary citizens are not privy. They have the good sense to know which scuttlebutt is valuable and which should be ignored.

In some cases. they also have connections with leaders and other influential individuals overseas. They can help voters see other viewpoints besides those of the current administration. There are always two sides to every story.

Former presidents are, in most cases, out of public life and back home in the bosoms of family and friends. They no longer have to worry about party politics or maintaining a presidential image. Their priorities are now likely to be similar to that of most ordinary Americans.

They want peace and security for their country, jobs and a decent living wage for their friends and relatives, and a clean, healthy environment to leave to their children and grandchildren. The difference is that they have greater skill and more privileged knowledge than most of us, to bring to bear on attaining theses goals.

Former presidents should consider it a duty to speak out as their conscience dictates, either for or against the current president. Americans, and indeed, the citizens of the whole world will be poorer and less knowledgeable if they choose to keep silent.

Designer babies: reflection on foetal screening during pregnancy

Ultrasound has made it possible to peer into the sanctuary of a mother's womb and see the developing foetus moving about in the amniotic fluid. Amniocentesis, whereby a needle is inserted into the womb, and some of the fluid surrounding the baby is withdrawn, is another prenatal test sometimes performed. The fluid can be checked for genetic birth defects in the child. Occasionally one or both of these tests will reveal a foetal abnormality. What happens then?

The answer usually depends on the spiritual faith of the parents. If they believe in the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death, they will continue with the pregnancy, ensuring that the mother has the best possible physical, emotional and spiritual care, and preparing as well as possible for the birth of their child. If, on the other hand, they believe that the foetus is just a blob of tissue, the likely result will be abortion.

In actual fact, by the fourth week after the egg is fertilized, often before the mother even realizes she is pregnant, traces of all the body organs are present in the embryo. It is only 1/4 inch long, but its face is beginning to take shape. Bulges that will become ears and nose appear.

By the seventh to eighth week of pregnancy, the head can be identified. It contains a developing brain. Amazingly, the tiny heart has already begun to beat. Fingers and toes appear.

By the end of the third month, nails form on the fingers and toes. The bones begin to calcify. The foetus begins to make breathing movements. Skeletal muscles and muscles in the intestines begin to contract and relax, already preparing for life in the outside world.

Because the developing child is recognizable as a human baby, abortionists will keep the ultrasound monitor turned away from the mother, as they perform the procedure. If she saw her baby, recognizable as it tries move away from the lethal instruments, she might well change her mind.

In the near future, science may progress to the stage where parents can produce designer offspring. They may be able to choose the sex, hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, and every other feature that will form their child's physical appearance, character and levels of natural abilities. Will this be a beneficial progression? I submit that it will not.

We humans have no right to play God. Choosing a new car is one thing. Wanting to possess a designer child is quite another. The all-wise Creator knows exactly what child will be best fit into each family situation, and He will not give any family a burden with which it cannot cope. The disabled person is no less valuable than the able-bodied. A quick study of the life and contribution of Stephen Hawking will bear out this fact.

Modern technology, such as ultrasound, should inspire in us emotions of wonder and awe. We are now privileged to witness the creative action of God in the very process of creating a new human being. It should definitely not be used to aid in the destruction of His unfinished handwork.

There is great value, beauty, and fascination for all of us in the diversity of people inhabiting our planet. God has been doing a great job designing humans thus far. We should not usurp His undertaking. If we try until eternity, we'll never be able to even approach His talent.

If I were the American President

If I were president, my first act would be to order all American troops home from Afghanistan as soon as they could safely be evacuated. The people from that part of the world would then be responsible for settling their own differences. They've been battling each other for thousands of years. If they choose to continue to do so, so be it.

I would send troop carriers to the prison compound at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to return all prisoners to their country of origin. They're not likely to become sterling citizens; why should America spend time and money detaining them, trying them, imprisoning the guilty and later attempting to rehabilitate them?

The Cuban base itself I return to the government of Cuba. NATO allies no longer need a remote facility in which to "persuade" alleged war criminals to confess.

As President, my next project would be the construction several state-of-the-art military hospitals around the country. Care would be available to all veterans wounded in either body or mind while serving their country. Members of the military would be kept in hospital as long as necessary, then given attentive follow-up care until they were completely healthy, with no cost to themselves or their families.

With the money I had saved from waging war, I would establish an effective health care system, so that every man, woman and child in the United States would have quick access to the best doctors and medical treatment available. This service would be free and the same for everyone, no special treatment for sports figures or politicians.

International outreach committees would be established to oversee foreign relations: no more confrontational postures would be allowed. Our ambassadors would be instructed to hold discussions with every country, to find areas of agreement and attempt to build on them to form positive alliances. There would be no name-calling or vilification. Labeling a country and its people "evil" is hardly the way to win cooperation or establish a basis for fruitful negotiations.

I would strive to have America lead by example. When she became once again the strongest, most honorable, peaceful, most respected democracy in the world, other nations would be anxious to install similar forms of government. And, the changeovers would be accomplished by peaceful means.

I would appoint George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as roving ambassadors for peace. They would travel the globe, lecturing to all who would listen about the benefits of living in a peaceful world. And if their audiences were always very small? Well, at least they won't be getting themselves and us into any more trouble.

Finally, I would establish free daycare for every family having young children or older dependents with special needs. Every able-bodied adult would be required to work at an appropriate job, 40 hours daily, five days a week. Minmum wages would be adjusted so that everyone would be assured of receiving a decent living wage.

Does this sound like an Utopian dream? Perhaps someday, someone who is wise and competent enough will be elected to the presidental office, and put this plan or a similar one into action. What would you bet that this capable, far-sighted individual will be a woman?   

Should control of Jerusalem be split between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Jerusalem is regarded as the holiest city in the world by many people. It is the site of places sacred to three of the world's great religions. The Dome of the Rock is holy to the Muslims, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to Christians, and the Western Wall of the Temple Mount to the Jews. The status of Jerusalem has been a stumbling block to all peace negotiations in the Middle East. It seems ironic that leaders and members of three of the world's great faith communities cannot find a way to coexist peacefully with each other.

Control of Jerusalem has been contested for centuries. Some of the bloodiest battles between Jews and Arabs have been fought within its walls. In the 1967 war, Israel gained control of Jerusalem. The Jews contend that it is now, and must remain the eternal capital of Israel, and that it should remain forever under Israel's sovereignty. Their government's official guidelines guarantee freedom of worship and access to holy places to members of all faiths. Within the city there is tension and the occasional skirmish, but day-to-day-life is relatively normal. To date, the Israelis maintain control of Jerusalem, although there are neighborhoods of Palestinians within the city.

The Palestinian authorities maintain that Jerusalem should be the capital of an independent Palestinian state. They demand that Israel withdraw from all territory captured during the 1967 war. At present, the status of Jerusalem has been left open until the final negotiating period of an all-encompassing peace initiative, because it will almost certainly be the greatest problem.

The question arises: should the city be split, divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians? I submit that it should not.

The chance of civil conflict would be increased. The police of one state would inevitably clash with those of the other on something. Even if the matter were minuscule, the citizenry of each side would join in to support their officers, and the result would be a battle. With the Middle East such a powder keg, it could easily escalate into a more  serious situation.

The Israelis seem to have done well maintaining the peace in Jerusalem. There are adjustments which must be made to facilitate access of Muslims to their shrine, but these could be effected with a few strokes of a pen. Perhaps an advisory body, consisting of several representatives of each faith, could be established to recommend necessary changes in policies affecting Jerusalem to the Israeli government.

All of these three faith groups honor some version of the Golden Rule, "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:18

If a major publicity campaign were launched and carried out by the leaders of all religions within the holy city, persistently drumming this injunction into the consciousness of every citizen, Jerusalem just might become the shining example of peace and brotherhood in the Middle East, instead of the major stumbling block to peace.

One can only imagine God smiling with delight at this development. "Well, they finally got the message. It's about time..."

Is the plight of Afghan women our business?

Beyond the usual interest and concern that we should feel for fellow humans no matter where they live, the plight of women in Afghanistan is not our business. They are merely at a point in the evolutionary process that women in most parts of the Western World have already passed. We tend to forget that women's suffrage was only gained in Canada in 1918, and in the United States in 1920.

The women of Afghanistan will procure more power within their society and greater human rights when they are ready to fight for them, just as North American women did. At that time, no outside nation would have dared to intrude and try to force Canadian or American societies and governments to alter the customs of the day. The struggle had to be launched and conducted by the women themselves.

Religious Muslims believe that Western societies are degenerate and corrupt. If our military forces tried to interfere in their established way of life, it would likely have a counter effect. All Afghani citizens would unite in an effort to retain their traditions and culture. It would take the women even longer to progress towards equality with their male counterparts.

Think for a minute what our reaction would be if Muslim forces descended on our cities and towns and tried to force their traditions and customs on our society. Every citizen would be ready to fight, with every means at their disposal, to repel the enemy. We would cling even more ferociously to our cherished customs and way of life. The Afghan people would react the same way, if outsiders tried to intrude and alter the lifestyle they have created.

We can send the Afghan women our prayers and good wishes as they wage their struggle to gain freedom from the repression under which they live. Other than that, we should mind our own business. The battle is theirs to wage. You can't stop progress. Sooner or later they will prevail, and they will emerge stronger and more confident for having wrestled the specter of male prejudice to the ground. We mustn't deprive them of the opportunity to advance their cause through their own efforts.

Should the government legislate our eating choices?

Healthy eating has to be an individual choice. No one can plead ignorance today, about what constitutes a healthy diet. Unfortunately, because of an abundance of reasonably-priced food, more sedentary life styles and careless eating habits, many of us have abandoned the healthy nutritional practices which were a normal part of life for our forefathers.

In our society, goodies are all too available. There are donut shops on nearly every corner. Affordable cookies, candy, and cakes beckon from the front shelves of variety stores. When we entertain guests, we offer them coffee, tea and sweet treats. Our very culture conspires to sabotage our healthy eating resolutions.

A large percentage of people in the Western World are overweight, in spite of the fact that we know very well what we should and should not be putting into our mouths. The truth is that we have become sloppy in making wise food choices. It is too easy to hand Junior a pack of Pop-tarts as he rushes off to school in the morning. Our grandmothers, who were stay-at-home moms took the time to make hot porridge.

Working wives and mothers often don't feel they have the time or energy to prepare supper from scratch. It's too easy to pick up a "Happy Meal" on the way home from work. Our grandmothers cooked every meal from scratch and french fries weren't even in their vocabulary.

The answer to these poor food practices is not in government legislation, but strengthening our determination to provide better nutrition for our families. Modern products can be a help here as well as a hindrance. Oatmeal now comes in instant packets, just add boiling water, stir and serve. A ready-to-serve salad bowl is just as easy to pick up as a Happy Meal. The choice must lie with individuals.

During Prohibition, the government passed laws banning the sale of alcohol. The laws couldn't be enforced, and they were soon repealed. Trying to legislate what people eat would be even more problematic.

In addition, imagine the consultants, the committees, the scientific studies, the medical experts, and the dietitians that would be needed to decide which foods, drinks, additives, etc., would be allowable for sale to consumers. Are you willing to have the cost of  those salaries on your next income tax statement? I'm not.

It is outside the jurisdiction of government to legislate what the citizens can or cannot eat. We should resent being treated as children. Just as we accept responsibility for our own personal safety, we must improve in adequately meeting our nutritional needs. Otherwise, in addition to everything else, we may be asked to pay to combat the black market in chocolate bars

Why America needs philosophers

A philosopher has been defined as a thinker who deeply and seriously considers human affairs and life in general.

Western society as a whole is in grave need of not just one, but a multitude of philosophers. We need them to rescue us from the quagmire of misfortunes in which we've become enmeshed by a series of non-thinking leaders, elected by citizens who themselves have not been in the habit of thinking deeply and seriously enough about anything.

At present, since we're in the grips of a global recession, the first team of philosophers should be commissioned to study economics. How can we escape the financial ills of the present and return our country to a position of financial stability?

This discussion would quickly and inevitably lead to the topic of business ethics. Why were so many corporate executives given huge salaries, exorbitant bonuses and gold-plated pensions, even as their companies were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?

Why did this disgraceful situation continue for so long? Where were the watchdogs, the overseers? If there were none, there should have been. Perhaps the philosophers can help us choose competent monitors to oversee the day-to-day management of business operations in an effort to keep them honest.

Why and how did we get involved in bloody wars that are half a world away with people of a different culture, most of whom are desperately poor and who have never lifted a finger to injure any of us?

I realize that our society's addiction to oil played a huge role in the invasion of Iraq, but a band of Islamic fundamentalists planned and carried out the 9/11 attack. Was it really necessary to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the entire government?

We know that more than 4,000 Allied troops and support staff have been killed by the enemy in the Middle Eastern conflicts. But news of the hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who have been killed and injured has been suppressed by the media.

The philosophers should see to it that every bit of the horror of these Middle Eastern wars is made public in our country, complete with pictures, so that our citizens become aware of just what devastation and suffering our leaders' belligerent attitudes have caused.

Then the deep thinkers should be employed to plan how to restore America's image as a nation of peace and justice to the world community. That task will be daunting, even for the most clever. It will probably take years of demonstrating goodwill for any strategy to be effective.

While we're waiting, there's much work to do with the trillions of dollars that have previously been squandered on military manoeuvres. The infrastructures of our cities are crumbling: bridges are collapsing, sources of drinking water are becoming polluted; air and soil pollution are causing an increasing number of cases of illness and death among our citizens.

Thousands of hungry and homeless souls in North America trudge the streets searching for any type of shelter. The rate of unemployment is high and increasing daily. Only the well-off can afford medical insurance. The skill level of students has fallen behind that of children in many other countries. Our hospitals are understaffed and overcrowded.

We will never regain our position as a respected world leader as long as we tolerate these deplorable conditions at home. There is enough planning and implementation of programs to be done to keep teams of philosophers and their assistants busy for years. To suggest that we need just one philosopher is ludicrous.

Where can these paradigms of wisdom be found? They're probably out there, watching the decline of America in stoical silence.

If you know of any, have them forward their curriculum vitae to President Obama. He promised change. It is high time for him to deliver on that promise, and he needs all the help he can get.

Ingredients in a cigarette

Have a cigarette?

If the answer is yes, you're one of approximately 22% of Americans, or 1 in 4 people who smoke cigarettes. The statistics are probably similar for Canada. Those numbers indicate that over 60 million people in North America are addicted to tobacco. Of that number, more than 30 million, or half, will die of a smoking-related cause, many during middle age.

Smokers are at greater risk of death from heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, cancer of the lungs, mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach, bladder or pancreas. Female smokers have a greater risk of developing cervical cancer.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. A partial list of these hazardous substances follows.

* Nicotine is a poisonous drug. It is the main ingredient in insecticides or bug sprays. In its pure form, one drop on a rabbit's tongue will kill it.

* Tar is the oily black substance used to pave roads. When a smoker inhales, over a period of time, a lot of this thick substance sticks to lungs and turns them black, instead of their normal, healthy, pink color.

* Carbon monoxide is the poisonous gas which comes from the exhaust pipe of a car. It interferes with the function of the human respiratory and circulation systems.

* Arsenic and cyanide are deadly poisons used to dispose of rats.

* Formaldehyde is used to preserve samples of human tissue and the bodies of dead animals.

* DDT is an insecticide.

* Ammonia is found in many products including those used for cleaning floors and toilets.

* Hydrogen cyanide was the lethal gas used by Hitler's Nazis to kill people in the gas chambers.

* Methoprene is a pesticide.

* Acetone is an ingredient in paint and nail polish remover.

* Chloroform is a gas used as an anesthetic.

* Napthalene is the main ingredient in mothballs.

A few of the other noxious substances in cigarettes are lead, methane, ethanol, nitrous oxide and methanol, but this gruesome list should be sufficient to convince any rational person that smoking is definitely dangerous to health.

However, the body was designed and created with a marvellous ability to heal and renew itself. When you quit smoking-

· in 8 hours the oxygen level in your blood returns to normal

· in 2 days, your senses of taste and smell begin to improve.

· in 3 days, breathing becomes easier and lung capacity increases.

· within 3 months, blood circulation improves and lung capacity increases up to 30%.

· within 6 months, coughing, tiredness and shortness of breath improve.

· within 1 year, the chances of having a smoking-related heart attack are cut in half.

· within 10 years, the risk of dying from lung cancer is cut in half.

· within 15 years, your risk of dying from a heart attack is the same as someone who has never smoked.

There are more aids to help you quit smoking now than there have ever been before. Your doctor can help you choose one that will be safe and effective for you.

Then, the next time someone asks if you want a cigarette, you can reply with justifiable pride, "No thanks; I quit."

References:

The Lung Association

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagism e/quitting-cesser/benefits-bienfaits_e.php

About.com

http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/chemicalsinsmoke/a/c hemicalshub.htm

Should gay public figures stay in the closet?

From a purely personal point of view, I wish that gay public figures would stay in the closet. I have no burning desire to know their favorite food, every detail of their past medical history, what they wear to bed or their sexual preference.

I am interested in their intelligence, their emotional stability, their moral outlook, and what they are willing and able to contribute to the welfare of their fellow human beings, world peace and environmental improvement. These are the areas of their personality which will affect me. In all probability, I will not be on close enough terms with any of them to need to know their sexual orientation.

To the best of my knowledge, science has not discovered a cause or a cure for homosexuality. It may be a genetic mutation, it could even be another form of "normal". I find it difficult to believe that it's a choice. There have been too many homosexual teenagers driven to depression or even suicide when they discover that they are significantly different from the majority of their peers.

I believe, however, from the viewpoint of the gay person who is, or who is about to become a public figure, it would be wise to disclose their sexual preference as early as possible. The press is certain to route out every secret on the family tree for at least the past five generations!

If a gay entertainer stays in the closet, he risks his future career being sidetracked by the "shocking" disclosure when he is at the height of popularity. His talent, as outstanding as it may be, could become a secondary issue to the public's interest in the covert areas of his personal life.

In the case of a politician, some important legislation which he is introducing or promoting could be shelved or defeated solely because of the latent homophobic attitudes of some of his fellow legislators. During strategic periods in a public figure's career, it's vital that there be no shocking revelations about his private life to upset the apple cart.

More important than sexual orientation, to me and to many people, would be the day-to-day activities, dignity and behavior of the public figure in question. Were he to appear nearly naked, cavorting lewdly and loudly on a float in a Gay Pride Parade, he would forfeit any respect, devotion, or loyalty I had previously felt for him.

Come to think of it, if he were straight and carried on in that way, the end result would be the same.

Any individual, gay or straight, in the public eye may not be able to control his food preferences or his medical history, but he can and must be in control his behavior when he's on the job or out and about.

Those celebrities who are wish to be admired and to endure, must present acceptable images of themselves to all people: men, women, teens and young children if they hope to remain for long near the top of popularity polls.

My advice to gay figures in public life: come out of the closet early in a straightforward manner , then get on with your life. Practice honesty, self-respect and discretion. Conduct all matters in such a way that, when your life is over, you' ll leave the world and its people a little better off because you lived.

Come to think of it, that's not a bad life plan for all of us. .

Should hospitals have designated smoking areas?

Smoking and the use of tobacco is the single most preventable cause of illness and death in North America. More than 400,000 Americans and 40,000 Canadians die every year from tobacco-related illnesses.

In the United States, someone dies every 72 seconds from smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes.

Hospitals should not have designated smoking areas. On the contrary, the director, board members and staff should do everything possible to prevent those within their walls or on their premises from smoking.

Many of the patients are likely in hospital as a result of tobacco use. Studies have shown that as much as 75% of coronary artery disease may be caused by smoking.

Tobacco addiction increases the risk of cancer, respiratory diseases, dangers during pregnancy, gastrointestinal problems and tooth and gum problems.

Smokers also suffer more sleeping problems, migraine headaches, coughs and colds, high blood pressure, sinus congestion and disabling fatigue than nonsmokers. There is really nothing positive to say about the use of tobacco.

Hospitals exist to fight illness. Why would they provide an area in which an activity causing illness is permitted? It just doesn't make sense.

Who would be affected if a general ban on smoking in hospitals were enforced ?

First of all, the patients would be unable to smoke. This will only hasten their recovery. If they are severely addicted, they could be offered a patch program while they're in residence, to ease withdrawal symptoms. Who knows? The experience might be the means of helping them overcome their addiction permanently.

The visitors would have to refrain from smoking. Normal hospital visits should be brief anyway, and the sight of a friend or loved one in poor health should distract their attention from their habit, at least temporarily. They are free to leave anytime.

The staff could not smoke: doctors, nurses, cleaners, orderlies and others. The brightest among these groups will not be addicted anyway. They have seen firsthand the results of the addiction: the pain, suffering, death, and the distraught relatives of patients with smoking-related disease.

The addicts will have to take their breaks in their vehicles or perhaps lounging against a lamppost on the street. Perhaps the associated inconvenience or the onset of inclement weather will be the means of freeing them from the slavery of their nicotine addiction. This would indeed be a blessing in disguise.

In the United States, smoking bans fall under the jurisdiction of each state. In Canada, they are regulated by each province.

In Ontario, where I live, smoking is banned in workplaces and indoors at all public places. A recent law forbids smoking in cars while a child is present. In an enclosed area like a vehicle a child will inhale more concentrated doses of secondhand smoke, and this is harmful to his respiratory system, as well as to other parts of his still-growing body.

For those who wish to quit smoking, there are many aids available today. As well as patches, there are pills, lozenges, inhalers, chewing gum, and smoking cessation programs. Family doctors are knowledgeable about available resources and are glad to help each patient find the best means to leave his addiction far behind.

Instead of having a designated smoking area, each hospital should have an area dedicated to the liberation of those still enslaved by the nicotine demon. This space could include information pamphlets, samples of available aids to kick the habit, a recovered addict and a encouraging nurse-practioner to dispense enthusiasm and courage to those wishing to quit.

It's true, the hospital may be losing future business. Nurses may soon have the time and energy to care for their patients the way they would like to. Doctors, no longer overworked, may remember your name from one visit to the next. Who knows? Those seriously ill may even be able to get a house call.

Is anyone about to argue, that the sooner we dispense with the use of tobacco products not only in hospitals but everywhere else too, the better?

Are citizen journalists more trustworthy than professional journalists?

Citizen journalists are more trustworthy than professional journalists, and clever editors should take advantage of their skills whenever they have an opportunity to do so. Authors of frequent "Letters to the Editor" in the local newspaper will provide names and reveal clues as to the literary ability of the writers.

If talented people are invited to submit articles of interest on community affairs, they would probably be thrilled to do so. Some will likely work for the pleasure of knowing their work will be read and appreciated by friends and neighbors. Others may request a small stipend for their efforts, but it will certainly be less costly than paying for the column of a well-known feature writer.

The advantages of utilizing citizen journalists are many. Among them are:

- Citizen journalists will report on people, places or events in which they are personally interested. No one gave them a definite assignment and told them when, where, and how long to write the required article. The spice of their enthusiasm for the topic will seep through into their writing, making it more interesting for readers.

- As a general rule, they will take the time and the trouble to investigate subtle details which professionals may overlook because of looming deadlines or other time constraints. No one is looking over the shoulder of the citizen journalist urging him to finish in time for the morning (or evening) edition.

-They do not have to bow to the usual political stance of a particular newspaper or chain of publications. They are free to report the truth as they see it. They are more likely to produce completely unbiased copy and this could occasionally function as a good balance to the usual editorial stance of the publication.

- Because they are independent agents, citizen journalists will be anxious to merit repeat requests for their efforts. Their articles are likely to be clear, well-organized, with correct spelling, punctuation , and faultless grammar. They realize substandard work will probably end up in the wastepaper basket. They are not used to having imperfections corrected by an editor.

-Citizen journalists come from all walks of society. Since they do not usually hang around with professional journalists, they will bring fresh topics and different perspectives from those readers have come to expect. Some additions will be welcomed, others may not. In any case, it will provide valuable feedback to the staff as to which of their features are most appreciated.

- Citizen journalists encompass people from all age brackets. The high school senior writing about teenage interests and events will attract one segment of readers. A retired grandparent writing a column about upcoming seniors' events in the community will be avidly scanned by another. Citizen journalists' efforts can be rotated to appeal to different age groups either randomly or on a predetermined schedule.

Utilizing the talents of citizen journalists creates a win-win situation. The writers gain experience in writing for publication, and have the pleasure of receiving comments, compliments, and recognition for their efforts. Editors gain access to columns with original material, fresh insights, and diverse perspectives from various segments within the community, either cost-free or for very modest remuneration.

Citizen journalists are more trustworthy than professional journalists. They write for the sheer pleasure of expressing their thoughts on paper, and their finished products will be as perfect as they can make them. They have no hidden agendas and no time constraints. They will write about what they know, so their facts will be accurate and reflect the perspectives of those within their social circles and age brackets. All these factors are bonuses which will be handed on a silver platter to the clever editor who makes use of the considerable talents of citizen journalists.

Is committing suicide wrong?

Committing suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. The person who takes his own life is so focused on his own misery, his own despair and hopelessness, that these emotions take supremacy over all the other factors in his life.

His despondency will come before his religious convictions (if he has any), before his love of family and friends, and before his duty to others, to his community, and before any consideration of the future.

Most religions recognize God as Creator. He brought the universe, the earth, and all it contains into existence. Humanity is His greatest accomplishment. The Bible teaches that each human is made in God's image and likeness. As such, each of us has inherent worth and great dignity. We are in effect, children of God.

Anyone with a religious background will be aware that to willingly and knowingly destroy a human being, including oneself, who has such value in God's sight, is committing a seriously wrong act.

Not one of us were able to will ourselves into existence. By the same token, it is not our right to decide when that existence shall end. The right to decide these matters is reserved for God, or a Higher Power or however we choose to address Him. We usurp that right at our peril.

The person contemplating suicide does not consider the effect his act on his loved ones or friends. His legacy to them is frustration, questions, guilt, and regrets over unfinished business.

Typical feelings, some expressed, some unspoken follow any suicide.

* "If only he'd confided in me, if only we could have talked it over...! I thought we were better friends!"

* " Why did he do this? Was it my fault? Were his parents abusive? Did her husband beat her?"

* " I never should have said or done that. Was it because I forgot his birthday? Did I not do enough to show I cared? "

* "Now we'll never make the trip we planned. Dad won't be at my wedding. Christmas without her will never be the same. How can I go on?"

The person considering suicide doesn't dwell on others. He wallows in his own feelings of misery.

What about the community he fails to consider: the elections when his vote might be decisive, the volunteer activities crying for dedicated workers, the sick waiting for blood donors, the lonely and the homeless to whose unhappy lives he is capable of making a significant contribution? They too, are far from his thoughts.

By choosing to end his life, he is robbing the future. There will be family gatherings for birthdays, anniversaries and holidays when his presence will be missed, family stories that only he can relate for future generations, acts of kindness that only he could have accomplished, individuals with problems to whom he could have pointed out solutions. If only he had lived...

What could have been done? A great deal, if those around him, or the individual himself had recognized the symptoms early enough. Those contemplating suicide are suffering from a form of mental illness known as depression. It is a treatable illness, but help must be sought, and the sooner the better.

Be alert, stay aware. In today's enlightened society most people are aware of the existence of depression, but for some reason, they often fail to recognize it those nearest and dearest to them, or in themselves. It can strike anyone at any age.

The most important gift you will ever give to anyone is to take them to a doctor when they show symptoms of unrelenting sadness, or disinterest in life over an extended period of time. But, don't wait too long to get them medical help. You may not get a second chance.

Should a woman be president?

A woman could be president just as well, if not better, than a man. Any individual who endures a lengthy and demanding presidential campaign, participates in all the required debates, has his or her past life scrutinized by the media, and is elected by the American people, has the required intelligence and stamina to assume the top position in the free world. In addition, most women have innate qualities which would make them an outstanding president.

Women are communication specialists. They excel in openly sharing their thoughts and feelings. They will discuss alternative options. They will explore every avenue to resolve disputes through discussion, rather than violence. Their maternal instincts will keep them from sending young Americans into battle in all but the most dire circumstances. They will try diplomacy as long as there is any hope of a peaceful solution to differences.

If war was inevitable, a woman president would see to it that wounded veterans got the best possible medical care, in state-of-the-art hospitals. Battle casualties would be compensated for their injuries as long as was necessary, as the president would wish one of her own children to be compensated.

Women are more inclined than men to be concerned about what others think of them. America's reputation among the nations of the world would never have plummeted to such a low level as it did under George Bush, if a woman had been president.  

When children or family members are sick, women are the care-givers, the nurturers, who see their patients through illnesses until they recover. A female president would take responsibility for the nation's health care. Every citizen would have insurance which would guarantee access to timely and skilled medical attention.

As she followed her maternal instincts, a woman president would do her best to see that no child in the land lived in poverty. She would ensure that every family had the necessary resources to maintain a decent standard of living. She would work for safe streets and neighborhoods by directing finances and manpower to the arrest and incarceration of dangerous felons.

Women appreciate the value of an education both to the young people of a nation, and to the nation itself. A female president would make higher learning available to those willing and capable of benefiting from it. She would seek to raise America to world leadership through expertise in technology, medicine, and science. She would willingly share the knowledge acquired with the world's nations so the every person on the globe would benefit from America's skill and generosity.

"Should a woman be president?", you ask. I submit that a woman should have been president long before this. America would not be embroiled in a meaningless war, its citizens would be healthier and more prosperous, and it would still be the admired leader among the nations of the world.

However,evolution proceeds slowly, and patience is often required until conditions at last show improvement. After the first few terms of having a woman occupy the oval office, we may well marvel that we survived the centuries when men were the chief executives, as well as we did.

Is quality in business important?

Producing a quality product is the main reason why some companies thrive throughout generations of family ownership, while others quickly plunge into bankruptcy.

It's not hard to run a business badly. Some manufacturers will use substandard materials and an unskilled labor force to turn out a product which looks all right on the surface. It might even sell for what appears to be a bargain price. However, after several uses, the item falls apart.

Will the customer replace his loss with another product from the same company? Of course not. Oh, he'll certainly remember the company name, but only as reminder of which products to avoid at all costs the next time he goes shopping!

More damaging yet, he'll complain loudly and at great length to friends and neighbors about the junk this company produces. Potential customers will be warned away before even examining the company's wares for themselves.

How many times have you called a serviceman to repair an appliance, and paid a hefty fee just for having him step through your front door? This is sometimes laughingly known as a "service call". The technician may do no more than adjust a setting, but the fee remains the same.

The repair, if required, may be accomplished by inserting a used part harvested from a discarded machine, or by using a part intended for a different make of appliance. It will work, for awhile.

Most of us are so technologically challenged, we would never even be suspicious until the next breakdown occurred within a short time. Unscrupulous repairmen have a treasury of reasons why their repairs have been ineffective.

Perhaps the floor is crooked, or the temperature in the kitchen is too hot or too cold, or the owner is not plugging the appliance in properly. After several expensive, but unproductive "service calls" most people give up, and either buy a new appliance or call a different service company.

However, these customers also will share their frustration at the poor quality of service they have received, with anyone who will listen. Potential future customers will scared away before they even consider phoning to request a service call.

Apart from a few initial fees received from quickly unsatisfied customers, the company's revenue will soon fall into a deficit position. Another business will fail, likely before it has a chance to pay the first year's taxes.

Is quality important in business? For a business to prosper and be successful in the long term, quality in products and services is essential. Many customers today may be technologically challenged but they are financially discerning and astute. They know and appreciate companies where they are treated well and where they can be assured of getting their money's worth.

Satisfied customers are the best advertising agents. Treat them fairly, keep them happy and they'll return, bringing friends, neighbors and acquaintances again and again and again...

A business absolutely devoted to service will have only one worry about profits. They will be embarrassingly large." Henry Ford ( 1863-1947 ).

Should the federal government require religiously affiliated employers to cover the cost of their employees' birth control?

Good grief! Into which area will the federal government next stick its over-sized nose? The use or non-use of birth control is surely a private decision. Those who want it can purchase their own; the cost is not prohibitive.

If legislators decided to offer free insulin to diabetics or free inoculations to children, it would be much more beneficial for the population as a whole. There would be no cries of outrage; in fact the waves of gratitude which would follow such decisions would win the governing party many votes in upcoming elections.

However, if the government is determined to offer free birth control to every employee in the land, should the employers not have a say in the matter? Many would accept; others, such as religiously affiliated employers, would decline. For example, Roman Catholic hospitals, school boards, child care agencies and other institutions are against artificial means of birth control. They don't want these freebies and should not be forced to accept them.

If the government autocratically enforces this policy of availability of free birth control to every employee, then those employers who wish to decline should certainly not be forced to pay for it. It would be much more just to have the cost deducted from the wages of those legislators who enacted and enforced the policy.

Birth control and abortion are hot-button religious issues. The decisions on if, when and how the means of avoiding pregnancy, or of terminating one, are personal, private and highly emotional decisions for those involved. Every argument for and against each issue should be considered before any decisions are made.

Roman Catholics and some Evangelical Christians believe that the foetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Therefore, to deliberately destroy a child through abortion is legalized murder.

Similarly, to attempt to thwart, through artificial means, God's intent and power to create a new human person , is also sinful. There are means of natural birth control available to Catholic married couples who wish to plan their families responsibly.

If birth control devices were as available as jelly beans in a candy dish, young or emotionally-immature women would probably consider them a licence to indulge in increasingly promiscuous behavior. Does our society really need more of this type of conduct?

The American government has long insisted on a policy of separation of church and state. By his determination to impose this legislation on every employer, President Obama is deviating from this long-established principle. He is trying to force Catholic employers, and those of other faiths who oppose artificial birth control, to make contraceptives available to their employees. To add insult to injury, he would have these employers assume the cost of doing so.

This is unacceptable. The President of the United States and his cohorts should busy themselves with the well being and security of the nation and the promotion of world peace. Their over-sized noses are neither needed nor wanted in matters concerning the personal reproductive issues affecting American citizens.

Should smoking be allowed in public?

With the Fifth Commandment, the Creator forbids his people to wilfully destroy life, either their own, as in suicide, or the lives of others. God did not differentiate between quick death or a long drawn-out one. Some killers use guns, others use cigarettes. Few reputable scientists today who would deny that smoking causes illness and death.

The smoker puts his own life in peril. Statistics show that tobacco addicts suffer more frequent and more serious bouts of colds and 'flu, bronchitis and pneumonia. Smokers usually suffer an early death due to lung cancer or heart disease. They are, in effect, killing themselves with cigarettes.

In addition, smokers contribute to the illnesses and deaths of others who must live or work with them. While the addict may use filters on his cigarettes, others in the immediate area inhale the full blast of the smoke with all its tar and poisonous gases. The damage done to bystanders by second-hand smoke is just as serious, if not more so, than that done to the smoker himself.

On May 31st., 2006, smoking in enclosed areas was banned in the province of Ontario, Canada. Despite grumbling from smokers and predictions of dire consequences for the dining and entertainment industries, everyone has adjusted very well. Some restaurants, in fact, have reported increased patronage. Families are more inclined to bring their children to smoke-free establishments and non-smokers are now free to enjoy a meal without the stench of tobacco smoke wafting around them.

God did not give the Commandments for His own benefit, but for ours. When everyone is able to free him or herself from tobacco addiction, we'll benefit by having better health, more disposable income and longer lives. Most importantly, we'll no longer be sentencing ourselves and each other to preventable illnesses during life, and the early and painful deaths because some among us couldn't overcome their dependency on tobacco.

Is euthanasia ethical?

The dictionary defines euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal illness". The operative word here is killing. Euthanasia is most definitely unethical.

The Bible says, "Thou shalt not murder". Deut.5:17.

Even if this command were not written down in Scripture, it has been written by God on the human heart. It is part of the natural law. People of all races and creeds recognize instinctively that it is wrong to deliberately take a human life. In North America, this truth is enshrined in law.

People of faith recognize the Creator is the author of life. The Psalmist phrases it this way: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made". Ps. 139: 13-14.

God gave us life and He has a definite plan for each of us. He knows exactly how long our bodies will last. For any human to presume to step in and alter God's divine plan is wrong. The time and circumstances of each person's death should rest entirely in the hands of the Almighty.

That is not to say that we must use extraordinary means to prolong life when there is no reasonable hope that the patient will recover. Relatives of a patient are not obliged to continue the use of a heart-lung machine, a respirator, or other extraordinary means to prolong life. When a doctor determines that the person would die without the machines maintaining vital functions, and there is no reasonable hope of recovery, the machines may be unplugged. As my pastor once termed it, "Get out of God's way!".

Nor must relatives and friends sit helplessly by and watch the patient suffer severe and intractable pain. A sufficient amount of medication should be given to keep the patient comfortable and able to spend his final days with loved ones, mending relationships, winding up his affairs and saying his final goodbyes.

It sometimes happens, that as the illness progresses, the amount or the strength of the medication needs to be increased, to keep the patient from suffering. If the side effect of the increased dosage is that the heart stops or the respiratory system ceases to function, the resulting death is not euthanasia.

The all-important difference is in intention. In the case of euthanasia, a substance is administered with the express purpose of killing the patient. In the second example, the express purpose of the medication is to relieve pain. As long as there is any hope of recovery, the attending physician would, of course, be obligated to maintain the strength and amount of medication within a safe range.

There are many reasons to sustain life as long as possible. Medical science is coming up with new treatments and cures every day. If the patient survives until tomorrow, he may be able to try out a new medication which will result in improvement in his health and extension of his life.

If euthanasia ever becomes generally acceptable to society, we embark on a slippery slope. When human life is no longer considered sacred, many groups of people who are considered "less than perfect", will be endangered. What about babies born with deformities? What about people diagnosed with inoperable tumours? How about our elderly, those over 65, who no longer make a significant contribution to society? How about those with chronic diseases who put a strain on the health care system? How about whole families on welfare who drain our social assistance resources?

Euthanasia is not only unethical, it threatens to destroy the very fabric of our existence as a righteous and civilized society. The practice must be opposed by people of good will wherever and whenever it becomes necessary.

"Euthanasia is a long, smooth-sounding word, and it conceals its danger as long, smooth words do, but the danger is there, nevertheless." Pearl S. Buck

Is true beauty on the inside or the outside?

We've all experienced meeting a strikingly attractive person and feeling a desire to become better acquainted. However, as we get to know the individual better, we become disappointed, and we learn one of life's great lessons: outer beauty often masks inner qualities which are not at all pleasing.

First impressions are important, but they don't always tell the whole story. Extraordinary good looks usually take much time and effort to achieve. Outer beauty may be an unfortunate indication that the individual so perceived is self-absorbed and narcissistic, that their entire attention is focused on the appearance, the desires and the happiness of one person: themselves.

Consider for a moment some of the popular young Hollywood stars. Judging from appearances, they seem to have everything, wealth, attractiveness, attention, and some even have talent. Yet from the tragic circumstances that surround their personal lives, it's easy to infer that their personalities are not at all beautiful. There are frequent and bitter break-ups with mates, custody battles, addictions, wild parties, arrests, and yo-yo visits to rehab centres. Most of these episodes would be non-existent in the lives of persons whose personalities radiated inner beauty.

In contrast, think of some of the outstanding figures whom most people agree are truly beautiful.

Mother Teresa springs to mind. Physically, she resembled a wrinkled old prune, wrapped in the shapeless blue and white habit of the Sisters of Charity. For over forty years she tended the sick and dying on the filthy streets of Calcutta, India. Malcolm Muggeridge immortalized her in a book, "Something Beautiful for God". In 1979, she won the Nobel Peace Prize for her humanitarian work. Her inner beauty eclipsed the physical reality which the cameras recorded.

Mahatma Ghandhi of India (1869-1948) was another beautiful person, not in the usual sense of the word, but he possessed a great and noble character. He used non-violence and civil disobedience to win India's independence from Great Britain. One of his well-known quotes was " An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind..." An advocate of simple living, Ghandhi was a vegetarian and he made his own clothes. A film of his life was made in 1982 and won eight Academy Awards.

If asked to name the most beautiful person they know, physical attractiveness would be low on most people's lists of qualifying criteria. They will choose the kindest, most unselfish and loving person in their lives, someone who has influenced them in a positive way. That is as it should be.

External beauty blooms with youth but relentlessly fades as time passes. Interior beauty can be present at any age and its admirers will only increase in number as time goes by. It seems foolish and short-sighted to prefer the former over the latter.

The women of Iran

Iranian women looked  forward to June 12, 2009 with excitement and hope. On that day, the 10th. presidential election would be held. The contenders were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president of Iran, and a Reform candidate, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Mr, Mousavi has promised that if elected, he will review Iran's laws which discriminate against women, address issues of women's rights and appoint women to high positions in his administration. Understandably, women and progressive young people form the bulk of his supporters.

The Iranian law at that time favoured men. The constitution, adopted in 1979, following the revolution that overthrew Shaw Reza Pahlavi, mandated that Sharia Law, the Islamic moral code based on the Koran, be enforced in Iranian society. Under Sharia Law:

* Girls can be forced to marry at age 13. They cannot choose their husband or their residence.

* Men can divorce their wives whenever they wish, by pronouncing three times, "I divorce you."

* Men can ban their wives from working or travelling.

* Men can engage in polygamy, and have up to four permanent wives. They may also take any number of temporary wives.

* In the case of divorce, the husband automatically gets custody of children older than 7.

* Females may inherit only half as much as their brothers from their parents.

* In court, women's testimony is only half as valuable as that of a man.

* Women convicted of adultery are stoned, often resulting in their death.

* A woman who refuses to cover her hair in public faces a jail term and a beating of up to 80 lashes.

* Women can only be treated by female doctors and nurses. Many husbands would rather see a wife die in labour than receive treatment from a male doctor.

However, the winds of change had begun to blow through the conservative Muslim theocracy. Women were becoming increasingly determined to achieve equal status with men and steps towards the goal, albeit small and tentative, had already been noted.

Some young women are taking advantage of education as a means to gain more respect and freedom. Female students formed 65 percent of classes in Iranian universities.

Although they must cover their hair, women do not have to cover their faces. Plastic surgeons were doing a bustling business with rhinoplasties - nose jobs.

Satellite television and the Internet allow Iranian women to glimpse the lifestyles of their sisters in the West. They liked what they saw and continued the struggle to gain full and equal human rights for themselves. Books, movies and documentaries which explore sexual discrimination were becoming increasing popular. Even some men are beginning to support the cause of equal human rights for women.

There were women publishers and all-female publishing firms which printed books and pamphlets on women's issues from a secular point of view.

Women still faced severe penalties when they try to have laws changed. "The Campaign for a Million Signatures" was organised in 2005. Its goal was to obtain a petition signed by one million citizens which might influence the government to give women more rights regarding marriage, divorce, adultery, and polygamy. Punishment was swift and severe.

Many of the groups founders were charged with trying to overthrow the government and thrown in jail. Many others faced charges, and six members were forbidden to leave the country. Consequently, many possible supporters were afraid to sign or even to be seen with the remaining campaigners.

Nevertheless, Janet Afary, a professor of Middle East and women's studies at Purdue University stated that the country is moving inexorably toward a "sexual revolution". Iran is a country at the crossroads.

The reformist candidate in the presidential election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi was the first public figure ever to campaign in Iran with his wife by his side. Zahra Rahnavard is an intelligent and talented woman and her husband obviously valued her support and advice. She made outstanding speeches on his behalf. The couple were compared to Barack and Michelle Obama.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mousavi lost the election on June 12, 2009. The women of Iran had no reason to celebrate. Their quest for equality must be postponed, the repressive bonds of Sharia law have not been relaxed. Mr. Ahmadinejad and the clerics who rule Iran have seen to that.

However, Iranian women have tasted a bit of freedom enjoyed by their sisters in the West. It is only a matter of time until they rise up and and seize their rights, as the women in America and Canada did, not so very long ago. When that happens, as it inevitably will, the whole global community will have cause for rejoicing. 

Social etiquette: when to remove your hat

One hundred years ago, all adults wore hats whenever they left home. Hats contributed to the air of elegance and decorum which characterized the Victorian years and those immediately following. They also served as protection for the hair in the days of excessive air pollution due to a burgeoning industrial activity.

The pendulum of style often swings back to the past trying to recapture those happy memories of "the good old days". Who knows?

Hat wearing may again become fashionable and it will be important to know when and where it is proper to remove one's head covering.

If you hope to learn and practice the rules of proper etiquette regarding the removal of your hat, it will be enormously helpful if you are a female. Ladies' hats were considered part of their ensemble, and as such, needed only to be removed when they were at home, dining with friends or when someone's view was being blocked, as in a theatre or at a movie.

Men had more complicated and potentially confusing rules to remember.

* Hats were always removed indoors, except when the site was similar to a public street, such as the lobby, hallway or crowded elevator of a public building.

* If the elevator was in an apartment building or hotel, it was considered to be a small, interior room in a residence, and gentlemen removed their hats.

* If the elevator in a public building was not crowded, but a lady entered, the gentleman removed his hat.

* Gentlemen removed their hats when talking to a lady, a group of ladies, or to another man if there were ladies present. When the conversation was focused on a respectable woman, or a dear, departed relative or friend, one's hat was removed.

* As a gesture of respect, hats were removed when talking to an older man, a member of the clergy, or a dignitary of any gender, such as the mayor or governor.

* Hats were removed at a funeral or as a funeral processions passed, as a gesture of reverence. When the national flag was displayed, or the National Anthem played, gentlemen removed their hats as a sign of patriotism.

* At outdoor events, such as weddings, dedications, or picture-taking sessions, men were expected to take off their hats.

* In any small, enclosed space, such as a theater box or private dining room, hats were routinely removed.

* In general, when in doubt, it was always safer for gentlemen to remove their head coverings.

In the early 1960s, during John F. Kennedy's term of office, the style of dress became much more casual. Those involved in the hippy movement of the day embraced and extended the trend to less formality.

Today, men are hardly ever seen in formal headwear. Baseball caps, head scarves, helmets and toques are the order of the day, and the need to remove them except at bedtime, seldom arises. Maybe, considering the lengthy list of rules our fathers and grandfathers had to remember, that's not a bad thing.

However, it may be wise to keep the above list on hand. One never knows when the wheel of fashion may shift into reverse.