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 The laws couldn't be enforced, and they were soon repealed.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.

Is it rude to blow your nose in public?

It's happened to everyone; you wake up one morning with a stuffy nose, but otherwise feeling normal. You have a busy day ahead, and figuring the problem is probably due to dry air in the house, you resolve to check on the furnace humidifier after work, grab a quick breakfast and leave the house.

By noon, you realize that it wasn't dry air causing the nasal congestion; you have a miserable cold. As it becomes increasingly necessary to blow your nose frequently, you notice co-workers sending glances of distaste and annoyance your way. Have you somehow missed an important rule of etiquette? Is it rude to blow your nose in public?

Of course, blowing one's nose is preferable to constant sniffling and snorting, or wiping the sticky mucus on a sleeve. However, there are certain niceties to observe which will limit the nuisance and aversion your runny nose might cause sensitive individuals in your immediate environment.

* Like the Boy Scouts, be prepared. Make a habit of carrying a packet of tissues in your purse or pocket. You'll find they are handy for a multitude of purposes besides being an absolute necessity for dealing with a sudden cold, virus, hay fever or allergy attack.

* If you have sufficient warning, blow your nose in private. Go to the washroom, an empty hallway, or an unoccupied corner. At the very least, turn your head away from anyone near you. The liquid from your nose may be germ-laden, and you should take every precaution to ensure that no one near gets a stray spray.

* Try to blow as quietly as possible. The repetitious call of a honking goose cannot help but be distracting and annoying to all within hearing distance.

* When you are finished blowing, do not inspect the tissue at length to see what interesting goobers or other creatures have emerged from your nasal passages. This can be very distasteful to onlookers. Throw the tissue away immediately.

* Wash your hands as soon as possible. If you fail to do so, anyone touching a phone, door handle, computer keys, or any surface after you, runs a real risk of catching your germs. Even if your problem is hay fever or an allergy, your co-workers won't necessarily know that. Any infection they catch in the next six months will be blamed on you.

* To be extra safe, keep a bottle of hand sanitizer prominently displayed on your desk or work surface. Make liberal use of it after every nose-blowing episode, it will help your co-workers relax a little and be more tolerant.

The best action plan, when a cold or virus strikes, is to leave work immediately and plan for a few days at home. It will safeguard the health of your associates and give you time to recover. That's the purpose of sick days after all; you may as well make use of them.

If the problem is a serious sinus infection, an allergy or hay fever, see your doctor. There are medications available to ease the symptoms of these disorders.

Blowing your nose in public is not rude. If you are thoughtful and careful, it may not even be noticed by anyone else but you, and that would be the best outcome of all.

Is it disrespectful to smoke in front of your parents?

Smoking in front of your parents can be considered disrespectful for a number of reasons, although I must admit that there was a time when I did it as a matter of habit. I regret those occasions now. Perhaps had I acted differently, they might both have lived a little longer.

* Smoking in front of your parents damages their health. Scientists have proven that second-hand smoke is more dangerous to those in the immediate vicinity than to the smoker himself. Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar and five times as much carbon monoxide.

Second-hand smoke contains 4000 chemicals in all, 50 of which are carcinogens. Exposure causes cancer, stroke. heart disease, bronchitis, damages blood vessels, , and worsens the frequency and severity of asthma attacks. After the smoke is inhaled, the blood carries toxic substances to every organ in the body.

Are these really the types of gifts anyone wishes to give his or her parents?

* Smoking is damaging your own health. It's true that your health is your own business , but think of the effect it will have on your parents when your health breaks down.

No one knows exactly how many cigarettes it takes before there are serious consequences . If you become seriously ill, or worse, consider the effect it will have on your parents. It will break their hearts and older folks don't weather life's traumas as easily as younger people.

Cigarettes may not only put you in an early grave, they could rob your parents of their remaining golden years. Even now, they probably worry about your harmful addiction.

* After the cigarette is extinguished, there will traces for your parents to contend with. The area where you smoked will have an unpleasant odor. You probably wouldn't notice, because smokers are oblivious to the smell, but others can smell it on your clothes and hair, as well as on the curtains, rugs and furniture of the room where you were sitting.

If you visit and smoke often, the walls and windows will soon develop a nasty beige tinge which makes the painted surfaces look drab and dull.

If your parents take pride in their home, or if they suffer from allergies, your habit is costing them dearly for doctor visits, medications, room deodorizers, air cleaners, frequent paint jobs and furniture and curtain replacements.

Smoking in front of one's parents is not only disrespectful, it is selfish, harmful, and possibly disastrous. I speak from experience.

For many years, I smoked at home. My parents smoked, my sister smoked and many of our visitors smoked. In the 1950s, the extent of the danger caused by cigarette smoking was not generally known. We all puffed merrily away, although my mother suffered from severe asthma, and my dad after had his first heart attack in his early fifties.

After suffering several more, he finally succumbed to heart disease, and Mother died from a malignant brain tumour. Personally, I had a continual cough and many bouts of bronchitis before I finally kicked the habit.

Quitting was the smartest thing I ever did. Had I not done so, I probably would not have survived to write this article.

Smoking in front of your parents is much more than disrespectful, it should be considered a form of assault. For the smoker himself, the habit is no less than a form of prolonged suicide.

Serving alcohol in a socially responsible manner

The Dalai Lama observed, "Responsibility- moral responsibilities, responsibilities regarding society- these are things that come from the heart."

Hosting a party is a one of those responsibilities.

Parties are supposed to be fun - for the guests. When alcohol is being served as part of the festivities, the wise host will stay sober. If a problem arises, he will need to think clearly and act quickly.

When you entertain, you can be held legally responsible for the safety and welfare of your guests whether they are in your home, on your property, or at any party or function you organize, even if it is held at another location. Carelessness or inattention to the duties you've assumed can lead not only to serious legal consequences, but to a lifetime of guilt, sadness and regret.

Plan ahead. Alcohol-related problems can minimized or avoided by following a few simple rules.

(1). Be aware of which of your guests are under the legal age to consume alcohol. In the United States it's 21, in most of Canada, 19. Keep a watchful eye on young people. They may try to prove how "adult" they are by slipping in a beer or cocktail when they think they're unobserved.

(2). If any physical activities are planned, such as skiing or snowmobiling, do these before opening the bar. Drinking alcohol slows reflexes, removes inhibitions and impairs judgement.

(3). Designate an experienced bartender, or serve drinks yourself. Measure the alcohol content of drinks carefully and don't serve doubles. Do not leave the bar unattended.

(4). Before the party, ask a reliable friend to help keep things under control, in case someone drinks more than he or she should. Both of you, and the bartender should be familiar with the signs of intoxication.

(5). If you are serving punch containing alcohol, choose a base that is non-carbonated, such as fruit juice. Carbonation enables the body to absorb alcohol faster.

(4). Never make alcohol the main focus for the gathering. The celebration should be in honor of a birthday, a wedding or another special occasion.

(6). Have food available during the party. It slows absorption of alcohol into the blood stream. Good choices for snacks and munchies include meats, veggies, cheese, unsalted crackers and other high-protein or high-starch fare. Avoid serving salty, sweet or greasy food. It will make guests thirstier.

(7). If someone doesn't wish to drink, don't pressure him. Offer lots of non-alcoholic choices: mocktails, non-alcoholic punch, a variety of pop, coffee, tea, bottled water and fruit juices.

(8). Close the bar at least an hour before the party is over. Bring in desserts, coffee, tea, water, and sodas. Remember though, coffee is not a magic potion. It will not make someone who is intoxicated, suddenly sober.

(9). Do whatever is necessary to stop one of your guests from driving drunk. Hide his shoes or his keys, call her a cab and pay the fare, insist he sleep overnight, enlist one of her friends to give her a ride home, speak to him calmly and in private, and explain that, as his friend, you can't let him drive drunk. In case he resists, have a mutual friend speak him again in the same manner.

If he still resists and heads for his car, don't hesitate to alert the police. You may forfeit a friendship, but you could be saving a life. Most importantly, you'll be able to face yourself in the mirror the next morning.

 Hosting an event at which alcohol is served is a huge responsibility, but it is also worthwhile. At some future time, each guest may invite you back to one of his parties. Then, at last, you'll be able to relax, enjoy yourself and join in the fun. The next host will have to take his turn at fussing and fretting about keeping his guests safe and secure while they are enjoying his hospitality.

It's all about choices

Every day, the average person makes thousands of choices. From the moment we open our eyes in the morning until we close them in sleep at night, our lives consist of little more than a series of choices.

Shall I get up now or snooze another five minutes? Which outfit shall I wear? Shall I wake the kids or my spouse first? Shall I turn on the radio? Which station? Eat breakfast or skip it? Coffee with sugar or sweetener? Winter coat or jacket? And you haven't even left the house yet.

When the same choice is made often enough, it becomes a habit. The trick is to form good habits, those which will benefit us, those around us, and make the world a better place. Forming negative habits is sometimes easier at first, but they are usually detrimental in the long run.

Before habitual choices become entrenched, hard-to-change habits, it's necessary to realize that habits, bad or good, have consequences.

If an individual always gets up at the last minute, he'll be rushed, he'll have the house in an uproar, growl at the family, and raise his blood pressure. If he habitually skips breakfast, he'll function with less energy and efficiency at work in the mornings. If he always laces coffee with sugar, he'll risk gaining weight. If he has a smoking habit ...well, I don't need to finish this one, do I?

Every choice is important. Good choices result in forming worthy habits, which makes for better people. Compare the above scenario with the following:

She forms the habit of arising half an hour before she needs to. She dresses with care, makes coffee and shares a leisurely cup with her spouse before awakening the family. As the radio informs her of prevailing weather conditions, they enjoy breakfast together. Soon she's ready to head off to work, attired to suit the weather, fortified and ready to give her dynamic best to the job that awaits her.

They say it takes three weeks, 21 days, to break a bad habit. Why not choose one habitual behaviour that you'd like to change. Try to make a different choice in that particular area of your life tomorrow, and the next day and the next... Promise yourself you'll try the alternate behaviour for 21 days. You can certainly do almost anything for that length of time, can't you?

That strategy, making the same choice each day for three weeks, should result in a bad habit becoming a good one, and in you becoming a better person.

Of course, we're only human. We'll never be perfect, but eliminating one bad habit at a time can result in a huge improvement in our own well-being. It will also affect, in a favorable manner, those we live and work with.

It's only a suggestion. You can give it a try, or not. What do you have to lose? After all, It's just a matter of choice.

Why are some people so shallow?

We've all met shallow individuals. They seem to have no depth, no underlying thought processes, no dedication, or no concern for others' well-being. They seem to skim along the surface of life, focusing mainly on themselves, their immediate comforts, their wishes and desires and how to obtain them.

They judge everything by appearance, by monetary value or by its capacity to useful to themselves. "That sports car is stylish, expensive and it matches the color of my eyes. I want it."

They use other people as a means to accomplish their desires, or as window-dressing to enhance their own importance. "This is my husband, the lawyer. He's going to buy me that new sports car. You know, the one that matches my eyes."

Why are they like that?

A small percentage actually have a low I.Q. This is the only way they are capable of relating to the world around them. They will impress others as being shallow individuals until the day they die.

Others can claim no such ready excuse. They were thoroughly spoiled as children. Their parents led them to believe they were the center of the universe and so, they still feel entitled to the biggest and the best of everything. They have grown up physically, but not emotionally. The universe, in their eyes, still revolves around them.

If they were fortunate enough to spend their teen-age years as attractive, well-off, youngsters able to buy attention and friends, while still being the apple of their parents' eye, the delusion of superiority hovered over them into adulthood. However, sooner or later, most of these shallow, self-centered people are in for a rude awakening.

After marriage, when a spouse tires of taking orders and of waiting on them hand and foot, they will encounter reality with a crash that will soon topple their comfortable world. The spoiled darlings will have to begin taking someone else's needs and wishes into consideration or their married life will become extremely unpleasant.

In the normal course of events, when a family comes along, the necessity of cooking, cleaning and changing soiled nappies will remove any illusions of superiority that may have been lingering. It is impossible to be shallow and self-absorbed and still be an effective parent.

How much better it would have been if their parents had had the wisdom to give them a normal childhood, delivering discipline when necessary, and refusing to grant every wish. As the young people physically grew to adulthood, they would have developed emotionally at the same time. They would have learned to share, to consider the well-being of others and to gradually grow in their ability to accept responsibility.

Emotional growth is a little like the childhood disease of mumps. If it's experienced at the normal time, during the childhood years, it may be annoying but usually not too serious. However, if it must be tolerated during adulthood, it will be more painful, serious, and may have unpleasant consequences.

Those who knowingly spoil their children, "because I want to give them a better life than I've had," may be doing just the opposite. You have become a mature, caring, responsible parent and spouse. Are you raising these children in such a way that you can guarantee that they will turn out just as well as you have? Think it over carefully.

Why do Canadian men marry foreign women?

Of course, the most obvious answer is: Canadian men marry foreign women because they fall in love with them.

A foreigner is someone who comes from another country. When new-comers take out Canadian citizenship papers, they are no longer foreigners. They are Canadians.

Even if , for some reason, they neglect to become citizens, the next generation, their children, born in Canada, would be Canadians. There are just not that many foreign women in the smaller centers around the country for Canadian men to marry.

However, if you located couples consisting of a Canadian man and a woman born in a different country, and asked the husband why he had chosen this particular lady to be his wife, he might give one of the following replies. No doubt he would preface each reply with, " I fell in love with her and....

* she was born into a culture not too different from that of Canada, such as the United States or Western Europe."

* we met at church, or at the  mosque or synagogue. Our religious values are strong and they are an important part of our lives. Now we will be able to share them."

* we work in the same profession. We have similar ethical values. We support each other at home and at work and it's great to be able to able to exchange ideas."

* my best friend as I was growing up came from her country. I spent a lot of time with his family and felt very comfortable there. I'm sure we'll get along just fine."

* we have known each other a long time, all through high school and university. We've had differences, but we've worked them out."

These marriages have an excellent chance of enduring. The couples are mature and they have more in common than they have differences.

Of course, there are others who would give replies similar to these:

* "She was real cute, I mean an actual knock-out!"

* "I wanted to see what was under all those robes and veils."

* " My friends were all getting married and I hadn't had any luck with Canadian girls".

* I had just broken up with a Canadian girl and I wanted someone totally different".

* "My family told me not to do it, and I was sick and tired of them trying to boss me around!"

This latter group of men are immature, their reasons superficial and insufficient for trying to built a life together. Sadly, they'll probably be a part of the divorce statistics before long, and that would be the case no matter who they married.

On a personal note, my husband was born in Canada. My three sons are married to Canadian girls. However, for a mature Canadian man to meet and spend enough time with a foreign girl to consider marriage would be just fine with me. After all, all of our ancestors, with the exception of native people, were immigrants at one time.