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.