Have you ever read the labels on food packages that tell you how much fat, carbohydrates, sodium and so on are contained in that particular product? Isn't it amazing how much salt (sodium) you can find in things that don't really need to be salted. After my bypass surgery I was told to severely restrict my salt intake and was startled to discover just how much salt was in everything from canned soup to sliced meats to tomato juice.

So I find those food labels very helpful when I shop. Now, has it ever occurred to our regulators that beverage alcohol could also be identified by its component parts. After all, we do know that alcohol is a neurotoxin that can seriously inhibit the cognitive functioning of full-grown adults. In other words, if you ingest enough of your favourite tipple you'll get drunk. And those of us who are concerned about such things know that the presence of alcohol in a pregnant woman's body can severely damage the brain development in a fetus.

Yet too many people appear to be oblivious of that fact. And some of the most ignorant happen to be professionals who should know better. So what can we do to increase the level of awareness among all populations in our society? My sense is that every beverage alcohol package should carry relevant information about the contents and have a warning that women planning a pregnancy or during pregnancy should not drink.

However, there seems to be a strong lobby by the beverage alcohol industry that has successfully opposed this sensible precaution ever since the idea of labeling has been proposed. How is it that we can label everything we eat that comes in a package for the edification of all, yet beer, wine and spirits have no useful information about their contents or the possible outcomes of their misuse?

Do the powers that be care more about hypertension and allergies than what maternal drinking in pregnancy can do to the brain cells of the fetus? That is certainly the impression I get. And yes, I've heard all those claims that red wine is really good for you (in moderation of course), but haven't we accumulated enough convincing research data to know that maternal drinking in pregnancy can have a truly devastating effect on the brain development of the fetus. No sensible person would give alcohol to a baby, so why would we not warn of the danger of giving alcohol to the fetus.

I've heard the claims by people in the alcohol industry and by medical professionals that warning labels are not effective. But I have not seen the research that would support those claims. In fact, I have not seen truly effective warning labels in any jurisdiction for alcoholic products. Warning labels in themselves are not the complete answer to the scourge of FASD. But they can be an effective component in the overall effort to convince everyone that drinking in pregnancy is a dumb idea.

Communication professionals know that you cannot change people's attitudes about any particular issue by focusing on one medium only. In our modern society we are assaulted by a surfeit of new information on a daily basis. Some of it is helpful in our lives and much is irrelevant. However, labeling in the context of a larger, overarching communication program about the risks of drinking in pregnancy could provide a solid anchor for this critical message.

So, would labeling by itself solve the FASD problem? No. Would those who are compulsive or addicted drinkers be deterred by labels? No. Would every purchaser of alcoholic products even notice warnings on packages? No -- certainly not if those warnings are as badly presented as we find on US packaging.

However, should our federal government have the courage to require effective warning labels on alcoholic products we would have an official position on this important issue and we could build better communication programs throughout our society -- starting in the schools. We have just seen the federal government ban BPA in products because they feel it is better to be safe than sorry. We don't need to ban alcohol but we have the right to know what kinds of problems could arise from improper use. Our children will thank us.

For several years I have been hoping to put together a newsletter relating to FASD issues which I would send to everyone on our database. What with raising the Doodads (our two grandchildren, Kenny & Vicky), health issues that beleaguer people my age, and the all-round maintenance needs that every family and household needs, not to mention the daily demands of our FASD work, the newsletter just hasn't happened.

In fact, there are so many listservs for FASD now as well as information sharing among those of us who are interested enough to care and to do something about this issue that I could be convinced that a FASworld newsletter would be superfluous and redundant to needs. I would be interested in any thoughts you might have on this subject.

Our website (www.fasworld.com) is regularly updated with topical information along with current news stories. This may continue to be sufficient for most of us. I am very interested in your comments and suggestions.

Here are some important media myth corrections from NOFAS:

Once again a major news media outlet has produced a segment that
reinforces broadly held misconceptions about alcohol consumption
during pregnancy and deepens the stigmatization of Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders (FASD). Most recently it was ABC’s Good Morning
America (GMA) Weekend. NOFAS is deeply concerned about the
misinformation reported on GMA Weekend and has responded to ABC,
speaking with one of the reporters responsible for the story to
challenge the information presented by ABC and to request continuing
coverage of the issue to set the record straight.

Unfortunately, a review of print and electronic news and editorial
coverage from the past few years on the topic finds that the same
myths and flawed assumptions are repeated over and over again in most
national and local stories on the topic. The few feature stories that
are covered tend to be more accurate largely because they include
first-person interviews with FASD parents and caregivers, but this
type of coverage also often contains inaccuracies and assertions that
misrepresent the facts.

There are several false premises often repeated in the media that
come from and appear to reflect the views of some segments of the
general population and some professionals. Although it may appear as
if producers and editors develop inaccurate stories using the same
flawed template, sadly it likely confirms that the misconceptions
about alcohol and pregnancy are real and more pervasive then we might
imagine.

MYTHS AND FACTS

The following are some of the most common myths regularly reported in
the media.

The science is incomplete and unclear. FALSE

There are over 3,000 articles since 1973 in the medical literature
describing the risks of alcohol during pregnancy. The conclusion is
so overwhelming and clear that since 1982 the United States Surgeon
General has advised women to abstain from alcohol when pregnancy due
to the risk of birth defects. Since 1989 an advisory about alcohol
and pregnancy has appeared on every container of alcohol distributed
in the U.S. Whatever your view of the federal government there is no
more independent, credible or authoritative voice on health-related
issues. More important, we know that alcohol is a teratogen, or
neurotoxin like lead or mercury, that can interfere with human
development at any stage of gestation. It is also understood that
alcohol crosses into the blood supply of the embryo or fetus.
Understanding the facts, why would anyone advise others to play
Russian roulette with their pregnancy?

The science only shows that heavy or binge drinking can harm a
pregnancy and that moderate use is harmless. FALSE

The effects of prenatal alcohol exposure occur on a continuum. Rather
than an issue of a threshold, an amount that women can safely consume
with zero risk, alcohol during pregnancy is an issue of dose-
response. The more you drink the greater the risk of effects and the
greater the potential range and severity. Heavy drinking throughout
the pregnancy is linked to the most serious risk and the full Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome. Research has also clearly found that moderate
consumption can also be harmful. Occasional drinking has been linked
to more subtle effects such as learning and behavior problems like
attention and hyperactivity disorders and problems with judgment and
understanding cause and effect. Who has the right to tell the public
that a low dose amount of a toxic substance is completely risk free?
Is a little harm acceptable as long as the birth defects are subtle?

It is also important to understand that heavy and binge drinking
during pregnancy is not an issue that society can dismiss. More than
125,000 newborns in 2004 in the United States were exposed to heavy
and binge drinking--One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand children
born in America in one year affected by heavy and binge alcohol. Does
it further the cause of preventing alcohol-related birth defects when
the media minimizing or dismisses the issue?

It is alright to drink beer and wine. Only distilled spirits or
liquor is harmful. FALSE

Beer, wine and distilled spirits all contain alcohol, and all pose a
risk depending on the amount consumed. The inference that wine or
beer is okay because it may be more socially acceptable than
distilled spirits demonstrates that the resistance may not be about
the facts, but interfering with the traditions and customs regarding
alcohol in society.

Women are overwhelmed with information on what they should not
consume or be exposed to during pregnancy. Alcohol is just like some
foods or cosmetics or household products that paranoid health
officials believe could pose a risk. FALSE

Alcohol is a teratogen, a neurotoxin that can cause subtle
developmental disabilities to profound brain damage. The alcohol risk
far exceeds prenatal exposure to tobacco, most illicit drugs, or any
noncontaminated foods. To even compare the effect of alcohol to the
possible effects of foods and most other products, other than
specific pharmaceuticals, is a false argument.

Marijuana, cocaine and heroin are more harmful to a pregnancy then
alcohol. FALSE

Alcohol is a teratogen. The most common illicit drugs of abuse,
marijuana, cocaine and heroin are not. Research has shown that
children exposed to crack cocaine and not alcohol do not suffer the
permanent physical or cognitive effects found in alcohol exposed
children.

If a woman is celebrating a birthday or special occasion it is
alright to have a drink. FALSE

Why is it more important not to upset the sensibilities of women
wanting an alcoholic drink with their favorite meal or at a holiday
celebration then to disseminate the facts in the Surgeon General’s
advisory? That has a devastating influence on women with a growing or
chronic alcohol problem seeking license to drink. Advising a woman
that there is no harm in one drink turns the advisory about prenatal
alcohol on its head. An advisory is intended to warn the public about
the use of a substance, not to promote its use. There is no need for
further interpretation of the Surgeon Generals advisory: A
pregnant woman should not drink alcohol during pregnancy. Health
professionals should inquire routinely about alcohol consumption
during pregnancy, inform them of the risks of alcohol consumption
during pregnancy, and advise them not to drink alcoholic beverages
during pregnancy.

The endorsement of special occasion or one time only drinking are
code words for telling a women that she is exempt from the risk,
usually because of ethnicity, status or education. The endorsement of
moderate or light drinking demonstrates that professionals, and
others, do not understand the dose-response relationship of alcohol
exposure and are likely not comfortable talking with women about
alcohol use, as research suggests. Regardless, the effect of this
behavior is to strengthen the stigmatization for women who do use
alcohol especially those who misuse alcohol.

Many professionals say that they have never seen a Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome baby and therefore they conclude alcohol during pregnancy is
not a significant concern. FALSE

As of 2008, only approximately six medical schools of the more than
125 in the United States offer coursework on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder. Unfortunately, many practitioners have not been educated on
FASD or addiction medicine or trained to screen women for alcohol use
disorders or diagnose children or adults with FASD.

CONCLUSION

False premises lead to false conclusions and when those assumptions
are reported by the media that leads to misinformation. Reporters
like to say, Don’t shoot the messenger. They assert that they
are just conveying the prevailing attitudes and beliefs of the public
and professionals. Perpetuating myths and stigmatization may be
reporting, but it is not journalism and it is a missed opportunity to
conquer the myths and stigmatization.

The so called controversy that the media often reports is really the
false controversy of myth vs. fact. On one side are the myths
produced by the repeated dissemination of incorrect or conflicting
information; myths that are often reinforced because they are
convenient and people want to believe them. On the other side are the
facts; science complemented by a common sense understanding of the
advisory to abstain from alcohol when pregnant or thinking about
pregnancy. Alcohol-related birth defects are the leading known cause
of mental retardation, birth defects and learning disabilities.
Fortunately they are completely preventable. A media that reports the
facts would go a long way toward fulfilling that promise.

NOFAS MEDIA OUTREACH

Media education and outreach is an important part of the NOFAS
mission. Whenever possible, NOFAS responds to inaccurate media
reports about FASD and alcohol and pregnancy. NOFAS also responds as
appropriate with criticism or praise to portrayals of the issue in
television, movies and other media. NOFAS is currently seeking
additional funding to launch a comprehensive media outreach
initiative to not only respond to the media, but to also brief
producers and editors about the latest information on FASD and pitch
story ideas on a regular basis.

It is imperative that all FASD advocates respond to erroneous media
reports with a clear, rational and firm reply that sets the record
straight. As with the need to educate policymakers if we want
effective policy, NOFAS and all FASD organizations and advocates must
educate the media if we expect them to report accurately, given the
many misconceptions and shame associated with alcohol and pregnancy.
In addition to training professionals about FASD, educating the media
and policymakers should be our most important objectives.

For more information about NOFAS media outreach contact Erin Bailey,
bailey@nofas.org or Tom Donaldson at donaldson@nofas.org

Have you ever wondered why some people are so terrified of labelling alcohol packages? The former President of the Canada Safety Council (CSC), Emile Therien, has ridden this hobby-horse before and I’m still wondering why. I have just read a rather specious argument against labelling on the globeandmail.com website. The CSC is concerned with safe driving techniques and sport helmets for children and issues media releases and newsletters with good advice about these issues. Does he now feel that he is an authority on health matters and mass communication efforts? Or, is he in the thrall of the beverage alcohol industry which has fought labelling of their products ever since this issues was raised?

Whatever his motivation, his arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, no advocate of labelling booze packages has ever suggested that this step would be a “quick fix” or would, by itself, resolve the problems of immoderate drinking or totally prevent Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). As well, any research on labelling is meaningless if there have never been any effective label designs – certainly none exist in Canada.

Does Therien think that we should remove the warning labels from cigarettes because some people still remain addicted? Should we remove the warning labels from caustic cleansers and various poisonous liquids that are common to most households? Should we eliminate the information panels on food products in our stores because of our society’s high illiteracy rate? Oh no, let’s pretend that alcohol is some kind of health drink rather than a neurotoxin that can damage the developing brain cells of the growing fetus in the womb.

Perhaps the CSC and the beverage alcohol industry is unaware that FASD is the most common, most expensive, yet most preventable of all mental disorders in the industrialized world. But I doubt it. Currently, the cost of special education, welfare, social services, mental health counselling and the justice system can largely be related to those who struggle with FASD and roughly matches our national debt.

I agree that labelling is no quick fix. Labelling must be part of an overall education and intervention program that starts in our schools (including the medical faculties in our universities) with children prior to them becoming sexually active. Our country needs a concerted, overall strategy to inform everyone of the devastating effects of maternal drinking in pregnancy. FASworld and the thousands of families who deal with these issues on a daily basis are ready to welcome collaborative efforts from CSC and the any other responsible organization that will help us curtail this social scourge. I challenge the CSC to tell us about “the proven measures and personal interventions that are actually making a difference” and how labelling will divert resources of any kind.

This is not a minor issue. If you have ever wondered why there are so many homeless, school dropouts, high recidivism rates in our prisons, a clogged justice system, multi-generational alcoholism in some of our communities, just look into the cause: it’s more than likely FASD. Communication efforts must not start and stop with labels. We need effective information messages at all locations where alcohol is sold, in all broadcast commercials and print advertising for alcohol products and in mandatory parenting education programs. FASD is bigger than SARS, bigger than HIV/AIDS, bigger than any disease of the week. Let’s stop poisoning our unborn.

Starring the renowned Teresa Kellerman, FASworld coordinated a full day FASD workshop for parents here in Toronto in September of this year. Teresa created a unique program that was informative and splendidly interactive. She modified the lyrics to a number of Beatles' songs and had everyone sing along with her at intervals in the program. The response, according to our follow-up survey of attendees was very positive with an over 60% response rate. We are happy to share the survey results with anyone who is interested -- just let me know at brian@fasworld.com.

The conference was supported by CAS Toronto, The Children's Mental Health Fund of the Ministry of Children & Youth Services, FASworld Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital and our special friend, Richard Ilomaki. A special gift came to us for all of the attendees, courtesy of the Monteith Correctional Centre (near Timmins, ON) in the form of their own invention: FAS Knot pretzels. They were sweet and delicious and a tribute to the volunteer bakers who contributed their own time and efforts to create yet another version of the FAS Knot to help getting the FASD message across.

These are my remarks at the conclusion of the day:

"I'm so lucky -- my daughter Colette who helps us with our FASD work, my wife Bonnie who is my inspiration and booster, our beloved Teresa who has enriched all our lives so well...

"When you fall -- as all of us must do from time-to-time, remember to fall forward. For every mishap, every failure is an opportunity to learn and to grow. Our challenges are great but we can meet them as we continue to evolve as caring beings who can continue to discover some of the important reasons why we are who we are. And who we are is never a constant. As we meet each of life's difficulties we can build new skills, new techniques that will help us to help our loved ones even more. I honour the greatness in you. Namaste.

Should the mission of our Canadian Armed Forces be as auxiliaries to the US army as they seem to be now, or should they be an organization that is dedicated to the enhancement of cultural and economic values for our own country? The recent Environics poll in Afghanistan appears to reveal that the local population doesn't even realize that there are Canadian troops on the ground there. They think the foreign soldiers are either American or German (a country that doesn't have any soldiers there).

Has it not occurred to anyone in the decision-making loop in Ottawa that having adventures in far-off lands should not be part of the CAF mission except when the country is under extreme duress or must come to the aid of allies. Neither of these conditions are in place at the moment. We originally went to Afghanistan to share the workload with the Americans in rooting out Osama bin Laden. When the Americans abandoned that search to invade Iraq so that they could control the oil fields there, the Canadians were left like 'monkeys in the middle' of local insurgencies. This role is a waste of valiant, courageous and skillful troops who are stuck in a political morass that has no end and where there will be no winning outcome.

What about the patrol work that needs to be done on our ocean coasts, north, east & west? What about monitoring the Great Lakes? What about collaborating with our Coast Guard to protect our fisheries and so on. What about establishing a presence in the north to ratify our sovereignty there? Why aren't there coordinated programs linking the reserves with the active forces to ensure that there can be swift and helpful responses to domestic disaster situations?

Don't Canadians care about the real mission of our CAF or are we all satisfied that our leaders take direction from Washington?

I found it difficult to devote much time to the speech from the throne last night once I heard that the Conservative Government wants to extend the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan yet another two years beyond the last extension to 2009. The first question I have to ask myself is, "What, precisely, is the mission?".

I have commented earlier on the dubious merits of invading another country in order to change the government of that country. What is it in our collective western psyche that demands that everyone govern themselves the way we do? Frankly, the way we have been governing ourselves lately does not generate a lot of accolades in my mind (and I include the US, UK and others along with Canada). And what is it that motivates us to enter a field of battle where the likelihood of success is minimal to non-existent? I have argued in the past for taking on projects that have a high success factor instead of ones that have doom written all over them.

For example, if we want to impress other cultures, other political mindsets, why aren't we doing supportive, helpful things in those places where we are welcomed and regarded with respect? -- Assuming there are still places like that left. Are we so wrapped up in our recollections of past wartime glories that we must cater to the desires of our warrior classes who insist on proving that our armed forces are as tough, as valiant, as courageous as any others? That sounds more like a schoolyard boastfulness approach to world dynamics.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am ex-navy (RCN 058838) and I have high regard for the fortitude, skills and courage of our armed forces. What I question is the wisdom of our political leaders who take them into harm's way for many of the wrong reasons.

Is the only way to prove our mettle as warriors by invading others and killing our political adversaries? If there were soldiers from a country half-way around the world patrolling the streets of Toronto, smashing their way into houses on their own suspicions and tracking down and killing resistance fighters, I think I would want to try to join the ranks of those resistance fighters.

We hear about something called "ethnic cleansing", an abhorrent term that has a certain oxymoronic quality about it and which we deplore when other factions do it. Yet, isn't that what we are trying to do with the Taliban (virtually all from the Pashtun tribal group)? Didn't the West arm and support the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan so that they could drive the Soviets out of their country? Are we so surprised that others want to drive the Western forces out today? Why are we trying to "win over" those who look at the world through a very different prism by killing them rather than by setting an example worth emulating?

Are we still so enamored of 'My Lai' attitudes that we can only save a village by destroying it?

So what can you or I do about stuff like this? Unfortunately, not a lot. But we can do some things: we can write letters to MPs, to the Prime Minister, to key Cabinet Ministers; we can join a political party and work for individuals who are like-minded; we can join and support public interest groups working for the same objectives; and we can set positive, responsible examples ourselves for our friends and our children. What do you say?

When you get immersed into FASD issues you certainly learn a lot of new words. Many parents of difficult, acting out children are either confused or frustrated or both when confronted by professionals who identify their children with terms describing behaviours but not recognizing root causes.

When you have more than one identifier of a child's behaviour (e.g. attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, radical attachment disorder, seasonal affective disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and so on), that does not necessarily mean that a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is excluded. These comorbidities, as they are called, only recognize that there is more than one behavioural anomaly occurring coincidentally and there should be no assumption that these diagnoses are the definitive answer to the reasons behind your child's behaviour.

A diagnosis of any one of these comorbidities, occurring alone or simultaneously with any others, should be a signal to investigate further into the reasons behind the behaviours that are delaying the healthy mental development of your child.

Let's acknowledge that fetal alcohol can cause virtually any kind of physical or mental damage to the developing fetus, up to and including death. Share your knowledge of the dangers of alcohol in pregnancy with every person you know. Every child deserves the best start possible in life and no alcohol during pregnancy and planning for pregnancy must be the rule. We are told by doctors that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, so if a woman is sexually active and not using contraception, she is planning a pregnancy. As Dr. Christine Loock has said many times, "FASD is the most common, most expensive, yet most preventable of all mental disorders in the industrialized world."

Here's another book from the shelf that I had started years ago and never finished until recently. I have been an admirer of John Godfrey for some time because of his outlook on politics, his concern for youth issues and his general demeanour towards all things possible. In this book he teamed with Rob McLean and, although slightly dated (The Canada We Want, Stoddart, 1999), it provides a realistic outline of the kinds of national projects our country needs. And still needs.

We've come a long way since 1999: the twin towers attack in 2001 that continues to traumatize the US to this day; the US invasion of Iraq for world oil domination; the rise of US despotism in the form of torture, private mercenary teams above the law, concentration camps with no recourse to legal support, and so on. The Americans appear to have no serious political opposition in Washington and Canada has been coasting along with a sycophantic pseudo-conservative government since the demise of the Liberal party a couple of years ago.

The challenge from Godfrey and McLean is an arresting one: don't let Canada be like any other country that emulates the US; get some national projects going that will rejuvenate, stimulate, invigorate the people of Canada; don't count on governments to come up with the ideas for these projects -- get involved as citizens.

If your bookstore doesn't have (it may have been remaindered years ago!) your library might. If you can't find hard copy, go to http://www.canada.matrixlinks.ca where you will find bio info on the authors and the book contents. Check it out and tell me what you think. ****

As I was enjoying a Sunday morning hot tub with Bonnie today, I realized that what I was referring to yesterday was simply, abundance. We live in a society, in a place where there is great abundance of all the things people need: food, drink, shelter, clothing and so on. Yet we still have an obvious and disproportionate way of sharing this abundance. While my family enjoys lots of nutritious food every day, our house stays warm in the winter and we have such lavish benefits that include a swimming pool in summer, a hot tub year-round, membership in an exceptional athletic club (Variety Village) and can afford to subsidize the grand-kids in Cubs and Sparks. So we have a lot and I haven't even mentioned several colour TV sets, CD players and multiple computers. Yet we don't consider ourselves rich.

It appears clear to me that my family lives in a lifestyle of abundance -- did I mention that we have two cars? So how come there are so many families, especially those with young children living in poverty in our country? Is it because those of us who have don't want to share what we have? Or is it because we don't think that those who don't have don't deserve to have?

Perhaps it's because we don't know how to share effectively. We tend to assume that our political leaders will solve this societal problem but so far, they haven't been very successful. there is an entrenched corporate mindset that leads the thinking on this issue and, unfortunately, corporations feel responsible only to their own shareholders and not to the community at large. Yes, I know some organizations have very generous charitable programs but many are focused only on special interest areas that have captured the attention of the senior executive groups.

Frankly, what we need is to get more money in the hands of the poor so that they can spend it. When they have money to spend they become consumers and our economy thrives on consumption. So why aren't we paying people who do necessary grunt work livable wages. Why aren't we providing livable support funding for those unable to work at regular jobs. When private or public money flows into the lowest income recipients in our society we will all benefit because that money flows back into the economy at large.

Only when individuals are earning significant wages in permanent jobs will they have an opportunity to put something by for the future. By giving people the incentive to live well they will naturally aspire to improve themselves and to build better living regimes for themselves. Thus we must raise the minimum wage to $12 or more an hour and provide support levels beyond $12,000 a year for those chronically unemployed or unable to be employed. The payback to our economy and to the well-being of our society will be enormous.

Have you had an epiphany lately? I still have them every once and awhile -- which means not often enough. However, when these moments of revelation do come, they are all the more profound. Yes, I know, some people still think these moments are an inspiration from god, but we know that it is more likely the lucky connection of a few neurotransmitters that reveal insights that were lurking in the brain all along.

So what happened today? I had hung out laundry on my solar dryer (what my mother used to call a clothesline) two days ago but a fog swept in and kept everything damp. Then yesterday we had full sun on a very mild October day. But I didn't get around to taking the dry laundry down because of an emergency trip to Hamilton to pick up cousin Michele who had been stranded because of a leaking gas tank. This morning, before dawn, I started to hear the patter of rain on the skylights and, following a few choice expletives, I rescued two baskets of still damp washing.

Loath to put this lot in the dryer, I hung everything on the racks set up in the laundry room to air dry. While I was doing that, I discovered a whole load of laundry already in the dryer, left over from my lovely wife Bonnie who had put it in while I had taken the grand-kids to Niagara Falls a couple of weeks ago.

Which brings me to my epiphany. It occurs to me that some of us survive, even thrive because we have reserves. In terms of laundry, it is obvious we have lots of extra clothes and we could cope for some time with our surplus. Because many of us have reserves of clothes, of food, of money, even housing, we can manage the ups and downs of life far more easily than those who don't. For those who live from meal to meal, from day to day, there is no opportunity for planning, for supporting others, for building their own reserves.

When we are confronted by situations where we need to decide how we can help others, try to remember that we have reserves and they don't. With reserves we can make choices. They can't.

So when you wonder who our thought-leaders are, who the decision-makers in our society are, try to remember that we are they. Don't count on somebody else to take responsibility for societal problems. We are the ones we've been waiting for.

My grandson has a new bike. It’s just the right size for him. His previous bike was too small. Although he had outgrown it, he rode it relentlessly because he was born to ride. And yet, when he visits his neighbourhood buddies, he insists on riding their bikes – even though those bikes are bigger than the one he is just big enough to ride.

So today, he was riding a friend’s bike in a nearby park along with the friend’s younger brother. After crashing about, they dropped their bikes on the grass and climbed aboard the gym rigs there.

Later, they realized that the bike my grandson borrowed was gone. Stolen.

When he got home he announced what had happened. No explanation why he was using his friend’s bike and no reason for not minding it while it was in his care. In fact, he seemed quite indifferent about the theft except that it provided a minor frisson of excitement.

However, there was a happy ending. The other boy’s father drove around the neighbourhood, spotted the stolen bicycle and retrieved it from another youth who explained, “It was just lying there, so I thought I could take it.”

So why are some kids so blasé? As parents, do we care more about their possessions than they do? Is it because they have too much stuff? So much that each thing is of little value? What do you think?

"You cannot finish what you don't start"*. And the more you start the more you will finish. But be resigned to the fact that you can't finish everything.

*This started as a quote for my list of epigrins. I'm sure if you look at any of my epigrins (a play on 'epigram' that's supposed to make you smile) -- I have over 500 now -- you will say that they are not very original ideas. I know that. But I'm hoping that the way I say these things will have a semblance of originality and will help the reader see life a little more clearly. Should you want to see the whole list, just let me know at brian@fasworld.com and I'll send them to you.

More book reviews presently...

Why all the fuss about renewing faith? It's far more important to renew hope. Hope gives you direction. It gives meaning to your life. Faith is simply having a belief system that some people need to cope with life. Hope, on the other hand, defines a purpose for your life. Now, it's OK to have faith, just don't let whatever faith you have -- in a deity, your fellow man, your society -- obscure the fact that you are the real source of your own motivation and direction. Your destiny is up to you. You are the only one who can decide how you will live, behave and act.

When you have hope you have options. Faith narrows or eliminates choice. Having faith in the unknowable, unfindable and unproven may seem like a pius thing to do. However, that kind of faith can arrest your mental processes, narrow the parameters of an inquiring mind and leave you vulnerable to the machinations of hierarchical organizations often interested only in self-aggrandizement.

But, you say, you must have faith in something. Of course I do. I have faith in the laws of nature and in the innate goodness of my fellow humans. I acknowledge that none of us are perfect and some are positively wicked. However, in my experience, almost all have treated me with courtesy, respect and even, sometimes, affection.

I have no belief in an afterlife or in reincarnation. The notion of a super spirit modeled after man who is credited with creating everything we know of is the height of fantasy. It requires some kind of delusional faith to adhere to such beliefs which generally become dogmatized by religions.

My faith is as I have described. I have hope that we can continue to improve and survive as a species. Meanwhile, let us be as charitable as we can among ourselves. This is the main performance. There is no rehearsal and there will be no re-runs.

On one of my recent book orders - I buy my books almost exclusively from Amazon.ca because of the deep discounts and the fast service -- I bought a book by Robert K. Cooper entitled "Get Out of Your Own Way". When it arrived I realized that I had a book on my shelf by the same author that I had never finished called "The Other 90%". Thus, I decided to finish that one before embarking on the latest one.

I think I had delayed completing "The Other 90%" because it sounded too much like most self-help guide books that never take you anywhere useful. However, once I got right into it, I found this book quite thought-provoking and an excellent primer for forward planning (sorry, I guess that's a redundancy!). Cooper's premise is that we are barely scratching the surface in terms of optimizing our potential brain power. Brain capacity has been of great interest to Bonnie and me since we have been on the FASD track. Cooper has a deft style of writing which makes for easy reading and the book is structured in a way that allows you to absorb short chunks at intervals so that you can get the most out of his exposition. It will stay close to hand as I expect to refer to it from time-to-time to refresh my enthusiasm for exploiting my own untapped 90%.****

About ten years ago, I happened to catch the CBC Radio program Ideas. It usually comes on in the evening and carries a specific theme for five weeknights in a row. The subjects cover everything from the justice system to new concepts in art. On this occasion it was John Ralston Saul on a subject he called "The Unconscious Civilization". I found it intriguing enough that I sent away for the audio tapes of the presentation and for the print version. Well, this also happened to be around the time I was negotiating my retirement package from Consumers Gas and subsequently setting up my home office business. Thus, the package arrived (i.e. the book and tapes) and they sat on my bookshelf for all these years since.

However, earlier this summer, as I was culling through my novels and thrillers that could be passed on to others, I picked it up and started reading. I found it was still fascinating ten years later and the positions taken by Ralston Saul were very much still on the mark. He very clearly identified some of the major problems we have in our society in relation to our inability to count on our governments to manage our economy. In effect, he said that we are totally within the thrall of the corporate organizations that buy our politicians and who respond only to their stockholders rather than the community at large.

But we always knew that didn't we? Or was it only sub-consciously? It is a very articulate argument for taking action and getting involved with our communities. He has not taken a partisan side politically but leaves the choice of action up to each of us. Available still in paperback from Anansi, it is an important read for every citizen who cares about the direction of our society. ****

Once I decided to take a LOA from Rotary and focus on fewer issues, I did find some time to do a little catch-up reading. Here's a short list of some completed books:

"Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell: now that Gladwell's "Tipping Point" has become part of the language, I was interested in reading his latest book published in 2005. Last spring I was traveling around the province for the Ministry of Consumer Safety and Corrections so the travel times and overnight stays gave me some precious reading time. "Blink" doesn't have the impact or substance of "Tipping Point" but he does make an interesting point about how fast the brain can react to various situations. In fact, the main lesson from this book is that we must learn to appreciate what we are confronted with by forcing our accumulated biases and prejudices to be neutralized so that we can judge the merit of new concepts, ideas and behaviours with fresh and untainted mindsets. Well worth the quick read that it is.****

"The Birth of Christianity" by Joel Carmichael. I have been fascinated by all religions ever since I decided I no longer believed in a deity the way most religions describe that concept. I have reached the conclusion that there is no supra-human, all-powerful, all-knowing entity looking over each and every one of us from somewhere in the heavens. I'm inclined to believe that each of us has a powerful spirit within and this essence is the force that gives us a conscience, an ethical base and the desire to improve in every sense. Of course, you may have noticed that there are some individuals who don't seem to have a strong spiritual or ethical sensibility and that is generally because of that individual's deficiencies in the executive function of the brain. Carmichael's research tells us that the religion of Christianity is simply a man-made construct that has evolved over time and which has borrowed heavily from other cultures and other religious customs. Thus, I have concluded that all the religions I know of have been formed on three foundational pillars: tradition, superstition and mythology. Lots of interesting information here but Carmichael is not the most fluid of writers and could have benefited from some creative editing. ***

"Bible and Sword" by Barbara W. Tuchman was on my shelf for many years without a look-see. Originally published in 1956, this edition had a revised forward from 1984. Considering what has been happening in the Middle East lately, this is an excellent primer on the background leading up to the current stresses and strife relating to Israel, Palestine and that wicked fiasco in Iraq. One of the more amusing aspects of the British interest in creating a homeland for Jews was the notion that once the homeland was a reality, the Jews would be more vulnerable to conversion to Christianity. A fascinating historical perspective on the focal point of the major ongoing conflicts of the last century. ****

Next time I'll talk about "the Unconscious Civilization" by John Ralston Saul, "the Other 90%" by Robert K. Cooper and "The Canada We Want" by John Godfrey and Rob McLean.

After a long and frustrating hiatus from this journal, I'm finally exasperated enough to start venting again.

Although I got a bunch of things off my chest after my quad bypass surgery last fall, I found that I tried to get back in harness much too soon and tried to accomplish more things than I was capable of in the ensuing months. I have since resolved to moderate my ambitious goals and do what I can in a more sedate fashion. Let's hope I won't leave out anything important in the long term.

I was shocked to find little or no real support for my ethical issue with a fellow member of my Rotary Club. The individual should have been tossed but the old guard felt we should just muddle through because "we've had bad presidents before and we survived...". Lack of management and operating skills is one thing but sexual harassment is quite another and I found that kind of behaviour intolerable. My only choice was to leave the club that I had worked so hard for in the past and still had many ambitious projects to implement in the future.

However, making these kinds of breaks, however hard and hurtful they may seem at the time, has enabled me to look at shedding much other clutter from my life both literally and figuratively. So I'm on a reorganization, clean-up, tidy-up, toss-out streak in my office, around the house, the garage and -- my head too I suppose. It's a purge of the unnecessary, unread and unneeded. Let's hope it opens up opportunities for new ideas and new energy.

No, it's not "ice hockey", it's simply "hockey". And I read in the paper this week that the TV audiences had significantly declined this season for NHL hockey. Could it be that viewers are gettting tired of a game that tolerates punch-ups? apart from the brain-destroying sport of boxing, I don't know of any other that tolerates fist-fights in the course of the game. Players who decide to punch each other in the face are given major penalties but they aren't thrown out of the game and they suffer no suspensions either.

When I watch women's hockey I find the pace exciting and the skill sets a marvel to watch. Does the women's game lose some of its thrills because they don't throw punches? Of course not. Whoever says that fighting is simply part of the game of hockey doesn't really understand how great the game can be and has no appreciation for the finesse that is possible without it.

Meanwhile, I haven't watched NHL hockey for years. Let me know when the owners and players decide to grow up and give us real hockey. Or do they all struggle with FASD and can't make mature decisions?

Canada has some of the most comprehensive health care coverage in the world. So why are there so many critics claiming it’s a failed system. Recently, the Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente claimed in her lead sentence, “Everybody knows our health system is nuts.” Oh really? Everybody? Is our health system perfect? Perhaps not, but what system would we be willing to trade it for?

Over the last few years my family has had serious interactions with our health system: surgery, chemo and radiation therapy for breast cancer; quadruple bypass heart surgery; immediate clinical response to suspected detached retina; numerous emergency responses to asthma-related attacks for our grandchildren who live with us and other minor interactions with local walk-in clinics. All these interventions were at no charge to our family with the exception of nominal charges for ambulance service when required. It’s true that I had to wait several months to get an MRI one time when I suffered from ‘sudden hearing loss’ in my right ear, aggravated by tinnitus. However, having the MRI any faster would not have made any difference in the diagnosis or in the doctor’s recommendations – “It’s a virus, leave it alone, it may eventually go away,” – and, in fact, it did go away a year or so later.

So, is my family some kind of exception? Our experience has been very positive with only nominal wait times between stages of treatment. I understand that certain kinds of procedures such as cataract surgeries or joint replacements don’t require the full facilities of a major hospital. These kinds of interventions can be best managed in specialized clinics dedicated to specific tasks and services can be provided on the same basis as other doctor visits, clinic visits and hospital stays. The fact that some of these specialized services may be privately owned is immaterial as long as the patient does not have to pay the out-of-pocket costs.

If cardiac emergencies and cancer treatments get priority over joint replacements and other kinds of non-life-threatening remedial care, I’m all for it. Just don’t try to tell me that the whole system is a failure because some people have to wait longer than others. Let’s be grateful for what we have. My friends in the US who have insurance have to measure out the amount of health care they receive because even the most comprehensive plans will cover only a limited amount of services. A case in point is a Canadian who moved to the US with her husband who had full insurance coverage from his US company. She required open heart surgery for which his insurance covered 80%. She had to pay the balance: $20,000. I’ll take our pre-paid universal coverage program every time.