Prolonging the error

A Canadian Press report in the June 29, 2016 issue of the Toronto Star claims that the First Nations residential schools were designed to "take the Indian out of the child." Neither CP nor the Star checked their facts. It's irresponsible to place non-attributable words in quotation marks.

No authoritative Canadian ever uttered that statement. Leading the charge was former prime minister Stephen Harper who voiced it in the House of Commons, and the agony of error more recently prolonged by Ontario Premier Elizabeth Wynne.

What to do when the tide of media and political error runs high? Let's try the whole truth.

From"The legacy of Duncan Campbell Scott" by Mark Abley: "The quotation can be traced back to a somewhat different statement uttered by a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Army, Richard Henry Pratt, the nineteenth-century superintendent of a residential school in Pennsylvania: All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."

Not a Canadian in sight, but why spoil a good story?

Democracy, but not for all

Published in the Toronto Star, February 28, 2016 Re: Let all MPs decide freely, Editorial Feb. 21 In demanding a free vote on the issue of assisted suicide, the Star editorializes that “If ever there was an issue that calls for MPs to examine their consciences and vote according to their personal values, this is it.” Curious, the Star did not extend such liberality to would-be candidates who had examined their consciences and would have voted according to their personal values with regard to abortion.  Indeed, the Star lauded Justin Trudeau when he barred such would-be Liberal candidates from seeking office. Democracy has many faces, some of them ugly.

Canada first. No one in second place.

My parents came to Canada during the 1920s.  They were poor, no formal education, spoke no English, were Catholic and settled in rabidly Protestant Toronto. They became Canadian citizens as soon as law allowed. In their long lives, they never spoke of the glories of their Austrian homeland nor of how things were done differently and better over there. They did not bring European politics to Canada.

Little wonder I have no patience for partisan and nationalist arguments among later immigrants. Disputes in foreign lands must be left there.

Little wonder my patience ran out in 2010. The then Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty met with the Indian transport minister to discuss trade. Because of a grievance back in India, a group of Sikhs protested. "Unless they make amends quickly, the Liberals will definitely lose this community's votes," said Harbans Jandali, president of the Ontario Sikh  and Gurdwara Council.

I sent a letter to the Toronto Star arguing that foreign problems are better left off-shore and that Canadian politicians should not be held hostage to behaviour on the other side of the world. I sent a similar letter to Mr. Jandali. The newspaper did not publish, nor did Mr. Jandali reply.

This came to mind when I read a report in the Star of August 13, 2015 headlined, "Canadian Jews in Israel could help Harper."

My email to the Star, also unpublished:

It's disappointing if people holding Canadian citizenship but living permanently in foreign countries vote in Canadian elections in a way to further the interests of those countries in preference to those of Canada.

In the forthcoming election, some such Canadians living in Israel will vote for Stephen Harper because of his stand on Middle East affairs.

Disappointing because my vote on Canadian issues will be cancelled by a single-issue voter concerned more with off-shore matters than with our economy, health care, Aboriginal rights, research funding, the environment and so on.

More censorship at the Toronto Star

The issue here is the Toronto Star's apparent double-speak. The photograph that appears in the Star shows Justin Trudeau in a Pride Parade alongside a young women with her breasts exposed. The Star blurred out her nipples. Thus my unpublished letter of August 8, 2015. 

Re Topless photos with Trudeau cause Internet commotion, Aug. 7:

The Toronto Star promotes the Pride parade as a "family event." In other words, you recommend we take our children to see topless women in the flesh. Yet, when it comes to publishing photographs of this "family event," you indulge in censorship, as in this case. Can you explain this double-dealing scented with a whiff of hypocrisy?

"To kill the Indian in the child" -- never uttered

I recently criticized the Toronto Star for its editorial use of the odious expression "to kill the Indian in the child."  The basis of my objection was the Star's placing these words in quotation marks and failing to attribute them to some actual person.

This occurred in the midst of the vacuous debate of whether the Indian residential schools constituted cultural genocide. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, waded in thereby shedding her robes of judicial impartiality and exposing the legal activist.

Toronto Star apologist Cathy English replied with an excerpt from a speech by Stephen Harper where he used phrase again in quotation marks, again without attribution. On occasion the expression was attributed to the poet Duncan Campbell Scott, long-time Superintendent of Indian Affairs responsible for the residential schools.. Worse still, one correspondent claimed it appears in Canadian legislation.

Statements in quotation marks must be the exact words uttered by an attributable source. Neither the Star nor the Prime Minister followed this essential rule.

For the record, an excerpt from Conversations with a Dead Man; the legacy of Duncan Campbell Scott by Mark Abley:

"But the offending phrase is not Scott's. He never used those words. Neither did any other Canadian official. The quotation can be traced back to a somewhat different statement uttered by a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Army, Richard Henry Pratt, the nineteenth-century superintendent of a residential school in Pennsylvania: 'All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man'."

Erasing Toronto history

Letter to the Toronto Star, June 3, 2015. Unpublished.

The Star shows concern for the erasure of aboriginal street names (Ojibe street signs bold reminder of aboriginal heritage, June 3), yet none for the disappearance of other historic names. 

I refer to the changing of Cawthra Square in downtown Toronto to Barbara Hall Park. Surely there was some better way to honour the former Human Rights Commissioner than by blotting out the name of one of our early families? 

For more than a century, Cawthra Square was the name of a plot of land in the Isabella and Jarvis area near where William Cawthra's widow lived after her husband's death in 1880. William was a businessman and philanthropist.

The message and the messenger

Letter to the Editor, Toronto Star, May 27. Unpublished.

Re The folly of the 'density creep' crew, May 26:

This column by Heather Mallick is an object lesson on how not to debate an issue. 

Mallick disagrees with residents' objections to a real estate development on their street. "A surly bunch," she describes them.  "Stubby-legged and trousered, sturdy as the two-storey, single-family homes they're defending, they pose in a hostile clump as they alert all Toronto to a coming menace. If you want to catch them smiling, turn the photo upside down."  

Mallick does not like the message, so she attacks the messenger. 

Political Correctness Rampant

Letter to the Toronto Star published January 13, 2015.

To claim that the House of Commons is too white, old and male smacks of racism, ageism and sexism (Parliament too while, old and male, study says, Jan 3). Parliamentarians are elected for the sole purpose to of representing our political views as ultimately expressed in the laws they enact.

I do not care if my federal, provincial or municipal representatives are freckled, polka-dot Luggnaggians, so long as we envision our Canada, our province and our city more or less in the same way. If they fail in that, I do my best to see them replaced by someone who does.

We must never forget the ringing words of Martin Luther King Jr. who dreamed that one day his children would "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."

No accommodation in human rights?

Letter to the Toronto Star published August 19, 2014:

Your Aug 11 editorial, "One rule for all," betrays a dated mode of thinking, as false as "one size fits all." 

The issue in this case was the request by a group of visiting Hindu priests to be cleared by men only of the Canada Border Services Agency. Denial of this request bespeaks an ideological and absolutist frame of mind. Would you say the same if a group of Muslim women requested clearance by women only?  

The ham-fisted "one rule for all" is another example of "human rights" gone barking mad. Surely there is room for accommodation? Surely accommodation of legitimate and reasonable requests is the Canadian way?

*  *  *

Letter to the Toronto Star, August 25, 2014
Re: Human rights gone mad, Letter Aug. 19

Letter-writer Raymond Peringer misdescribes the situation when he says that visiting Hindu priests asked Canada Border Service Agency to be cleared by male employees only. What they asked for was to not be cleared by women. When seen in this light, it becomes obvious that the request contradicted Canada’s commitment to gender equality, and should not have been granted.

(Name deleted), Toronto
                                                                               *  *  *

RP comment:

The writer exemplifies that frame of mind which allows for nothing beyond the letter of the law. This utopian, absolutist, zero tolerance, ideological approach to human behaviour has produced more than its share of  nonsense at our human rights commissions. 

Inspiration for my comment ---  A Truth Telling Manual and the Art of Worldly Wisdom, 1653, by Baltasar Gracian S.J.  "Drink nothing to the dregs, either of the bad or of the good. To moderation in everything has one sage reduced all wisdom. Too great justice becomes injustice. The orange squeezed too hard becomes bitter. He draws blood instead of milk who milks too hard. Even in enjoyment, do not go too far. The spirit itself grows weary if worked too long." 

Only the news the Toronto Star wants you to know

No one challenges the right of a publication to print what it wishes, that is to publish only what it wants its readers to know. It becomes offensive when the publication poses as being open to all reasonable viewpoints. Instances of selective reporting by the Toronto Star:

In 2006, a survey by the Toronto District School Board indicated that the bullying of gay students was not even on the radar of complaints. The Star did not mention it. 

* * *

The Star believes all races should be represented in public bodies in proportion to their numbers. The Star disagrees with Martin Luther King Jr whose dream it was that people would "not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their content of their character." The paper did not publish my letter advocating ability as the only necessary quality. 

* * *

The Star made no mention of the death of Heather Robinson. It was she who waged a successful legal campaign against certain media, including the Toronto Star, seeking compensation for artists whose work was used by the Star and others without permission or compensation. Nor did the Star report the results this multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit.

* * *

The issue is Liberal Party Justin Trudeau's banning of pro-life candidates. My plea for democracy:

Justine Trudeau disappoints (No choice but pro-choice, Trudeau tells candidates, May 8). Polls consistently show that most Canadians favour at least some control over access to abortion (Angus Read January 2010, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid, July 2012).  The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that with certain conditions an abortion law might be constitutional and not in violation of human rights legislation. Justice Bertha Wilson found the state has "a perfectly valid legislative objective" in seeking to protect the fetus. The fetus has a DNA distinct from that of the mother indicating a different life, to some a different person. There is no law dealing with attacks against womanhood by gender-selection abortions or the rights of still-born babies. The issue is hardly "settled" as Trudeau contends. All this deserves debate, especially in Parliament. It is undemocratic for the Liberal leader to snuff out debate of this important topic among would-be candidates.

On May 20, the Star ran an opinion piece which flies in the face of the truth. The writer, Ottawa professor Paul Saurette, denied, or was unaware of, the results of polls mentioned above. My May 21 letter to the Star:

Re Pro-choice advocates should welcome new abortion debate, May 20: The writers claim that "polls consistently" support abortion, but offer no proof. On the contrary, polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians favour at least some control over access to abortion. Here are three of them:  Angus Reid January 2012, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid July 2012. 

A 2012 Angus Reid poll found that 60 percent of Canadians (66 percent women to 54 percent men) believe a law should be enacted on sex-selection abortions. An Environics poll in 2011 found that 92% of Canadians thought sex selection abortions should be illegal in Canada. In an Ipsos Reid of June 12, 2014, 75 per cent disagreed with Trudeau's refusing admission into the Liberal Party of pro-life candidates. 

This too did not appear in the Toronto Star.

An e-mail to Professor Saurette remains unanswered.

Speculation is not journalism

An unacknowledged note to the Editor of the Toronto Star:

Your report of September 13 "Court decision could reveal gang links to Ford" is questionable journalism. The word "could" equally means "could not."  This same sentence begins "If the judge ..." You do not state what would happen "if the judge does not."

You insist on regurgitating that hoary item about the video that "appear to show ..." It may or may not. Let's wait and see.

This is not news but self-serving speculation given the over-wrought Punch and Judy show (or is it vaudeville?) between you and Mayor Rob Ford.

*     *     *

It is not my mission in life to be picking on the Star, but the editors do have a way of provoking negative reaction. (Actually, too many journalists do that, not only at the Star.) The September 19 issue featured an invitation to "make this column come alive."  To do so, simply wave one of those electronic devices over the indicated item.

By coincidence, I am on the Star's survey list. They asked my reaction to this innovation. I replied that good writing does not require a mechanical instrument to make the story come alive. Good writing makes the words jump off the page.

Nor do I expect an acknowledgement of this message.

Non-denial means agreement?

What leads media people to presume the right to question anyone?  And if the citizen refuses to answer, to publish their own conclusions? Salient in this regard was a report by Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno. My unpublished letter to her editor.

In her report (What Chief Blair didn't say about Ford speaks the loudest, June 14), Rosie DiManno implies lack of evidence to be proof, and non-denial to be agreement. Police Chief Blair stated his duty and responsibility when investigating a crime. DiManno's reaction was a report full of innuendo, speculation and supposition laced with negatives, e.g. Blair did not say, did not deny, did not refute, did not confirm, and so on for half a page.  I have many times complained about reports in the Star. May I conclude the editor's many non-denials to be agreement?

Back in  2008, Toronto Star reporter Dale Brazao wrote a front-page report about an inn-keeper alleging exploitation of a foreign worker. The inn-keeper is now suing the Star for defamation. 

The point of this post is Brazao's defence, as reported in the Star of June 18, 2013. Before the Ontario Superior Court, he claimed to have tried "every which way" to be fair and convince the inn-keeper of the seriousness of the allegations against her, but she refused to answer. "I do not know what else I could have done to get this lady to speak to me," he told the court. 

As in the DiManno incident concerning the Police Chief, did the inn-keeper's non-denial justify publication?

Islamism and the Toronto Star

An email to Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui, and his reply. 

Dear Haroon Siddiqui:

In your column of February 14, you attempt to neutralize Islamic violence by pointing out the violence of non-Islamic people. Your observation "given Christian European history" does not excuse Islamic history. My bad behaviour does not justify the bad behaviour of my neighbour.

You state that Pope Benedict's "pronouncements are all the more shocking coming from an otherwise well-regarded religious scholar."  Damning with feint praise is high school rhetoric gleaned from Mark Anthony's "honourable men" funeral oration. Attacking the messenger does not produce quality argument. Perhaps the Pope had in mind the Christians being persecuted in many Muslim countries today. Follow this for a few weeks: www.persecution.net.

You describe the Pope's statement as a "bigoted view of Islam." Nor does name calling further any discussion. In his Regensburg speech (to which I presume you refer), Benedict quoted the Byzantine emperor Manuel II. The emperor feared another Ottoman invasion (they had failed twice already), and was pleading for European assistance, when he said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

What could have motivated Manual to say that? Starting with Mohammed's command to conquer (Qu'ran passim), and up to Manuel's time (1391), Muslims had invaded, occupied, colonized, pillaged or raided for slaves, Christian Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, France, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Malta, Sardinia, Cartage, Pisa, Armenia, Anatolia, Gallipoli, Kosovo, Southern Italy, Rome, and Thessalonica where they captured 30,000 Christians for their slave markets.

You object to the police "spying on law-abiding Muslims." During World War Two, law-abiding Germans, Austrians, Italians and suspected sympathizers, were spied on, investigated, finger printed, and interrogated at home and at places of employment. The government used its authority to detain anyone acting "in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state." As a result, many law-abiding citizens, some Canadian-born, were interned for the duration of the war.

The work of CSIS cannot be dismissed as uncovering only "few dozen at best" jihadists in Canada. It is fewer than "a few dozen"  who are currently in jail for conspiracy to blow up buildings in downtown Toronto. It was fewer that "a few dozen" who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. It was fewer than "a few dozen" who blew up the Madrid and London subways. 

Given recent history, death is more than an "infinitesimal" possibility.

Yes, let's rid ourselves of "clichés and misconceptions," and be welcoming, but keeping history in mind. 

Siddiqui's verbatim reply: "It is not an excuse. It is a fact of European history. You defending the Pope's statement that he himself has recanted and apologized for and mostly reversed himself on? But I do thank you for reading."

Toronto Star vs. Conrad Black

The Toronto Star continues its vendetta against Conrad Black. The latest salvo was the publishing (October 30, 2012) of a Star-sponsored survey purporting to show that a majority of Canadians want Black stripped of his Order of Canada. As if the Order were a popularity contest.

The poll was conducted by Lorne Bozinoff of Forum Research Inc. whose website describes itself as "Canada's most  unique (sic) research firm."

As most people know, poll results depend to a great extent on the wording of the questions. The Star informed its readers of neither the pertinent question nor or any other questions likely posed at the same time.

The report then morphed Bozinoff into a critic of Black's recent appearances on British television. Needless to say, he did not like them.

The report ended with unrestrained delight: "Black was stymied last week in a court bid to present arguments why he should remain a member of the Order of Canada, and told to submit a written proposal like everyone else."

For the Toronto Star, "everyone else" does not include Henry Morgentaler. As pointed out in my earlier post, Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada violated the advisory committee's own rules. The Star did not complain because Morgentaler is that newspaper's abortion poster boy.

Follow up. In his National Post column of December 8, 2012, Conrad Black aptly wrote this aside, "(unlike these jokey polls the Toronto Star likes to cite, including in matters related to me, in which recorded telephone conversations are randomly launched in small numbers around metropolitan areas, producing whatever results the Star seeks)."

Toronto Star and the Bible

On April 4, 2012, the Toronto Star reported the banning of the distribution to Grade Five students of the Gideon Bible. The overly-sensitive School Trustees feared reprisals for their decision. According to that newspaper, complaints to the trustees constituted "hate mail." The newspaper gave no examples. It printed three letters in support of the trustees, none against. Mine was excluded. In the interests of fair comment, occasionally absent in that Toronto daily, my unpublished letter:

The Star's headline writer went over the top on this one (Bible ban at schools sparks hate mail, Apr. 9). None of the reported examples of disagreement with the Bluewater District School Board's decision to ban distribution the Gideon bible even remotely qualifies as "hate mail".

Every enlightened educator recognizes the Bible as a vital part of Western World history. Even an atheist, if he deems himself learned, must be familiar with it. One cannot grasp the basis of the English language without it. One cannot learn the reasons for Western progress and the freedoms we enjoy (compared to the non-Christian world) without a knowledge of the history of the Bible.

What do school trustees fear in such education? What does the Toronto Star fear?

Will no one rid us of these cash cows?

A Toronto Coffee Time shop owner, pestered by a customer who bad mouthed his product to other customers, called him a gypsy. The "offended" person complains. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) in April 2010 ordered the shop owner to pay $15,000 to this nuisance who was undermining his business.

In a burst of righteous hyperbole the Toronto Star described this incident as "rampant racism." The "victim" must know someone at the Toronto Star. The newspaper featured him with a photograph in front of the "offending" shop.

In a real court, the complainant would have to prove damage. What if the owner had called him a Somali pirate? How much would that be worth? Or a German? Or an Englishman? Does the commission have a sliding scale of nationalities for this "rampant racism"?

Within a year or so, Coffee Time was no longer there. It is reasonable to speculate that the "guilty party" lacked the funds to appeal this ham-fisted judgement to a real court, or lacked the funds to pay this outrageous award, and that the Tribunal put him out of business.

The presumption in human rights legislation is that the victim is poor and helpless while the accused is wealthy and mean. Reality has yet to make an appearance at the OHRT.

The Quebec version of this rogue gravy train ordered the Mayor of Saguenay to pay a man $30,000 who claimed his freedom of conscience was violated by the city council opening its meetings with a short prayer. He demanded $150,000. This abuse of all things rational would be laughed out of a real court.

Were it not for the prospect of a pot of gold at the end of the human rights rainbow, these commissions would be out of business.

As if all this were not bad enough, comes news that the OHRT has expanded its reach by creating the crime of  "assumed discrimination". This does not pass the empire-building sniff test.

The reported example is the complaint by a former employee of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that she is a victim of "assumed discrimination" because the City of Toronto demanded that she apply through regular municipal channels for an exemption to a parking by-law. The complainant preferred to go directly to her old friends on the Tribunal.

It's a foregone conclusion the Tribunal will declare the city guilty of discrimination, and order the exemption to the by-law, and the payment of a bag of money to their old pal.

Selective News at the Toronto Star

A May 8 email to Kathy English, Toronto Star apologist. No reply.

Dear Kathy English:

Your recent column Who decides what is news? inspires this letter.

You state, "Journalism is, by necessity, the art of selection, or deciding what matters and how to present that to audiences." You leave hanging the question "matters to whom?" Of course, it's what matters to the publisher, the editor, and the journalist.

Two cases in point. A week ago, the Star ran a front-page story about women who may have been abused by Catholic clergy. This past Saturday, you ran another front-page story speculating about a bishop you have been unable to locate.

The former story was based on anticipation of something that may not happen. Why you ran the latter story one can only speculate. To whom would Star anticipation and speculation matter? Each of these pieces was used to dredge up and re-print hoary stories. May I speculate that this fits into the Star agenda of never missing an opportunity to smear the Catholic Church? May I anticipate a righteous denial?

Let's be honest. Neither report is news, but an attempt to create news. Splashing non-news on the front page reveals much about the quality of Star reportage. It's only being realistic to state that newspapers publish only what they want the public to know.

A December 8 email to Kathy English. No reply.  

Every time someone smears swastikas on a synagogue, the Star give it coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen mention of the November 25 vandalism of the Nativity scene in front of old city hall. Why the difference?

Media Myths

The common media may get carried away by its own myths. This renders it unable to acknowledge the truths which give the lie to those myths. Here are two letters offering such truths, but which the Toronto Star refused to publish. The first destroys the Star's oft-expounded myth that the Catholic Church is contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa. The second letter points out the pro-choice stand of the Star is actually pro-death.

Re Lewis sees tide turning in war on AIDS, Sept 30:

This report lists the "big players" in the war against aids but fails to mention the biggest players of all. Christian faith-based organizations provide more than half of AIDS health care worldwide. Specifically, one out of every four AIDS patients in the world is treated in a Roman Catholic centre.

The church has a network of 1,600 hospitals, 6,000 clinics, and 12,000 initiatives of a charitable and social nature, not only in Africa, but in Asia and elsewhere. Craig McClure, executive director of the International AIDS Society has acknowledged that these services do not receive the media attention, if not gratitude, they deserve.

Re Desperate mothers, Oct 3:

A healthy mother can and wants to give birth to a healthy baby girl. Because of a cultural preference for boys, her family forces her to have abortions on two occasions. Where are the pro-choice people defending a woman's right to choose life? Not at the Toronto Star.

Only what the media want us to know

On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI opined that condom distribution in Africa was not the total solution to the scourge of HIV/AIDS, in fact, might worsen it. Neither the Toronto Star nor The Globe and Mail reported his reasons, preferring to adopt their usual stance of mocking anyone, especially a religious person, who disagrees with them. Neither newspaper printed letters critical of their stand. Neither printed letters detailing the reasons for the statement. Neither wants its readers to have the whole story to judge for themselves. These are the same people who proclaim the public's right to know, that is, to know only what they want readers to know.

Unpublished letter to The Globe and Mail:

Rather than taking the simplistic approach (as in today's cartoon) to the debate over condom use and HIV/AIDS, The Globe owes its readers the complete story.

Edward C. Green is the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. In claiming the condom distribution exacerbates the AIDS problem, Green states, "The Pope is correct, or put it another way, the best evidence we have supports the Pope's comments."

Protestant minister Martin Ssempa of Uganda's abstinence and faithfulness anti-AIDS programs: "Condoms have not reduced HIV-AIDS anywhere in the world... Higher condom (use) across Africa has resulted in higher HIV... In countries where the Catholic Church is strong, there is lower HIV than places where the Catholic Church is not."

Sam L. Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda's AIDS prevention Committee: "Profiteering has trumped prevention...AIDS is no longer a disease. It has become a multibillion-dollar industry. Meanwhile, effective HIV prevention methods, such as urging Africans to stick to one partner, don't qualify for lucrative universal-access status. Our wisdom about our own culture is ignored."


Unpublished letter to the Toronto Star:

Re Papal blind spot on HIV, editorial, Mar. 19

There is much to agree with in this editorial, but it paints a lopsided picture. While the debate over condom use in Africa rages in the Western media, mostly at the expense of the Catholic Church, these same media make scant mention of Catholic work combating the HIV/AIDS scourge.

The Church is the largest single contributor to the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. One out of every four sufferers in the world benefits from Catholic initiatives, hospitals and clinics.

If the easy availability of condoms has not controlled HIV/AIDS in Canada, how can it do so in the Third World? Condoms may or may not be a quick fix for Africans, but experience indicated the long-term solution lies elsewhere.

We must also be wary of manufacturers, advertisers, distributors, foundations and other "charitable" organizations which have financial interests in the promotion of certain products.

The Anti-aging Racket

Letter to The Globe and Mail, January 14, 2009, in reaction to an article on aging. Published.

We want our wine to age, but whine when we age (The quest for the test tube of youth, Jan 10). We describe this futile quest by that anti-human, insulting word "anti-aging." This makes us prey to every faker, charlatan and snake oil salesman on the planet. Aging is not a disease.

The film of each life ends. That's all folks. The Book of Life has no sequel, not even a second edition. The quest for long life begins in youth by the proper care of the body. The only effect an elixir, nectar, ambrosia or potion will have is to decrease one's estate.

Rather than waste energy putting on the trappings of the young, a better option is to make the most of every day (and night) "before we too into the dust descend" when the world will hear "no more talk of thee and me." The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam offers an inspiring place to begin.

Letter to the Toronto Star. Unpublished.

Re Facing end of road the hardest part of living, Nov. 15

Pardon me if I detect a dab of condescension in Judy Steed's comments on aging. If Ms. Steed be "haunted by the eyes of old people," and "touched by their courage in growing old, in revealing their vulnerability," then she has not looked into my eyes or the eyes of other septuagenarians, octogenarians and nonagenarians whom I know. Yes, some people our age have shut down their life's horizon. That's a personal decision. It is not for others to judge, or even comment on.

Hardly is it "the bravest thing to continue to live." Its acceptance acknowledges that the parade of life one day will move on without us. And we move elsewhere. Frankly, that's not a bad idea. All required is a sense of maturity, a maturity younger people do not have, and will not understand until the sand of their hourglass has shifted into life's lower chamber. "At my age, I don't even buy green bananas," jokes a truly mature person.

Yes, older people sometimes become dependent on others. We are always dependent on someone, only in different ways at the different stages of life.

Those truly fearing time's passing may find solace in The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Among other things, this 12th century Persian advised:

So when at last the Angel of the Drink
Of Darkness finds you by the river-brink,
And, offering his Cup, invites your Soul
Forth to your Lips to quaff it --- do not shrink
.