The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Page 5, News, Tuesday, June 12, 1990 The downfall of a dealmaker Meech Lake was devised, I believe, by the college of Canadian Psychologists and Psychiatrists to make us all crazy and them all rich. To that extent, it's an unqualified successful piece of legislation. I just loved the clod on the Hamilton radio.talk show this week who called to say he hated Meech Lake because when he and the little woman camped there last summer the washrooms were filthy, the showers plugged and the firewood was wet. He also intimated as to how the little woman likes to knock back four or five beers before breakfast and since Meech Lake was a no-alco- hol hol campground, she she was cranky William J. Thomas the whole time. THAT'S LEECH LAKE in the Kawartha's - you moron - NOT MEECH LAKE, and if you'd drink your alcoholic beverages from Diet Pepsi cans like the rest of us, even the fire- wood eventually gets lit. This unfortunate incident underscores the abject lack of understanding of Meech Lake only slightly less than the poll taken in Newfoundland last week in which 76% of the respondents when asked if they favored the Accord, replied that they actually preferred the Honda Civic. Meech Lake is a mess not because English Canadians are trying to put the boots to Quebec or Quebec is trying to blackmail the rest of Canada. Meech Lake is the inevitable political mess resulting from too many private deals, too many secret agendas and the resplendent words of our Prime Minister escaping from both sides of his mouth at pre- cisely the same time. If he could master drinking a glass of water while he ati. he'd be a shoe-in as a finalist on Star Search. Quebec has for its leader Robert Bourassa who fourteen years ago was run out of politics because he managed one of the most incompetent and corrupt administrations that any province has ever had to endure. And yet they re-elected him. What does it tell us about Quebecers? Well it tells me that Quebecers are every bit as dumb as the rest of us in mistaking lunkheads for leaders and then paying dearly for our errors. And that's really the point - for better or worse, in sickness and in national health - we are to the core,,Canadians the same. Regardless of language or the things we wear on our heads, Canadians all want the same things: a roof, a car, maybe a roof over the car, two weeks vacation to get the hell out of here in the winter and time permitting, a lit- continued on page 6 Yer ole Baba couldn't believe her ole eyes when she caught sight of an article in one of those honey-sunny-funny women's mags entitled, "The New Discipline." For children, that is. What was it all about? To quote, ",..the trend is emerging in the nineties to get away from yelling, spanking, threatening or reward- ing, toward self-discipline. Harsh discipline...only produces long- term rebellion and distrustful, withdrawn kids." Oh, shoosh, here we go again. Don't yell at or hit the kids 'cause it's going to give them a life-last- ing trauma and turn the little monsters into grown-up monsters of hate, greed and animosity towards all!" What aré you sup- posed to do instead? Use sweet reasonableness. I shall give you a few examples, as per the article. Old Way: "How many times have I told you to get in there and finish up your homework?" New Way: "What do you-think we can do to make sure your homework gets done before you get too sleepy? Any ideas?" Example Number Two. Old Way: "Look at the awful mess you made splash- ing in the tub!" New Way: "I know you probably got carried Olga Landiak away splashing, but it makes me frustrated to face this mess after having cleaned the bathroom today. How about if we save the splashing for the beach and keep the bathroom for getting clean?" I kid you not. These are the actual words. I ask you, parents all, can you picture yourself keep- ing your cool after some exasper- ating situation (of which the above two are but minor exam- ples) long enough to speak to the miscreant in such a reasoning way? Not even counting slowly up to one thousand while holding your breath and clenching your fists would do it. I honestly don't know what's with these people who write such stupid articles about the upbring- ing of children. It just makes me want to up-chuck. It's one thing to sit calm, cool and collected in one's office or study or whatever, but it's quite another to suddenly find yourself faced with a repeti- tion of the same blasted situation which you've been calmly and coolly repeating for the umpteenth time. "Johnny, don't hit your brother in he face like that!" "Johnny, I asked you not to hit Tommy like _ that!" "Johnny.....!" What are you going to do? There you are, up to your eyeballs in the million and one daily chores, and the kid has been pes- tering his brother like hell. What are you going to do, huh, when your nerves are at the breaking point, your calm completely deserts you, and the only cool is from the open refrigerator door: Sit down and sweetly reason in the New Discipline Way with the stupid kid who can't get it through his fat head that he's NOT to pick on his sibling forever and a day? Oh boy! Anybody who can do that - author of said article includ- ed - has either got to be out-and- out lying, or a blessed saint. What would I do? What would you do? Take the blessed kid. over our Knees and wallop the daylights out of him, and worry about any traumas setting in, later when we are calm, cool and col- lected again. Listen, sweet reasonableness is good up to a point, but then comes the point of no return when reasoning, whether sweet' or otherwise, just isn't getting through to the little savages, and so-called "harsh" discipline is the only recourse left. It seems to be the only thing which finally makes an impression (no pun intended) on the dear little souls; unless you're raising a whiz kid, mature beyond his/her years who can really understand the reason- ing process. The trouble with the authors of such articles is that they are ADULTS, thinking in an adult way, not a children's. Just watch The ethics of nuclear waste the dear little angels at play, and you'll soon realize they are get- ting rougher treatment from their peers, both physically and verbal- ly, than they'll ever get in any lov- ing, concerned home. These kids aren't using sweet reasoning for their hard, cruel actions and, believe me, those are harder lessons to be learned than any of the small incidents in a home environment. And when they grow up to be adults, do you think these kids brought up on the New Discipline are going to find much more reasonableness out there in the hard, cruel world? You can bet your pink or blue booties, they aren't. Discipline, yes, most definite- ly, so that the kids grow up with some sort of standards with which to armor themselves against "the slings and arrows." If you can manage it with sweet reasonable- ness without losing your mind, then go to it and good luck to you; but, on the other hand, if it also requires a bit of physicality to punch the lesson home (no pun intended again), then so be it. Maybe we'll get a lot more REAL men and women out of it, instead of a bunch of wimps and cry babies. And smart-mouths. Questioning the new discipline There are now only four com- munities in northern Ontario still considering the possibility of hosting a low-level radioactive waste site: Geraldton, Elliot Lake and Elk Lake (near Temagami). All the' other communities in the north have opted out for various rea- sons - Atikokan, Upsala, Manitouwadge, Ear Falls, and Red Lake. Three communities in the south have not opted out - Port Hope, Newcastle, and Hope Township. But those three com- munities live with the piles of radioactive waste now, and would be involved regardless of whether it's moved, or stays where it is. The Siting Task Force set up by the federal government to find a site is now preparing its final report on the process so far, tak- ing into account the reports from all the communities that consid- ered the idea - both those still involved, and those that have opted out. That report is sup- posed to go to the Minister of Energy, Marcel Masse, by the end of August. The federal cabinet will then have to decide whether to continue funding the site selec- Hornepayne,, we ee NORTHERN INSIGHTS tion process, and, if they do, whether the terms of reference of the Siting Task Force should be revised. If the cabinet decides that the process should continue, then the seven communities still involved in the process will go on to what is known as Phase IV: detailed environmental studies, development of a local compen- sation package, and so on. By some time next year, if the Siting Task Force and the cabinet still approves of what's being devel- oped, each community has to hold a local referendum, so the voters can decide if the benefits of being a host outweigh the costs. The Siting Task Force has been a unique exercise in commu- by Larry Sanders nity decision-making. The Siting Task Force called the old method "D.A.D." - "Decide, Announce, Defend." The old method used bureaucrats and scientists to Decide the best site, Announce the desired location, then Defend that decision against the tirade of local opposition. The Siting Task Force decided early on to turn the process upside down, and make it bottom-up: let communities vol- unteer to consider being a host for the waste, study the idea, canvass local opinion, and allow them to opt out at any time. The idea is to end up with a "happy host," instead of in confrontation, bitter- ness, and further distrust of gov- ernment decision-makers. While the review of this new way of decision-making is going on, another federal task force is at work, talking about the so-called "high-level" waste: the leftovers from nuclear power plants. A task force has been established to look at the concept of burying nuclear waste deep underground in granite rock (such as the Canadian Shield). That task force is just looking at the concept - not any particular location in the Canadian Shield. This "concept" group is coming to Thunder Bay June 14th, to explain its work to the public in more detail. Assuming this first task force decides the concept makes sense, then another process, likely simi- lar to the one being used to find a low-level waste site, will be launched. In case you haven't followed this radioactive debate over the years, you need to know some basics. "High-level" and "low- level" wastes are both by-prod- ucts of the nuclear industry. The only difference between the two is the degree of radioactivity. "High-level" waste, from nuclear power plants, are so radioactive, exposure for even a few seconds might be fatal. "Low-level" wastes are not. that toxic - if you stand a hundred feet away from a pile of low-level waste, you're safe. You only have a_ health problem if you drink the stuff, or breathe in the dust. Scientists will tell you all kinds of other confusing information about how long this stuff remains radioac- tive, and how safe it is. I decided a long time ago to ignore the sci- entific gobblygook. This stuff is dangerous, and will be well past my grandchildren's lifetimes. That leaves us with a moral as well as an environmental prob- lem: how to deal with wastes in such a way that future generations continued on page 6 2