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

Page 4, Terrace Bay-Schreiber News, Wednesday, November 2, 1983 opinton , The Terrace Bay-Schreiber News is published every Wednesday by: Laurentian Publishing Co. Ltd., Box 579, Terrace Bay, Ontario. POT 2W0. Telephone: (807) 825-3747. EDITOR AND MANAGER............................05- Karen E. Park ADVERTISING MANAGER............................--. Diane Matson RECEPHGUNST ©. 253 we Se cs FESS. Sharon Mark PRODUCTION MANAGER........................200 ee eeee Mary Melo What are we : celebrating anyway? There has recently been a lot of emphasis placed on the celebrations of the upcoming (1984) Ontario Bicentennial. There has and will be a great deal of time, effort, volunteer work, and tax dollars spent on this occasion, but I sit here and wonder if it's good or bad ... and also wonder just exactly what is it we're supposed to be celebrating. We are not celebrating the 200th anniversary of Ontario. We are in fact honouring a "celebration of settlement." The settlement of 6,000-7,000 United Empire Loyalists who fled the United States in the spring of 1784. What now is called Ontario (once part of the British Province of Quebec in 1784) was given the name of Upper Canada in 1791 - then Canada West in 1841 - and was renamed Ontario in 1867. 1867. That's what we should be celebrating. So it brings us back to 1784. Why celebrate the coming of the Loyalists in 1784? FACT: the natives and some French were here previous to that date. Why not celebrate the anniversary of their actual arrival? Probably because no one actually knows just how long the area was inhabited by these people. The reasons that we have been given as to why we should honour the Loyalist settlement are, because it's probably a take-off point for settlement in the area (although records prove that settlements were there previously), but with the arrival of 6-7,000 Loyalists, there was a sufficient gathering of people to provide a form of permanent settlement. This settlement of course, grew, and others joined them. FACT: Large numbers of Loyalists moved to Halifax in 1776 when the army evacuated Boston and also when New York was abandoned in 1783. Are the people of Halifax celebrating this to the extent that we are too? FACT: The Ontario Loyalists of 1784 came largely from upstate New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where they were known as 'Frontier' farmers. Many fought on the British side during the Revolution. As payment for this service, the Army regulars were known to be given 100 acres of free land in Ontario, with grants up to 5,000 acres going to the senior field officers. The Loyalists were also given British government support (eg. boots, supplies and farming stock materials). Less than half of the Loyalists who settled in Ontario were born in North America. 51 per cent were not and of these, one-quarter were Scots ... 11 per cent were German ... and the remaining were English and Irish. FACT: The Loyalists may have assisted in starting this settlement BUT there are many vast areas that they never set foot on. Now mind you, I'm all for celebrating our province, our heritage, and our great country of Canada. But does this mean that we will celebrate at our own expense, the many other settlements that were formed across this great land of ours in future years? That would indeed be one heck of a party .. a continuous one at that! I for one am glad that all this was documented and that southern and eastern Ontario were settled by the Loyalists. In fact, my relatives were in amongst that group of settlers. But when considering the state of our economy: the fact that many people in Ontario are wondering where their next meal is coming from due to lack of employment, and all those everyday hard-times stories that we keep reading about ... shouldn't we be spending our time, money and efforts on something more constructive? Let's hear from you! Arthur Black DEADLINE: Friday NOON Subscription rates: $10.00 per annum (local); $14.00 per annum (out-of-town). Second Class Mail Registration No. 0867. anchor Science and technology have focused our attention and efforts on the conquest of space. The result is the production of many new things giving us wonderful creature comforts. However the result has been that the pursuit of things has dominated our thinking and living. The Bible provides a balanced view. In the Bible, time is equally as important in the meaning for life as is space. In the Bible it is time, not space which is sacred. Space is seen as good having been created by God but what God blesses and hallows is time, not space. We are called to sanctify time not space. We are called to holiness in time rather than to some sacred space or place. That is why events, happenings, moments in time, remembered generations are more important than countries and things for history has more meaning than geography. God is concerned with time as much as space. What takes place is more important than where it takes place. "'God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it." (Gen. 2:3) "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." (EX. 20:8). It is a day not a place which is called holy. The way we live our days is crucial. Time is not to be wasted, killed, or put in as serving a sentence. The Sabbath is more than time off for rest and recreation following a hard week's work producing things. The Sabbath is a day given to freedom, to peace, to tranquility and serenity. A day we recognize God's claim and call to hire a certain way, not just on the Sabbath but on all days equally. As Robbie Shimeon realized, "The great problem was time rather than space, the task was to convert time into eternity rather than how to fill-space with buildings, bridges and roads; and the solution lay in study and prayer rather than in geometry and engineering." Quoting A-J. Heschel's "The Sabbath"; "The Sabbath, a day of study and prayer so that holiness in time can grow in a world of things. After all eternity in the end is more important than the conquest of space.' Rev. Brian Bigelow Community Church ahd St. Andrew's United Church Heeere's Johnny ...and his money! What is it that's so fascinating about the very rich? It's not a case of pure green envy - some tycoons and tycoonettes are among the most repulsive toads the human race has ever thrown up. But even that repulsiveness can be fascinating. Must be some- thing about the vast distance between the unreal, rarefied lives they lead, compared to the plod- ding, pedestrian world we mere mortals have to slog through. Take the case of Joanna Carson. Until last year Ms. Carson was the wife of perhaps the most famous Carson since Kit - Old '*Heeeeeeere's Johnny" Car- son. She held the title of Mrs. Carson for a period of 11 years, commencing on Sept. 30, 1972. Both Mister and Mrs. Carson threw in their hands last March, filing for divorce and citing old reliable "irreconciliable differ- ences" as the cause. Well, the Poker game was over last March. Now comes time to divvy up the pot. A.K.A. alimony. And quite a pot it is. Johnny Carson is the number one money- maker in the entire history of television. In 1962 - more than 20 years ago - Carson was getting $100,000 a year as host. of the Tonight Show. He's been increas- ing the nightly audiences and hijacking NBC accountants for huge pay hikes ever since. Carson owns hotels, vast tracts of real estate, restaurants, pieces of baseball teams and a huge chunk of RCA stock, to name but a few of his assets. There's even a line of Johnny Carson-endor- sed men's wear. And of course he's still host of the still-popular Tonight Show. It's estimated that Carson's current income runs at about Per month. All of which is to say that if there was ever a husband in a position to pay alimony, little Johnny Carson from Corning, Iowa, is it. His ex-wife's lawyers think so too. Last week, Joanne Carson filed for support in Los Angeles Super- ior Court. To determine how much money her ex-husband should give her, she filed a list of her living expenses. Among them: © $71,000 a month for security guards around her mansion. © $4,945 a month for household salaries. © $1,400 a month for groceries. e $2,000 a month for home repair and maintenance. e $800 a month for telephone calls. All of the above are Joanna Carson's estimated monthly ex- penses. And | even left some out. Joanne Carson's suit claims that she needs $37,000 to pay for jewellry and furs, each month. She's not apologizing about that 37 grand. In her suit, she points out that the amount is "quite low due to the fact that I purchased an extensive amount of clothing while I travelled in Europe in 1981 and 1982."' Thank heavens for that. Wouldn't want to have her run- ning around nude. Well, I won't bore you with all the details of Joanne Carson's financial needs. There are lots of miscellaneous items in there - a few thou each month for garden- ers; $12,000 a month for "gifts to friends and relatives'... The bottom line is that Joanna Carson estimates that she will be able to make ends meet and keep the wolf from the door only if the courts order her ex-husband to _. pay her $220,000. Per month. That works out to $2.6 million a year. This column is not an appeal for sympathy for poor little Johnny Carson. Any guy who pulls down a million-five a month can buy all the sympathy he needs. I don't know what the point of this column is. I don't feel sorry for Johnny. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for Joanna. Maybe I feel sorry for all the poor slobs who are slugging away right now at the minimum wage; $3.50 an hour in Ontario, which works out to $7,280 a year. That's less than one-fifth of what Joanne Carson "needs" for furs and jewellry each morith. And even sorrier for the million and a half unemployed Cana- dians, to whom even the mini- mum wage looks good.