Exchange on CJAD with host Neil McKenty.
What’s on your mind? On today’s show, a medley of different subjects being debated and discussed with live callers.
The 'McKenty Books' forum on life and current events. Join the debate.
Exchange on CJAD with host Neil McKenty.
What’s on your mind? On today’s show, a medley of different subjects being debated and discussed with live callers.
Exchange on CJAD with host Neil McKenty.
Here is one of Neil’s daily episode of Exchange talking about Canadian psyche.
With the smart phone more and more popular and the increase in sales and the competition more fierce than ever:
Do we know everything about them?
Are they really a necessity in today’s world?
Are we getting a fair deal in Canada?
Here is a post from Neil on the subject.
After studying the matter for 10 years in 13 countries including Canada, the experts have come up with a puzzling answer about mobile phones and cancer.
Here is the bad news. Heavy cellphone use, defined as chatting on mobiles for more than half an hour a day over 10 years, was associated with a 40 per cent increase in risk of a rare and deadly brain cancer known as glioma, the same kind of cancer that killed Senator Kennedy.
The good news is that the study also found that low and moderate amounts of cellphone use seemed to offer a modest protection against developing the disease.
This means that the debate over cell[phone use is unlikely to go away soon.
The fact is that using a cellphone amounts to placing a small radio transmitter next to your head, exposing the brain and ears to microwave radiation.
Do you use cellphones?
Are you concerned about a risk of brain cancer?
Would you stop using cellphones for that reason.?
A reprint from 2012 from Neil’s archives
Repealing Obamacare legislation is no winning ticket for Republicans
If President Barack Obama never passes another piece of legislation, he will go down in the history books as the president who brought universal health care to the American people.
For more than a century, Democratic presidents like Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson had been trying for universal health care. They all failed until Obama found a way to reshape the country’s social welfare system. Obama delivered the goods and he delivered change to believe in.
This change will bring health insurance to 32 million Americans who now don’t have it. And that’s just the beginning: Starting this year, insurers are forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and cancelling policies because someone gets sick. In 2014, insurers will be forbidden from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more.
Not a single Republican voted for this health bill. The party of “No” has fought the legislation every step of the way. (It is fighting in the Senate as of press time.) The Grand Old Party has cozied up to the yahoos in the Tea Party movement to derail health care, if not now, then at election time.
Still, there is the odd conservative voice that rejects this knee-jerk opposition to health care or anything else that Obama tries to do. (Senator John McCain boasts that the Republicans will not support Obama on anything for the rest of this year.)
One conservative voice that I have a lot of time for is David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times. Brooks is informed, balanced and knows that if the Tea Partiers take over the Republican Party, then the party is done. It is telling that in the run-up to the November elections, the Tea Party is trying to back right-wingers who will try to knock off moderate Republicans. It they succeed, the GOP will become nothing but a Neanderthal rump.
Another conservative voice that I respect is that of our own David Frum, who lives in Washington. Frum is one of the very few on the right who think the Republicans all-out opposition to Obama’s health care bill has been a disaster. Instead of working with the Democrats for a bi-partisan bill, the Republicans decided to bring down the whole house of cards. They almost succeeded.
The Grand Old Party has cozied up to the yahoos in the Tea Party movement.
David Frum tries to explain the Republicans’ hysterical opposition to one of the great pieces of social legislation in American history: “There were leaders who would have liked to deal with Obama. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and on talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother?”
Yet the Republicans, egged on by the Tea Party, are determined to keep on fighting. They say they will make repeal of health care the centerpiece of their campaign for the off-year elections and argue the new health law is so unpopular that they will take back control of Congress.
It’s true that the party in power almost always loses seats in the off-year elections. And there is no doubt the Democrats will take a drop in the House of Representatives.
It would be a shame if Nancy Pelosi, the best speaker in American history, lost her majority. The chances of Republicans taking over the Senate is pretty much nil. Still, I hope the GOP goes all out against Obamacare this fall. I hope they promise to repeal it. How many votes would they get if they promised to repeal the law’s lower prescription drug prices? Would they argue that pre-existing conditions should prevent one from getting insurance? Would they try to bar children from using their parent’s insurance coverage? Would they repeal a cap on medical expenses? I don’t think repealing the health bill is a winning ticket for the Republicans. And when some of these health “goodies” kick in, I predict support for Obamacare will grow right across the country.
But suppose the Republicans won back both houses of Congress in November and proceeded to repeal the bill. Would Obama sign the repeal or veto it? Not much doubt there.
After a short break for the holidays, I hope the Obama administration will turn to tighter regulations on the financial industry. Then we can all watch the Republicans defend the bankers, investment dealers and hedge funds, the very people who got us into the financial mess in the first place.
Some of the pundits, especially on Fox, are predicting that Obama will be a one-term president. They also predicted his comprehensive health care would not pass. The Fox-bomb throwers will probably be as wrong on the first prediction as they were on the second.
The New York Times featured two stories on the priestly sex abuse scandal exploding across the Catholic world. For the first time, the sex scandal is beginning to envelop Pope Benedict himself. What did he know and when did he know it? A priest in Wisconsin, Lawrence Murphy, sexually abused upward of 200 boys at a school for the deaf. Catholic Church authorities in Milwaukee, including Archbishop Rembert Weakland, wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was in charge of dealing with abuse cases. Ratzinger did not respond.
Finally, canonical charges were brought against Murphy. He then wrote to Ratzinger, asking to be spared. Suddenly all action against him was halted. This scandal is the biggest crisis in the Church since the Reformation. Will the pope be able to lead the Church out of this quagmire? And if he cannot, will he resign? The jury is still out.
What do you think is really going to happen under Trump’s administration ?
A passage from the book Neil McKenty Live!
McKenty’s Two-Rule Golf School.
”Keep it simple, stupid!” Imagine if those four words were applied to the golf swing. It would revolutionize the game. Since I left my television show 12 years ago, I have been trying to master the golf swing. Let’s face it, the swing has more rules than a monastery: bend your elbows, incline your knees, swivel your hips, flex your ankle, equalize tour weight, overlap your fingers, and address the ball. In trying to keep all this straight, the danger is you begin to hallucinate. You wake up in the middle of the night yelling ”Fore” and you haven’t even hit the ball.
Is there any way to get a handle on this jumble, any way to ”keep it simple, stupid?” As a matter of fact I think there is. It came to me the other day at Meadowbrook where I try to play several days a week. Of course all golfers have their own theories about the golf swing. For what it is worth, here’s mine. It seems to me you can reduce all these rules and regulations to two. One relates to the head, the other to the feet. Keep it down and don’t move. Simple, but not easy. How can I tell if I’ve moved my head during my golf swing? Simple again. The ball dribbles along the fairway like water dribbling from a garden hose that’s lost its pressure. Whereas if I keep my head steady the ball arcs gracefully into the air every single time. So it’s not your elbows or your wrists or your knees. It’s the head, stupid. And I would argue that if you don’t move your head, you are halfway to a good golf game. So do I keep my head still. Not every time. But often enough to keep me coming back.
After the head there’s the feet. What about them? Move them. The exact opposite of what you do with the head. To be more precise, you don’t exactly move the feet. What you do is move your weight from one foot to the other, and in the process, both feet move in different ways. So how exactly does this work?
When I address the ball I try to keep mu weight evenly on both feet. Then on my back swing I try to move most of my weight from my front foot to my back foot. And on my follow through I try to move the weight from my back foot to my front foot. I don’t often do it correctly bu I try. In going from back to front, the rear foot pivots so that the end of the swing you are standing on your rear toes facing the target. So, it’s true that both feet move in different ways. But the purpose of the whole exercise is to move or transfer the weight. Again, simple, but not easy. The fact is that most of the time I can’t manage it.
How can I tell if I have moved my feet (transferred my weight) correctly? I can tell every time. If I haven’t, the swing has no power and the ball won’t go far. It’s ike a gun the has lost its charge. The bullet has no velocity.
So, to resume. If I move my feet, I get distance. If I don’t move my head, I get height. If you have both height and distance you are a long way toward an enjoyable golf game Just for the record, I have this other idiosyncrasy that makes my game still more enjoyable. I don’t count. So instead of logging a triple bogey from the last hole, each hole for me is a fresh start. And believe me, I don’t need to count to tell whether my swing is working or not.
If you are a golfer you may disagree with my diagnosis of the golf swing. But you have got to admit, it’s simple. And if I could find a partner, I think we could make some money. We’d start the Two Rule Golf School. ”Don’t move your head, move your feet.” We couldn’t lose, could we?
Catharine and I often have brunch at a well-known Montreal restaurant named Beauty’s. We always order the same items. Fresh orange juice, blueberry pancakes and bacon. Catharine orders the more expensive real maple syrup. I use the regular table syrup and it is perfectly satisfactory to me.
It is true, however, that it is all too easy to misrepresent real maple syrup. Rigtht now two American senators have a bill in the hopper that would impose tougher sanctions for the marketing of other syrups as maple syrup.
Table syrup is sickly sweet. While maple syrup may be expensive, even a small amount transforms a plain waffle or pancake, a simple slice of ham or cube of tofu, or a mustardy salad dressing.
But does Canada do enough to protect maple syrup? Quebec forbids the use of the word “maple” or of maple-leaf shapes or pictures, on any bottle that does not contain 100 per-cent pure maple syrup. But Quebec is the only province that does this? Some restaurants still pass off inferior syrups and most customers do not notice or they acquiesce.
Should there be more protection for pure maple syrup?
Is there a difference between maple syrup and table syrup?
What do you think?
Published by Neil McKenty on November 27, 2011
Here are the comments that followed:
I like brown sugar,actually. Put enough ketchup on anything and it works out.
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Lady Janus Says:
There’s a definite difference between maple syrup and its many copy-cats (I learned how to make one of those copy-cats for myself a few years ago). And the expense of it is only part of the difference. But yes, like with wines, a lot of people have trouble tasting the difference, and sweet is sweet.
But I don’t know what you mean by “protection.” Other than accurate labelling, what else could be done?
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Tony Kondaks Says:
Coke, Pepsi, no-name brand. Blindfold a volunteer and see if they can tell the difference in a taste test. Whenever I’ve read about this being done, no one can by any significant statistical amount.
I’d like to think that there’s a discernable difference between real maple syrup and maple-flavoured table syrup but I don’t have much confidence I could tell the difference in a blind test.
Sugar is sugar…whether it’s refined from cane sugar in some factory in North Carolina or from boiling boiling forty gallons of sap down to one gallon of maple syrup in a quaint log cabin outside of Knowlton. And for all I know disreputable purveyors have been cutting the latter with the former for years and I have been none the wiser.
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Neil McKenty Says:
One thought. Agriculture and Agi-Food Canada and the Quebec maple syrup industry have developed a “flavour wheel” for maple products, adding descriptors such as clove, butter, or roasted dandelion root, which enables Canadians to develop a finer appreciation of pure maple syrup.
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Table syrup is corn starch colored with caramel, and has never seen sap, except the sap who thinks it’s maple syrup. Why anyone thinks it’s maple, except for the colour, is beyond me. When I was knee high to a peephole I would chill the sap right out of the tree and drink it as I would a glass of water. That was a real thirst quencher. I must admit, however, that I drank more beer. The reason was that I could only knock off a few glasses of sap in a day, whereas with beer I could knock off 24 pints in a day. Isn’t it odd that we can knock off 24 beers in a day, but not the equivalent in milk or whatever.
Posted on November 27, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I was surprised recently to find Quebec maple syrup in the USA for $3.99 in a maple leaf shaped bottle that sells for 7.99 here. I suggest that Canada is subsidizing Maple Syrup to that extent.
I use a sugar-free syrup, and very little because I like strawberries & whipped cream on my pancake or waffle.
I wouldn’t pass a taste test-
Years ago I shipped a case of syrup to clients in Florida. They had never tasted the real thing and I was the most popular person, for awhile.
I think that Canada should increase our exports.
There’s no point in more product protection.
Posted on November 28, 2011 at 8:21 am
Here is an episode of McKenty Live! with former Quebec minister of education Claude Ryan.
Originally broadcast on May 5th 1989
After many requests, here again is Neil on a different format, on the other side (No, not the force!) but the other side of the microphone on a personal level.
Here are two videos of Neil.
”Amazing privilege to have shared nearly 40 years together. Remembering with gratefulness and joy. What a guy!” Catharine
”Neil McKenty was one of the most complicated and interesting men who ever lived. For much of his life he wrestled with demons, but through it all he had a great capacity for friendship” Daniel Freedman
Pit Stop By Neil McKenty
Now that hunting season has begun, it behooves most Quebec politicians to head for the hills.
According to all the surveys, the popularity of the province’s politicians is dropping like a wounded duck. And this applies to both Ottawa and Quebec City.
A Léger poll shows the level of satisfaction with the federal Conservatives has dropped a full seven points. Only one in five Quebecers is happy with the political leadership in Ottawa.
The results were similarly dismal for the provincial Liberals. The level of dissatisfaction with Premier Jean Charest’s government is at a record-breaking 77 per cent, with only 28 per cent saying they would vote Liberal in the next provincial election. Support for the Parti Québécois stood at 34 per cent.
These figures must be seen in the context of a provincial scene where most of the news is negative. Whether it is the dirty linen on judge’s appointments being aired at the Bastarache commission, the ever-rising cost of health care, controversial language legislation or the government’s refusal to investigate the construction industry, there is not much for the ordinary voter to be happy about.
All this means that Charest, who must face an election within three years, is in dire straits politically. But the PQ leader, Pauline Marois, is right in there with him.
Let’s face it. Although Marois has been in public life for three decades, she has never really caught on, either with her own party or with the electorate generally. This could become more evident when she faces a leadership review next spring.
Unlike the Liberals who cherish their leaders so long as they are in power, the separatists seem to view their chieftans with considerable suspicion. As Don Macpherson writes in the Gazette: “Liberals are disciplined and remain loyal to a leader, especially when they are in power, until he loses an election. Péquistes, on the other hand, are impatient, nervous and suspicious of any leader not named Jacques Parizeau. Since they last held power in 2003, they’ve already had three leaders.”
What’s more, unlike the Charest Liberals, the PQ has a potential leader prowling around the precincts. That would be Gilles Duceppe, who is getting long in the tooth in federal politics. Duceppe threatened to run against Marois once before. This time, if she really stumbles, he might go through with it.
So what we have now in the province is a Liberal government that is dead in the water and a PQ opposition that is not exactly setting the heather afire. What better time to fly a trial balloon about a new party?
A group of former politicians (Péquistes François Legault and Joseph Facal) and business people think the time is ripe for a new party that would regroup federalists and sovereigntists around a centre-right agenda and leaving the “national question” aside.
A new poll shows that such a new party would win 30 per cent of the votes in a Quebec election, with the PQ at 27 per cent and the Liberals at 25 per cent. If nothing else, these results suggest there is a deep desire in the population to break through the federalist-separatist division to some third force that would concentrate on the economic and social well-being of Quebec.
Such a party would emphasize fiscal restraint and smaller government. But would the Quebec voter buy into such a program? Ironically, this is what Charest wanted to implement when he first took office eight years ago. Charest, a small-c conservative, hoped to cut back on Quebec’s bloated bureaucracy, reduce some services and cut taxes.
But Charest discovered to his chagrin that he could carry neither his cabinet nor his caucus on a program of serious fiscal restraint. The government was even afraid to raise the rates for electricity, something practically all economists urged them to do. Recently all it took was the prospect of a coming by-election for Finance Minister Raymond Bachand to shelve plans to impose user fees for medical visits.
So attractive as a new party might be, especially one that jettisoned the sovereignty question, it is not at all clear that it would be able to sell a policy of fiscal restraint, the very policy that Charest could not sell when he first came into office.
Furthermore, as Lysiane Gagnon has pointed out, the new Legault party looks much like the old Mario Dumont party. The Action démocratique du Quebec was also based on a centre-right agenda and a moderate nationalist approach (for most of its life it did not even take sides in the sovereignty debates). One difference is that Legault’s movement was born in Montreal and might eventually attract more high-profile personalties than the ADQ, whose scope was limited to eastern Quebec.
What this new party does right out of the gate is underline popular dissatisfaction with the two old parties. Another election is not required until 2013. That leaves plenty of time for the Liberals to replace Charest and for the PQ to do a makeover on Marois (or replace her with Duceppe.)
In the meantime, a group that has no leader and no name is more popular than the two other parties who have both. No wonder the politicians are heading for the hills.
Published on Nov.2010
The Senior Times
Journalist, soldier, barrister and Benedictine monk, John Main’s spiritual odyssey was a deep seated quest for an authentic life of prayer. The door finally opened when he met an Indian swami who taught him to meditate using a mantra, only to close again when he entered the Benedictine novitiate and adopted a more traditional form of prayer.
Long after ordination in 1963, John Main discovered that the form of prayer advocated by the swami already existed within the mainstream of Western Christianity but had fallen into disuse. From then on, he was to devote his life to restoring this form of Christian meditation to its rightful place within the Church. His work began with the foundation of a meditation center at Ealing Abbey in London and led, some years later, to the foundation of the Benedictine Priory of Montreal and the establishment of a worldwide spiritual family liked through the daily practice of meditation.
Neil McKenty paints an attractive portrait of this compelling Irish monk whose teaching and writing on meditation were to transform the lives of thousands of men and women.