Archive for the ‘Neil McKenty articles’ Category

NEIL’S RADIO SHOW

May 17, 2017

NM001

Exchange on CJAD with your host Neil McKenty

The Lines Are Blazing!!

Today’s subject is all about radio, with the live callers.


https://neilmckentyweblog2.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/all-about-radio.wav

Jean P.

PIT STOP

April 27, 2017

From the archives:

Pit Stop - Oct

The Senior Times’ publisher Barbara Moser suggested I might look over the history of “Pit Stop” for this 20th anniversary issue, so I dug up my old columns and checked them out. To my astonishment I discovered I have been writing “Pit Stop” for more than eight years. Time goes fast when you’re having fun.

My very first column, in May, 1998, paid a tribute to Quebec’s teachers, one of my favourite groups of people, generally over-worked and under-paid. In my book, teachers come in right behind nurses who,

sadly, are drifting more and more to the private sector. One of my first columns stated the private sector should pay to keep the Expos in Montreal. No one from the private sector stepped up to the plate and the team is long gone. More astonishing than their leaving is the fact nobody seems to miss them. Early in 2000 I wrote that separatists didn’t want a clear question on separation. They still don’t. But that was before Jean Chretien nailed down the Clarity Act.

If the PQ win the next election (by no means certain) and if they call a referendum early in their first term (more likely), their chances of winning on an unambiguous question about separation are nil.

My column following Al Gore’s defeat in a rigged election was entitled “Beating around the bush with George Jr.” My first impression of the current Bush was that he is an airhead and a playboy. Nothing he’s done in the past six years has caused me to change my mind. Certainly, I believe Bush is the worst president in my lifetime, which goes back to Herbert Hoover.

In February 2003, I wrote that the impending war in Iraq threatens our world order. Now, six years later, 16 American intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that Bush’s reckless adventure in Iraq has multiplied terrorists and made our world less safe. It seems to me now that what has happened in Iraq is also happening in Afghanistan. I believe we urgently need a serious debate about what precisely is our mission in that country.

I also wrote several columns on religion, especially the implications for my own tradition, Roman Catholicism. I also covered a number of moral and ethical issues: homosexuality, health care, euthanasia, creationism and the role of religion in public policy.

Of course I didn’t bring out the heavy artillery for every column. There were lighter musings on golf, books and films like Brokeback Mountain and The Da Vinci Code.

What I have tried to convey here is not only the content of the columns, but the fun I had doing them. The deadline was more like a lifeline.

I am proud to have been associated with Barbara Moser and her strong and enthusiastic team for the last eight years. I have also enjoyed meeting readers and getting your feedback.

By the way, I have just set up my own blog, “Neil McKenty Weblog,” at neilmckenty.com. Check it out and leave a suggestion or a comment.

Meantime, on this special anniversary of The Senior Times, I’ll drink one toast to the last 20 years and another to the next 20.

October 2006

PIT STOP

March 29, 2017

pit-stop-oct1

Irish vote puts new Europe on horizon.

After Ireland recently ratified the Lisbon Treaty, Europe has moved one step closer to being a full-fledged federation.

The potential significance for Europe of Ireland’s Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum may not yet be fully clear, but it is of major import. If the Lisbon Treaty now comes into force, the Irish electorate’s rethink will have rescued the viability of European unity, probably for a generation.

If the No side had prevailed in the referendum (as it did in the first one) the European Union would have suffered a massive, morale-sapping blow.

Not only would the Lisbon Treaty itself have been killed off, but so, too, would the prospect of reforming the EU for years, given that this time next year David Cameron and the Tories – a party and a leader both skeptical to Europe – would be in power in England.

With a Conservative-ruled UK vetoing every attempt to improve the EU, it is more than likely that Europe would be divided between states advocating further integration and states opposing it – a disaster for the continent.

However, the Lisbon Treaty is not quite a done deal. Two other states have not yet ratified: Poland and the Czech Republic. Both countries’ parliaments have voted approval but their Eurosceptical presidents have withheld their signatures.

Polish president Lech Kaczynski, however, promised last July to consent to ratification if Ireland voted Yes and he has now done so. This leaves Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who more than once said he would try to keep the treaty from coming into force.

Some have speculated that he wanted to delay signing until after the general election in Britain, in the hope the Conservatives would win and call a referendum on the treaty.

Now Mr. Klaus admits he cannot wait for a British election.

“They would have to hold it in the coming days or weeks. However, the train has now traveled so fast and so far I guess it will not be possible to stop it or turn it around, however much we would wish to.”

The treaty was designed to streamline the EU’s decision-making process following its expansion from 15 to 27 members. Critics, including Klaus, have described it as an attempt to create a European superstate that would rob individual nations of their sovereignty.

Some months ago, Klaus said he he would be the “last politician” in Europe to sign the the Lisbon Treaty. This has come true – but ironically his signature will now be the one that enables the treaty he despises to come into force.

That leaves British Conservative leader David Cameron.

Gavin Barrett, a senior lecturer at Trinity College, Dublin, specializing in European Union law, asks what Cameron’s chances are of blocking the treaty by calling a referendum in England once the Conservatives achieve power. “The answer, very simply,” Barrett writes, “is that it will end them. Once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force it will be irreversible. The new institutional architecture will be there to stay.” Part of that architecture might well be Tony Blair, considered by many to be the front-runner for the new position of EU president.

Much to the chagrin of the more Euro-phobic supporters, Cameron will have to abandon a now legally pointless referendum on Lisbon in favor of a concerted effort to repatriate certain powers to Britain – in social, employment, justice and home affairs. Whether he succeeds remains to be seen, although the UK could threaten to block the accession of new member states if it does not get its way.

Cameron’s hardest job will probably be managing Euro-phobia within his own party: An astonishing 40 per cent of Conservative supporters favor leaving the EU altogether.

Be that as it may, Ireland on its second try has broken the logjam preventing a new Europe.

RADIO WAVES

March 13, 2017

Exchange on CJAD with host Neil McKenty.

NM001

Neil takes another call

What’s on your mind?  On today’s show, a medley of different subjects being debated and discussed with live callers.

RADIO WAVES

March 6, 2017

 

Exchange on CJAD with host Neil McKenty.

NM001

Neil takes another call

Here is one of Neil’s daily episode of Exchange talking about Canadian psyche.

TUESDAY WRITING CONVERSATION

February 21, 2017

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.

Posted on Exchange in May 2010

DO CELLPHONES CAUSE BRAIN CANCER?

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.?

Article: Obamacare

February 20, 2017

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.

from theseniortimes.com

What do you think is really going to happen under Trump’s administration ?

TUESDAY WRITING CONVERSATION

February 14, 2017

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?

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAPLE SYRUP AND TABLE SYRUP?

January 30, 2017

maple_syrup

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:

philsfancy Says:
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

Jim Says:
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

littlepatti Says:
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

BLAST FROM THE PAST!

January 11, 2017

Here is an episode of McKenty Live!  with former Quebec minister of education Claude Ryan.

Originally broadcast on May 5th 1989

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UyMnG2R7JPw“>