By Craig Funston
One of life's greatest nuisances for me is the ubiquitous presence of iPods. Everywhere (another word for “ubiquitous”) I look, walk, and sit, it seems I see people of all stripes holding this little screen. They appear glued to it. To an alien, an iPod might even appear to be part of the earthlings anatomy--an extension of the human hand, if you will
It could also come across as an addiction, or at best, a very bad habit. “Don't leave home without it” once applied to credit cards. It could now apply to iPods. It has become so part and parcel of our culture that stick-in-the-mud geeks like me are perceived as relics of the radio days.
Which begs the question: Why can't they use a radio like old-timers like me?
They want communication and information? Get a radio. Read a newspaper. Surf the 'net. They want music? Get a radio. Buy an CD-player. Sing in the shower. Listen to someone else sing in the shower. They want to keep up with their friends and have on-the-spot news? Uh, don't get a radio.
There was a time when I had no time for ATMs, either. I felt strongly (and ignorantly) that all bank work should be done through a teller. That is, until someone took the time to show me how an ATM works and how much time I would save. Now that's all I use, unless I have a transaction that a machine can't perform--like melting down my gold fillings, making bricks out of them.
You're saying to yourself, What's the connection between an iPod and an ATM? You're wondering what meadow of the mind is this rabbit trail going to end up in this time? No rabbit trail here, people: The link is that at one time there was a new idea which I rejected until I tried it (as in ATM). Methinks I'm having the same struggle with iPods.
In other words, I'm being “ignorant” in the truest sense of that word.
I can see people wanting to keep in touch with their friends or having the latest news at their fingertips (literally). I see the point of listening to something pleasing, rather than listening to the buzz and zizz (a real word, people) of the masses around—be they parents, students, teachers, or shoppers. (Note: I said I see the point; I don't necessarily endorse it.)
Radios can serve the same purpose, of course, but they're not nearly so dangerous. Whether it's in the house or car, the output is the essentially the same, namely, music, news, talk shows, sports news and games. It can't get better than that, can it? Since when do we actually to see it to believe it?
If I were the Minister of Technology (aka Inspector Gadget), I would have a few ground rules for the ethical, moral, and practical use of iPods. Well, forget the ethical and moral nonsense; let's focus on the common sense approach to using iPods. Here are some rules that I would implement for you iPods-users:
One, no iPods at meal time. You can wash your hands, sit up straight, use a fork and knife properly, and say “please,” and “thank you,”--these activities should keep you thoroughly engaged, without resorting to feeding your cyber addiction. You may even want to talk (also known as converse, discuss, and interact) with others at your table.
Two, no iPods use if your legs are moving (another word for “walking”). I saw people walking along busy sidewalks in downtown Edmonton recently, completely oblivious to the world around them. I'm not clear that what they were seeing on the screen was all that urgent. Very dangerous, it seemed to me. If you're going to go that far, why not just put a bag over your head and close your eyes?
Three, no iPods in the classroom. I didn't say don't have them “on”; I said don't even have them “in.” Teachers may be boring, textbooks may be boring, classmates may be boring, but nevertheless, it remains the height (or would that be “depth”?) of inconsiderateness to be engaged in something outside the classroom, while inside the classroom.
And four, no iPods while driving. Yes, you are sitting; and yes, you are not snubbing your stupid sister at the table or Mr. Snootface at school, but there's this tiny little matter of distracted driving, other drivers, and the control of a 2,000 pound machine at stake.
By the way, I would have the same rules for a radio. The restrictions can't quite be the same as iPods demand the use of one's eyes (and ears, sometimes), whereas the radio only needs the use of one's ears.
It's surprising what you can see when your eyes are open wide.

By Craig Funston
It sure seems like a great time to be an evangelical Christian these days—at least in the entertainment business. Let's see, there's Justin Bieber, Tim Tebow, and Craig Funston. Or as some wag sitting in the brave solitude of his lonely office would say, a singer, a zinger, and a stinger.
Oh well, two out of three isn't too bad at all.
Bieber, the Canadian-born son of a single mom, has taken the teenybopper world by storm. Not quite sure what his appeal is, but it certainly isn't his voice or his hair—but I'm not envious. Now in recent weeks he has come out even louder than ever with his claim to faith, and he actually has a Jesus tattoo to prove it. Not quite sure if I agree on his take on going to church, either, but, then again, who am I but a lowly writer (or would that be a “stinger”?).
Then, if you follow football, you surely must know about Tim Tebow (that's Tebow, as in “tea-boe.” But the way he prays in the end zone after each touchdown, maybe it should be Tebow, as in rhyming with “cow”). He has emerged as the second coming of John Elway in Denver, but appears to be more interested in the second coming of Jesus.
It's not too often you read of an NFL quarterback that has retained his manners and his morals. My, we've been so accustomed to the roguish behaviour of the Jim McMahons, the Joe Namaths, and Steve McNairs, that his take on life is beyond refreshing.
You might say that it has gone from ideal to unreal to surreal.
He just doesn't fit the mould of any football player—in fact, he doesn't fit the mould of any professional athlete, in my opinion: Son of evangelical missionary parents, loves hanging with his siblings, and was homeschooled. I like him already, and I've never met him.
If there is one proven way to corrupt anyone, it is through fame. We're not wired to handle the excessive adoration and adulation of others. I don't suppose we know the half of what goes in the barrooms and bedrooms of professional athletes as they blitz around the country. There are probably broken hearts and vows all around America as a result of their wanton promiscuity.
Meanwhile, back to Bieber and Tebow. I link them because of their profession of the Christian faith, but there are some token differences. Schooling choices would be one of them. Also, one appears to have had to pull himself up by his bootstraps in a home with an absent father and a dedicated mother; the other had both a mother and father, albeit they were active in mission work. Both are making their mark in the States, even though both have come from foreign countries—Canada and the Philippines, respectively.
What I find so refreshing about Tim—can I actually call him “Tim,” even though we haven't been formally introduced?--is his clear-cut testimony regarding his faith. Anyone who prays in front of millions of viewers each week and wears “John 3:16” on his sun screen obviously takes his faith seriously.
I can't imagine Justin prancing and dancing around the stage, then bowing down after yet another encore, thanking Jesus for all the screaming groupies.
My take on faith is that it should permeate every aspect of life—and if it can't, then quit what you must, but not the faith. Practical faith is not just on Sunday, or just on the pulpit. Sometime soon we should discuss whether professing followers of Jesus—tattoo or no tattoo-- should be rhythm and blues singers, twisting and shouting in front of hundreds (possibly thousands) of hysterically-charged girls.
If life were a you've-got-talent show, I'd vote for Tim Tebow. He strikes me as the real deal, especially when it comes to representing his faith. I'm just hoping he can hang in there and not be corrupted through temptation, or through the desperate media vultures, dredging up some imagined past vice.
Just a suggestion to the NFL powers-that-be: Perhaps if the Broncos make it all the way to the Stupor, er, Super Bowl, maybe they could add Bieber to the half-time show. I can see it now: He sings one of the Monkees' most famous songs (“I'm a Belieber”), then meets Brother Tim in the end zone for a brief prayer meeting.
Either way, we'll just leave it to Bieber to come through.

By Craig Funston
This is the time of year where everybody loves everybody—or at least that's the impression—and it's usually expressed through New Year's resolutions for themselves, and best wishes for their friends and otherwise. I'm no different, at least in that sense, so I want to plunge into this discussion with some teensy-weensy bit of advice for those in the “otherwise” category.
I am specifically targeting four (4) disparate (correct spelling, people) groups. Now that I think of it, I suppose they could be five desperate groups also.
First, to the latest version of the Supreme Ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. I want to say something witty (or would that be cutting?) about haircut, dress code, and weight, but I refrain. It's one thing to look like that when one is going to a private school in Switzerland (and out of the public eye), but now his role—and therefore, our expectation—is much, much higher.
I wish for President-elect (not) Jong-un that he work hard in three key areas. First, take care of his own people in the area of personal freedoms, nutritious food, and international trade. Second, work out his differences with that other president from that other Korea. I don't know all the details about the Korean War (ie., who's to blame), but I do know that it has been sixty years of futility for North Korea. And three, get on with the international scene. Albania crawled out from under its rock and things have improved for them.
Second, to the countries that make up the European Community. I want to say something about sloppy immigration laws, about too much fat at the top, about cushy public employees—but you might get baffled and think I'm referring to Canada or the USA. So I won't confuse you.
But I will urge them to get off their collective you-know-whats and get more serious than ever about their collective financial stability. Some suggestions: Bring the tourists back. Renew the trades and manufacturing segment (which will mean, of course, a drop in wages and benefits as your workers compete with Vietnam and China). And start cutting back, from the top down, at 1% per year.
Third, to those candidates in the presidential race in our eleventh province / fourth territory—or is it the other way around? I want them to read this current column, and my previous two wishes, in particular: Dress appropriately in public and learn some money management skills.
I am speaking specifically to Republican candidates whose last names sound like Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Perry. I wanted to add Cain, but he is no longer able. Over the next few months, as the field tightens up, I'll take a few shots at the various deficiencies of all those left standing—and whether any of them have the moral right to run.
The truth is, Obama needs to go before he drives our once-glorious neighbour further and deeper into the economic abyss. These guys (and gal) need to stop fighting among themselves, and come up with the best person to lead the country. Like a bad marriage, when parents fight, it's always the kids who suffer. And in case you haven't noticed, the “kids” are misbehaving big time.
And finally, to the professional hockey team that makes Calgary its home (I can't quite come out and say their full name on an empty stomach). I want to say something supportive like “trust you make the play-offs,” or “hope your rookies do well,” but I can't, so I won't.
If Jay Feaster is reading my column—and why wouldn't he?--let me suggest a blockbuster trade for him. The key Calgary players would indeed be, well, key Calgary players, namely, Iginla and Kiprusoff. The potential trading partners would be one of the following: The Columbus Blue Jackets, the New York Islanders, or the Tampa Bay Lightning. All three teams are in desperate need for what Calgary can offer—a first-string goalie and a take-charge, proven leader.
I suggest the Islanders, for the following three reasons: They are in the Eastern Conference, so there would be minimal damage to the Flames' success; the addition of these two quality players could be the missing pieces to make the team respectable again; and there are some marketable players to come back.
Those said marketable players would be Nabokov (to replace Kiprusoff in goal), plus either Matt Moulson or Michael Grabner to replace Iginla. In one fell swoop, the Flames get younger, faster, and cheaper..
I know you're all saying one of two things right now: My oh my, this Funston fella sure has some wonderful, creative ideas! Or, what's that Funston fella been drinking anyway?
Trust the above can benefit from my teensy-weensy bit of advice. And have a Happy New Year (and many years to come) while they're at it.

By Craig Funston
I sincerely hope you had a good day on the big day, and that the strain of taking all those socks, ties, and sweaters back on the next big day wasn't too much for you—or for the poor beleaguered clerk on the other side of the counter.
So as I sit here in the brave solitude of my lonely office, looking in vain for some snow, more gifts, and the nerve to eat yet another dish of turkey-whatever, I am going bananas. (That's it! Maybe I should try bananas.) Okay, not going bananas, but I am thinking bananas, as in Chiquita bananas.
That would be those “we're-so-ethical-we're-not going-to touch-your-stinking-oil” Chiquita bananas.
My oh my, a corporation with conscience, I dare say? Where did that pompous attitude come from--the ghettos in Ghana, the slums in Sri Lanka? Was that after or before they paid their child slaves their token wage for harvesting their bananas?
At least Chiquita is consistent—consistently irrational, that is. On the one hand, they dredge up this moralistic principle of not dealing with so-called dirty oil from Alberta; but on the other hand, they have no problem dealing with dirty regimes from the Middle East, to use their oil.
I think I get the logic: Hard-working (yes, possibly slightly over-paid) Canadians, trying to earn an honest living are to be penalized for pulling otherwise useless liquid out of some barren soil. And the spin-off impact throughout Alberta, as well as the rest of Canada, is positively staggering. (And it's staggeringly positive, to boot.) Especially when you consider all the trades and manufacturing jobs that are directly and indirectly connected to said oil.
I'm not quite sure the oil industry in any one of those Middle East fiefdoms can say the same. But I do know that the tyrants at the top take off most of the profits, for starters.
To be sure, the tar sands oil is dirty. My engine gets dirty because of oil. My pants and hands get dirty because of oil. And I'm sure there is too much air pollution because of the oil refineries, processed oil (aka gasoline), and other unfortunate but necessary emissions.
Wait: Is that the way they're using the term “dirty”? (No, Maurice, actually it isn't.) It's a clever ploy on the part of many of these global corporations to play on people's sense of saving the planet, one environmental issue at a time. At least the belligerent squatters will be happy with that position: I'm sure there will be no Wall Street Occupation in front of Chiquita's corporate offices.
There appears to be an apparent ethical element to this boycott, and believe it or not, I can buy into it. That is, the argument that there should be an ethical element to everything we do, buy, and say. What I don't buy is the total tripe that we're being handed from the Chiquitas, Walgreens, Timberlands—among others—of the corporate world. I like businesses with a sense of ethics, but I'm thinking that it should actually start with the business itself.
You might say that they should mind their own business first, before they start minding somebody else's.
Sweatshop factories in India, China, and other parts of Southeast Asia are rife with underaged and under-paid workers. Remember the big ballyhoo with Nike a few years ago? That worked, didn't it? Maybe we should do due diligence and make certain that those tops we buy from our local department store don't fall into the same category.
For that matter, not only should we be ethical in our business, but likewise in our buying.
Ethics in every angle of consumerism (that is, buyer, shopper, producer, and transporter) is a most welcomed exercise, something we should all engage in. Any company, whether dabbling in oil or bananas, should be scrutinized for any ethical, economical, or environmental violations.
I'll start by holding off on banana splits until further notice.