By Craig Funston

Has it ever been a good time to be a kid? Television ads and fairy tales aside, I don't think so. In some cultures, children have been used as human sacrifices, play things, and cheap, cheap labour. Children have also come to be seen as a burden, not a blessing, unless they have developed the art of begging and robbing, in order to supplement the meagre income of their parents.
We see children who are an endless supply of soldiers – against their will and their hopes, I may add. I don't think I would be speculating when I speak of about the sexual exploitation of girls in Thailand and the military exploitation of children in Iraq, just for starters. And a dash into history, say, to Victoria-era England would present us with shocking child labour injustices; if you are in doubt, read some pertinent novels by Charles Dickens on the matter.
And it's not like this is new information. The only thing new is a fresh supply of bodies, as children have a habit of getting old and useless very quickly.
In a brief moment of ignorance, I like to think that perhaps children in North America (excluding Mexico, for this argument) have it good. I say that when I see the schools for learning, the stores for shopping – to say nothing of playgrounds, restaurants, and weekends. I am also thinking happy thoughts when I read the instruction on many items that bear that glorious message: “Keep out of the reach of children.”
Ah, I have said to myself many times, isn't it great that we protect our children from things that will harm them! Someone's looking out for them, I remind myself.
That naive notion was once again shot down, however, when I sat in front of a television the other day, taking in for a passing moment all the vile information that any child at any age and any time has access to. It was enough to offend me, but I had enough self-control to keep on flicking. For the most part, most normal children or teenagers wouldn't and don't possess that sort of discipline – much to their emotional harm.
Where, I wondered to myself, was that wonderful warning, “Keep out of the reach of children”? Sometimes you may see it as a caveat at the start of some raunchy show, possibly as a conscience check for the producer. That's my clue for keep moving on.
Whether it is enticing ads, mindless sit-coms, or some of the more popular sleazy excuses for entertainment, an uncensored television is as dangerous to the soul as a vial of poison is to the body. With parents not around or watching their own television set somewhere else in the house, it's no wonder that far too much of a child's worldview comes from what has been known as an “idiot box.”
Like Internet, radio, and books, there is much good that a television can be used for. It is the uncontrolled Internet, radio, library - and I may add computer, along with television - that I have issues with.
No parent in their right mind would feed arsenic to their baby. No parent with a flicker of basic responsibility would allow things in their home to harm their child. However, for some reason, it is not long after the baby becomes a toddler and the toddler becomes a child that the rules get re-worked. Suddenly, wise and cautious restraint gives way to (so-called) freedom of choice.
And we North Americans are blatant hypocrites when we are appalled, on the one hand, at the lax child labour laws in China and Pakistan and the cruel sexist laws in Saudi Arabia and Thailand, yet guilty of shortcomings over here, on the other hand. And notice that I haven't even discussed abortion as part of the overall mistreatment of our kids.
But whether it is the womb, the home, the school, or even the church, we need to be creating safe and healthy environments for our children – whether they are things we add or things we take away. That is the parents' responsibility, not the state - or any other institution, for that matter.
We should be disgusted with the varied injustices foisted upon children of the world. Maybe, as point of sincere consistency and foresight, we should tackle our homes first. Personally, I believe that if we have stronger homes here, it will impact families over there.

By Craig Funston

One good thing about this time of year is the start of the real National Hockey League – also known as the play-offs. The first 82 games, per team, are spent scrambling for a position in the hockey after-life - hockey heaven, if you will. And there is nothing quite as exciting as a good old-fashioned all-Canadian Stanley Cup , say, between Toronto and Edmonton. However, as they are the resident bottom-feeders for the entire NHL, that won't happen in anytime soon.
There have been some pleasant surprises in this year's race (hello there, Phoenix and Los Angeles), some intriguing surprises (watch out, Calgary and Detroit), and some refreshing surprises (back again, Chicago and Washington). Methinks the days of dynasties (adios y'all, Oilers and Islanders) are over. There seems to be a welcomed turnover of each year's finalists.
How it will all shake down within the next two weeks is anybody's guess. And beyond that, as in who will come out of the West and the East, is even a greater mystery. That has never stopped me from predicting before, so why start now?
As I stated a few weeks ago, there is really nothing that binds complete strangers together than NHL hockey, even if there are different loyalties. The recent Olympics are a case in point. I would venture to say that hockey has that special charisma that no other sport has in Canada – high school basketball and inner-city soccer, notwithstanding.
I repeat, the most desirable final would be an all-Canadian one, but that is quite unrealistic for a couple of reasons: 1. There are only four Canadian teams competing this year, and at least two of them (Montreal and Calgary) are not even guaranteed of getting into the play-offs. 2. Of the other two (Ottawa and Vancouver), Ottawa has floundered a bit since the Olympics, but appear to be righting themselves; and Vancouver has been a consistent first-round flop for years (with last year being a blessed exception).
This year, and please pardon my bias, I do believe Vancouver could quite easily make it to the Western Conference finals. In terms of opposition, it seems to me that Chicago is the one team that I can safely predict will make it that far also. However, there is no saying what Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Colorado will do – dark horses always have that quality, you know.
I will go out on a limb and predict that Boston and New York (in the East) will likely not make the play-offs this year, nor will Calgary and Anaheim (in the West). It doesn't take a lot of hockey savvy to come up with these conclusions - just look at their records for the past 10 games, respectively. Nor is there a jolt, eg., fresh players from a trade, to boost them upwards in the standings. There are many new and consistent competitors vying for those now-vacant positions, so it will be very, very tight till the very last day.
As refreshing as it is to see both Phoenix and Los Angeles finally get back into the play-off fold, I don't really want them to go too far into the finals, this first year of credibility. I would much rather see the regular, diehard hotbeds of NHL hockey (eg., Vancouver and Chicago) have their efforts rewarded with an appearance in the finals. And that is more reason than sentiment, believe me.
So, whether you care or not, I wish to suggest what the West and East will look like, along with the ultimate dance, and then what team will drink from Lord Stanley's cup:
There shouldn't be any surprise out of the West, Chicago and Vancouver, and I am afraid to say that Chicago tends to have Vancouver's number. Vancouver has a superior goalie, as we all know, and that could possibly sway the series, though I still don't think that will be enough.
Out of the East, it will be Washington and Buffalo, and beyond that will be based on the play of, once again, the respective goalies. I think Buffalo's Ryan Miller will be the absolute game-breaker each time. You may recall Miller as the starting goalie for the USA Olympic team.
As far as the big dance, I am calling for a Chicago Blackhawks-Buffalo Sabres final - a rare meeting at this level - with Chicago prevailing in six. That should be by mid-June, making hockey the only sport that starts at the end of one season and ends at the beginning of the next season – the season, of course, being summer.

By Craig Funston

I'm not sure I am ready to say that spring has finally arrived, no matter what the mannequins are wearing at Wal-Mart, no matter what happened last Saturday (among other things, first official day of spring, Horace), or no matter how balmy it seems at this point of writing.
If there are any indicators of spring, they would be gophers, of course. Gophers, as in those furry little vermin that hop, skip, and jump across every roadway in southern Alberta.
The first gopher sighting of 2010, for me, was about three weeks ago. It was one of those bittersweet sightings: bitter, because it meant that gophers are here for a while; and sweet, because it meant that spring was finally here (based on the above hypothesis).
Green, eco-ninjas would decry any objection to these poor critters. For starters, they might disagree with me calling them “vermin.” I can also see them banning gopher hunting, as they would likely cite animal cruelty. So would any form of poisoning, for that matter, suggesting that this particular form of animal cruelty might actually be the worst. I even might agree with the latter sentiment, but only because it could do damage to other productive livestock or soil.
Believe it or not, I can honestly say some positive things about them.
1. It makes driving fun. Whenever I see one basking in the sun on the yellow line (also known as the yellow brick road to them), I am tempted (operative word) to run it over. It may not be fun for the driver in the other lane – or my own passengers, for that matter - but it could be for me. (“Honest, officer, I was just trying to clean up the environment.”)
2. It saves on cat food. If I don't feed my cats on a regular basis, they need to eat something – and gopher pot pie is the ticket. Granted, they make the expression, “dinner on the run,” take on a new meaning. Quick question here: Would that make gophers “fast food”?
3. It is a cheaper and healthier hobby than computer games, and I am thinking specifically of hunting gophers. Tramping through the fields with rifle in hand and dog in tow is the life. No, I haven't actually done it, but that's what I'm told.
4. It cleans up the environment. Getting rid of them would help our poor stressed-out planet. So many gophers make a big heap of gopher droppings, and a lot of unsanitized messes are not good for the carbon footprint on this fragile eco-system. (Good quote – eh, greens?) At least with human waste there are many positive uses for our recycled meals.
Would this world be a better place if there were fewer or even no gophers? Absolutely! Is there a better way to rid our prairies of these pests? Probably. If one could come up with a humane way to do it, I'd go for it. To twist yet another adage: The only good gopher is a dead gopher – and any way to carry that out is fine by me.
There is only one slight problem: If there were no gophers, how could we tell when it was spring? I think that's easy: If it snows in April, we would know we are only weeks away from summer, so that would make it spring already.

By Craig Funston

I don't know if you have adjusted to less sleep and more light over the past three days, but I certainly haven't. No matter what the cause or the rationale, “less sleep” is never a better option than more sleep. We have been created to take a well-deserved break for a few hours within a regular twenty-four hour period. You might call it the “every day Sabbath of the body.”
The “more light” advantage, on the other hand, is one that bears discussing. I suggest to you that the more light, the better. The only exception to that rule is when you're trying sleep with less light when you are used to more light. (Hold on: it's to get crazy in the next few lines.)
One reason why a March Daylight Savings Time (as opposed to the decades-old April one) appeals to me is that it should theoretically save money. (Horace, let me explain: Less power used means less power billed. Okay?) So anytime one can save money, this is good.
I would also add that with more daylight – both earlier in the day and later in the evening – there is a greater opportunity to be more productive. I believe I should have added the word “theoretically” to this reason, as in “theoretically, one should be more productive with more natural light.” That would mean, again, in a theoretical sense, that there would be more time to travel, weed, jog, paint, and build – tasks that are nearly impossible when moonlight has replaced sunlight.
A jog in the dark, one might say, is no walk in the park.
I have also been told that more light is simply better for one's health. It is a proven fact that we tend to get more sick during the winter than we do in the summer. That could be for a host of reasons, with lack of natural sunlight being one of them. Vitamin D, as you know, is the best cure to a sunshine deficiency, next to the sun itself. So, if there is less sun, there must be more pills – not a great trade-off, but a reasonable replacement.
Finally, dangerous things are done more often in the dark, so “more light” should – again, I use the word “theoretically” - mean that this world is a safer, kinder place when we set our clocks ahead. But if we are cranky with less sleep, and we have some object in our hand, the world may not be quite as safe as we want it to be.
But with Daylight Savings Time comes Nighty-night Savings Time, too. Because it is hard to sleep when it is light out, it is likewise hard to crawl into bed any sooner than midnight. When it is light out, it's hard have lights out.
One simple, almost idiotic solution to the light out–lights out dilemma is to wear blindfolds anytime after 8 p.m. Maybe not a great idea, especially if there are walls and doors and toys
And people to maneuver around. You might get to bed early, but it would likely be a hospital bed – especially with all those potential hazards. Simulated darkness produces simulated sleep (ie., not the genuine thing), so one won't get a really good night's rest.
I am discovering, as I talk it up with friends, that less sleep needs no help from the powers-that-be. In other words, I am finding all sorts of people are having enough trouble either struggling with getting to sleep in the first place or getting back to sleep once they have woken up. The only exception would be teenagers on Saturday mornings – or actually any morning, for that matter. For them, Daylight Savings Time can come and go, but sleeping in just carries on.
So I am convinced that Daylight Savings Time is actually not necessarily a really obvious positive event on our calendar. It makes for passing news in our papers, fodder for this column, and confusion for the common man (“Is it spring forward and fall back – or the opposite?”)
In the meantime, I will move my bed to the cellar – and keep my blindfolds ready, just in case.