insights

The concept of PTSD came out of the study of war veterans but unlike shell shock or battle fatigue, which tended to be obvious and directly related to combat, PTSD is usually felt after the veteran comes home. Prior to Vietnam very little attention was focused on what happened to soldiers after they came home from war. The media attention and self-examination that the Vietnam fiasco brought about focused many people on the long-term psychological effects of traumatic experiences.

Conservative military estimates showed that 30% (or more) of soldiers experienced major psychological problems after the war, sometimes years after. As these people had been relatively normal functioning people before the war the old mental health models, which tended to see everyone as at least partially dysfunctional no longer were applicable. A new paradigm or viewpoint was needed to explain why normal people were breaking down after the traumatic events. Hence the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was born.
Other psychologists and counselors were quick to realize that the same process of breakdown was occurring in civilians after they had experienced major trauma or a series of traumas. Forward thinking clinicians began to abandon old concepts of mental illness because the old paradigms couldn’t explain why mentally healthy and stable people where breaking down after experiencing major traumas. These traumas could be varied such as the unexpected death of loved one, victims of rapes, assaults or other unexpected traumas, both mental and physical.
For the first time large numbers of clinicians began to abandon old models and study the effects of trauma on normal, sane, stable people. Now large numbers of clinicians began to see people, as normally healthy people who sometimes “broke down” or became over whelmed by life events to the point were their normal coping mechanisms were unable to stand up to the pressures of traumatic events. The paradigm of mental illness had changed.
This new paradigm of people as basically healthy until their coping mechanism became over whelmed could not, of course explain all mental health problems. There are still many other forms of mental or emotional dysfunction with numerous causes and treatments. The PTSD model only attempted to explain what happens to normally functioning people who experienced serious and overwhelming and unexpected traumas. People who had time to prepare for life changing events did not tend to experience the same kind of reactions. The element of surprise was central to the result of PTSD. For instance, if your mate died after a period of illness, you have time to prepare, but if your mate was suddenly killed the result could be more overwhelming.
The traumas that could produce PTSD were unexpected and severe. The traumas could be emotional or physical. The trauma could be one major trauma or a series of traumas, the important point was that the traumas were unexpected and life changing, without the necessary time and resources to adapt.
The importance of this model lay in the fact that the effects of trauma could be reversed. People could come out of the “breakdown” stronger and more resilient than they were before. The beauty of the concept was that if people were mentally healthy before the overwhelming experiences then they could return to that health. PTSD practioners could effect positive change in the person by helping them find their own inner strengths, assets and resources to rebuild their methods and strategies for coping with stress. People could regain their stability and they could do so in a relatively short period of time. This approach didn’t necessitate years of psychotherapy and or the use of drugs for long periods of time.
The drawbacks of this approach were that like any other approach it couldn’t be applied to everyone and in all situations. The other drawbacks were ones shared by most approaches. The person had to recognize that they had a problem, they had to be willing to develop insight into themselves, and above all, they had to be ready to accept the responsibility to change. This approach (like others) couldn’t fix the problem; it could only help those who were really ready to “fix” themselves. Like other approaches it was limited by the clients willingness and readiness to change. It involved support, insight development, and most importantly, constructive action on the part of the person suffering. Like all other approaches it was limited by the old adage “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink

As we grow up, we learn that even the one person that wasn't
supposed to ever let you down probably will. You will have your
heart broken probably more than once and it's harder every time.
You'll break hearts too, so remember how it felt when yours was
broken. You'll fight with your best friend. You'll blame a new love
for things an old one did. You'll cry because time is passing too
fast, and you'll eventually lose someone you love. So take too many
pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never been hurt
because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness
you'll never get back

Despite much opposition, children in our society have now attained the status of people and as such, have rights. This means that there are now laws limiting the prerogatives of parents. What 50 years ago was some of what was accepted practice in disciplining our children is now illegal. Today a parent no longer has the right to treat children as property. Most of us would agree that children shouldn’t be physically or sexually abused but many of us don’t realize that insulting, demeaning, name-calling and other forms of verbal humiliation are now classed as emotional abuse and are also a violation of the child’s rights. Likewise not supplying children with adequate supervision and caring can now be deemed as neglect.

Some adults are quite upset with this government interference into their families; some claim that this interference doesn’t allow them to properly discipline and teach their children to behave. Some adults blame this “permissive” approach for all the problems their children have from defiance to doing poorly at school. More than once I have heard people yearn for the good old days when you could “smarten up” your kid with a good smack. Much is blamed on this new emphasis on children’s rights; but are children’s rights really the cause of moral and behavioral decay? Do children really need to be beaten into submission, to have their spirits broken, in order to be proper adults? Can we really gain respect from our children by insults and injury? I don’t think so.

What is so wrong with treating your child with respect and love? Can people really not develop a method of teaching and disciplining that doesn’t depend on force, fear, intimidation and humiliation? Not so long ago adults were routinely treated with the same lack of respect, yet our society developed and learned that a society need not depend on force to make good citizens. We learned that we could extend the rights of people-hood to women, other races, and even what had been the peasantry. Far from being destroyed by this permissiveness we became stronger. As we extended rights and respect we freed a great well of creativity and energy, which has resulted in the most technically advanced society in human history. Granted our society is far from perfect but how many of us would really want to return to the middle ages?

Now we are at another crucial step in our social evolution. When we learn to raise our children with love and respect, and, without fear and humiliation, how might our society become transformed? What might our children become if they were raised in a climate of acceptance and respect? Is it really impossible to look at our children with love, respect and even trust? Would our children really turn into monsters if we didn’t keep them under our tight control? What does such an attitude say about us?

I have met many parents who express their frustration that their children are out of control, that their children treat them without respect, or routinely lie to them. Where did they learn these behaviors? How many times have these same parents treated their children without respect? How often did these parents lose control and strike out with words or deeds, and, how often did these parents lie to their children? The simplest truth is that which is most fought against – children become what they are taught to be. They learn from what their parents do, not from what their parents say. Parents will only get respect by giving it. Children will not learn to be responsible from adults who deny their own responsibility. Children really are reflections of their parents. There is much truth to the old saying that the apple does not fall far from the tree. Parents must decide what kind of tree they will be. Parents must decide whether to raise their children as they were raised or to try to do better. I sometimes wonder what our society might become if we followed the Golden Rule with everyone - even our children: “Should we really do unto our children what we would not have others do unto us?”

When you are in the hospital, especially for something as interesting and potentially dangerous as a lung transplant, you get lots of attention. People phone, write, visit.

Nutritional, institutional meals and snacks are served regularly and without fail. Various medicines and procedures are like clockwork. Though you may get confused by the 20-30 medical personnel whom interact regularly with you, at least you have plenty of contact and more importantly you are given the latest updates as to your health and find out what we are gong to try next and why it is necessary.

This is not so for Karen, my wife. The “spouse” or “primary-caregiver” usually gets her information on my health second-hand from me when she visits…in-between unpacking my clean laundry and packing up my already-worns. She may be lucky enough to time her visits for when one of the doctors is here and thus gets to ask questions and clarify for herself what I have left unclear.

In addition to taking the time to dress and look great for each visit to cheer me up, she has a ton of other things to do. Nobody is making her meals, or doing her shopping, or our laundry or purchasing the hundred little odds and ends necessary to modern life. She’s busy paying the bills, trying to manage two households, only to find that our home on Gabriola now has a foot high lawn and the bushes etc. are out of control.

She also has to manage her own health with fibromyalgia, chronic pain, disintegrating disk disease, sciatica, and her esophageal problems that are getting a lot worse of late. And all those delightful things that go with fibromyalgia -- absolutely no sense of direction or spatial reference. She has the route from the condo to the hospital memorized as well as the route to the mall but if she misses by one street she has to backtrack. Always as the crow flies and never taking a short cut for fear of getting lost. Short-term memory loss is no fun.

Managing as much as Karen does would be a full time job in itself, but in addition, she no longer has what little help I could give. So when she leaves here after several hours (often for as long as 9+ hours) of keeping me upbeat despite each medical setback, her real life of taking care of everything begins and she does this with very little support. There are of course phone calls from her mom and others who care. And emails from friends who are helping maintain our Gabriola home, fish, plants, yard, and Cutie our cat. All these help Karen, but in the end she is still physically alone and I know sometimes cries herself to sleep. So when I get the occasional phone call from my exhausted wife saying that she “can’t make it in today, sweetie”, I understand and put my disappointment on hold. I just have to get better or die. Karen, like other caregivers has to manage everything else. So, you tell me who is the real hero.

I want to thank my wife Karen, not just for the extra load she is carrying, but for insisting we get married after I became ill. Many people would have found a healthier mate…Karen didn’t. I also want to thank her for the thousand little things she does to make my life better. Most of all I want to thank her for truly being the light of my life, and, as Jack Nicholson put it, “being the kind of woman that makes me want to be a better man”.

***********

I have been going to Roger’s several time a week for about 8 years now and have yet to have a boring time. There is always somebody interesting to talk to and learn from and often there is entertainment. When I wandered in on Friday there was a book launch and reading by author Bob Bossin and with illustrations by Sima Elizabeth Shefrin. This book called “Latkes” is Bob’s second book, several years ago he wrote a history of Claquot Sound. Sima has also produced another book called “Abby’s Birds “. “Latke” is a small (48 pages) but delightful book that sells for $12 and was printed by Nick Books here on Gabriola.
The reading was followed by a bountiful supply of latkes (potato pancakes) with garnish choices of yogurt, sour cream and applesauce. Never having had a latke before I sampled each of the garnishes and they all are excellent. Last week I walked in on a poetry reading with bass accompaniment from Diana D. I later attended her bands performance at the Surf and had an excellent time. I had been going to write an article on Diana but I just don’t know her well enough yet to write an article I would be comfortable with. Sorry Diana.
It never fails to amaze me how much talent there is on this island, and how many festivals and entertainments Gabriola has. What other community our size could sustain so many events? The plethora of events, entertainments and artists are more reasons why it is so good to be back home.

Sitting on the porch of Raspberry’s, drinking my coffee, listening to fine music and watching Big Ben work the crowd. Ben could have been the quintessential politician, as everyone, without exception, showed an immediate interest in and acceptance of Ben. Ben got what he wanted from everyone there and they did it with a smile. Everyone broke into a grin at his approach and felt especially lucky that he had singled them out for his attention. Whatever it was about Ben people delighted in giving him what he wanted and all that he wanted. Ben could have been a great con man or easily run for mayor. All Ben wanted was a little affection, a scratch behind the ears or on the rump, a pat, a rub a little bit of touch and recognition. Not all that different from what we all want, yet no one begrudged Ben his wants despite his imposing size, 90+ pounds of German Shepherd.
Why is it so easy for us to show affection and pay attention, delighted all the while, to another species when if it had been our own species wanting the same thing our reaction would have been quite different? Why is it we can show such unreserved affection for an animal ignoring the needs of our fellow humans? For on that very porch while Ben was working the crowd there where two or three people who would have felt lucky if they got a tenth of the attention we showed so easily to Ben.
Perhaps, it is that we knew all Ben wanted was a little affection; that he had no hidden agenda, that there was no possibility that he was conning us or setting us up. We knew that when our encounter with Ben was over, it really would be over. There would be no repercussions, no expectations, and no way we could be taken advantage of.
The joy people felt and showed giving Ben his due demonstrated quite clearly that we Humans have an excess of affection to give. Affection we give freely to "lesser " species. It is a sad thing that we have somehow learned that giving affection and warmth freely is dangerous when done with our own species. We often are afraid to even meet new people, to even openly acknowledge a strangers presence. Is it because we have so often been taken advantage of by our fellow humans or is it because we fear we might be rebuffed if we show friendliness towards others? Do we think others might regard us as strange or "not quite right" if we showed open interest in them or any sign that we might just like to know more about them?
It is strange but the easiest way to meet people is by bringing a dog to a cafe, for we can all express interest in the dog and thus meet the owners. Why the subterfuge? Are dog owners less likely to take advantage of our friendliness? Are they less likely to turn out to be undesirables? Does the simple fact of ownership of a dog make a person more trustworthy? I think not.
I think it is just our innate shyness, our reluctance to take a risk that holds us back. After all what are we doing at a sidewalk coffee shop if not to meet people? We can make coffee at home, why go out for it if not to meet people? Perhaps we should take a chance and actually start up a conversation with others that are there; after all if we are rebuffed if won't be the first time and certainly not the last.
As for myself I go to Raspberry’s to watch people and to meet people because people fascinate me, always have and always will. Everybody's got a story worth hearing, usually, more than one. Attention should be paid to everyone, not just because they deserve it but by not doing so we rob ourselves from all the growth the other might spark in us. We miss out on their uniqueness and by doing so we lessen our own lives.
So if you see me sitting anywhere, feel free to come up and start a conversation. I'm real easy to recognize, I'm the one with the oxygen tank.

There is an old island saying “You can tell how long people have on the island by the color of their lawn in August”. While this still is usually true, the wave of retirees is beginning to change the island. We are getting more and more retirees who are still locked into the urban-suburban continuum. It never makes sense to me that people would move to Gabriola to get away from the suburban Lifestyles and then immediately try and make over the natural beauty of the island into duplicates of the suburbs. I am referring specifically to those who simply must have green lawns all summer and lots of flowers and shrubs, etc that require intensive water usage.
There are a few places on the island that have sufficient water (at present) that may be able to support extensive sprinkler systems but the vast majority of the island does not. When these people buy their houses they either don’t think about how their water usage will affect their neighbours or they simply don’t care. The fact is if you are using a wasteful sprinkler system to keep you lawn green then you are and will affect your neighbours wells and the entire local water table. Sprinklers lose 50% 0f the water to evaporation. If you are on a steep slope you can add another 20 to 30 % wastage by run off – that means for every 1,00 gallons of water used only 200 gallons actually gets to your plants and grass roots. That is an incredible wastage of water on an island where wells often dry up during the July to September dry season.
I never experienced water problems as our house is on a hill with a large catchment area above: until last summer. During the eight days I made it home last august and September my well ran dry every single night for approximately 2 hours. I started to check out why this would occur and during my search discovered other neighbours were having water problems about the same time of day and others reported that their water levels had never been this low. The only common explanation any of us could come up with is that one of our neighbours had put in a Bart Simpson yard complete with a heavy duty sprinkler system and from what we can tell no cistern system at all. Perhaps there is another explanation, so a number of us will be watching for the same conditions this dry season.
Now, if it does turn out to be our neighbours sprinkling system there are some easy fixes. The easiest and cheapest is to install at least a thousand gallon cistern system, which you could fill very slowly over a 24-48 hr period and run your sprinklers off the cistern. This method doesn’t cause a sudden fall in anyone’s well as the water is replaced during the day. This is a good short-term solution but doesn’t affect the amount of water wasted by the system.
Now our neighbor isn’t the one I blame for this water wastage - I blame the people who took his money (a lot of it I hear) and where either to new to the island to understand the water problems or they simply didn’t care. Either way my neighbor and by extension all of his neighbors got ripped off. A person pays out a lot of money to people who claim to be qualified landscapers and then rip him off by installing the cheapest and most wasteful irrigation system. If they really knew what they were doing they would have installed the underground drip system – sometimes called the spaghetti hoses. This system is 95% efficient in delivering just the right amount of water for grass and all kinds of plants. In other words he would only have to use 210 gallons of water to get the same effect as he now does with sprinklers using a 1,000 gallons. The other good thing about this slow drip system is that it operates all day instead of siphoning off water faster than it can be replaced.
Long tem though this system is unlikely to be effective as more and more people buy houses up hill from him and install their own sprinklers: because if enough of the do it then there won’t be any water reaching my neighbour. Long-term 10 to 20 years down the road the problem will be almost impossible to fix without the wholesale banning of sprinkler systems.
The people who can’t make the transition from suburban to island life usually leave, unfortunately we seem to be getting more of the people who can’t change their mind set and instead just believe they can do whatever they want and to hell with their neighbours. These people frozen into middle class suburban mindsets believe that their class suburban yards are impressing people! They don’t realize instead most of the people who aren’t actively angry with them are laughing at them. If Islanders were impressed with the suburbs they would have moved there.
Ian has a Masters degree in counseling and 30 odd years of practice and teaching psychology and counseling. He has just re-opened his Gabriola Counseling Service.

400 words are just not enough to explain why I would be good for the trust and why that would be good for the community. I have long been a supporter of the trust even though I often disagree with them on decision-making, long term effects and process. My background experience in teaching, counseling and diving has developed within me certain skills that would be useful to the Trust.
‘Active listening’ is the ability to put aside your own view point long enough to really listen and understand the other person’s concerns. I find that only by suspending our own view points or believe system can we really understand what the other person wants and why.
Realizing that what we do today will still be affecting people long into the future. This skill helps me in not taking the easy fix, but instead to look at many ways of doing things and choosing the one that I believe will best meet the needs of today and still be valid 30 years from now.
I developed an instinctive distrust of bureaucracies because they very quickly forget that they were invented to serve all the people, not just those who agree with us or share our cause. In most agencies it is easy to turn into a bureaucrat and become more rigid and less helpful.
I have learned well in the area of creative problem solving, it was one of the things I taught at college. Instead of labeling a request as a problem, or outside Trust policy, sometimes redefining the problem, giving everyone a different perspective, allows you ways to use the system. This again goes back to how well you have listened.
I have learned that progress is inevitable and it leads to change and development.
It is the Trusts job to try to encourage development that will be good for the island’s future and discourage that which will have negative long-term effects.
I am against the bridge but realize that to continue with ferries we really need two, not just one and we have to find ways to lower the fares.
So, if you believe the Trust has become a little rusty and fixed in their views then give them a booster shot of common sense, long term planning, active listening and creative problem solving – vote for me.

This whole bridge process has been a mess from the beginning. Mr. Hahn decides to do a survey on the basis of a request by one person. Why? Does anyone think that Hahn would do a survey to find out if ferry fares are too high if one of us asked him? Would he fund a referendum so we could all have a vote? Why is a bridge to Gabriola important to Hahn? That ours is the only island he seems interested in bridging should make people suspicious.

He doesn’t tell us what kind of bridge, how much it will cost, what the tolls will be, whether the tolls will go up as soon as the ferry is gone, or how long it will take to build. We are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of no concrete facts.
This is the 4th time in 30 years that we have dealt with this issue. Last time (about 14 years ago) it was going to be at a cost of $50 million! Today that could likely mean $100 million.

The government is highly unlikely to spend that kind of money on 4,500 people so it would probably be financed by investors who will want at least 12% to 20% annual return on their money. That means tolls will have to be high enough to generate that return - so divide $12 to 20 million dollars by 4,500 people and you get the toll cost per person per year - and that is not even covering, repaying the principle, maintenance costs or the normal cost overruns! Even adding in summer people and tourists the cost per person is enormous. In the long term, as there is no way for us to influence tolls more than ferry fares, I think the tolls might end up more than the ferry rates.

The FAC had a chance to end this farce, they could have said no to the survey. Instead they chose to pass it on to the VIU and who knows where that will go? Therefore the question of whether we want a survey or not seems to remain open. I think there is a good chance this issue will drag on to a referendum next year with all the emotion and turmoil that will cause, but at least a referendum allows us to settle this democratically – with everyone getting a vote.

Mr. Hahn wants only one question on the survey - something like this… “Would you want a bridge if it cost less?” - What does cost less mean? This issue is not just about costing less money it is about costing a way of life.
The question should be “Do you want Gabriola to remain an island?

The governments proposal to build a bridge from the brickyard across Mudge to Cedar in order to cut one ferry line has from the beginning been a ridiculous endeavour. The cost alone is prohibitive. 15 tears ago when they first floated this concept the cost was expected to be 50,000,000, –today at least 100,000,000.
I am sure all this makes sense from some silly bureaucrats perch in never-never land. The government would like to spend $5,000 to do a survey about whether it is a good idea. You can prove anything you want with a survey.
Meanwhile, what does it do to us? 15 years ago when they first floated this idea it was going to cost $50 million – in today’s cost and with the usual over runs it is probably in excess of $100 million – to be payed off by a 50 year toll. Anybody who believes that our government would be willing to spend $100,000,000 for the convenience of 4500 Islanders would have to be deranged.
So what would a bridge do for us? Shorten the time to Nanaimo-No, not when you take into account the extra distance from Cedar. Make medical care more accessible – I thought the clinic was doing that. Increase prices of real estate? –Definitely. Vastly increase the population and environment strain –most definitely, especially if Vancouverites can catch a shorter ferry to Van. How about increase tourism? Not a chance. Fixed links to places like PEI, Manhattan and the Chunnel have increased tourism, but for islands the size of Gabriola it has often decreased tourism as instead of a destination that you have to take a ferry to it becomes a three hour drive around cul-de-sac with a hefty toll. Not many tourists want to spend their vacation paying a large toll to explore a cul-de –sac. Tourists like the adventure of an island and ferries really do give the feeling of getting away from it all. One Irish island had its tourism business so destroyed by a fixed link that they eventually re-added a ferry for tourists to take and sure enough it restored the tourism market.
So what would it give us, well, tolls discourage both tourists and residents but they don’t seem to discourage the criminal element, so we can all look for a gigantic upswing in crime. If they actually move the Vancouver ferry dockage to the north side of the island we can count many thousands more cars and their pollution 17 hours a day-that will really effect our air quality as well as traffic noise which will be heard from all over the island. What about the people on Mudge and near the brickyard – they will in some cases be living under the bridge – I think we can safely say that land values on Mudge and anywhere near the bridge or highway or proposed new docks will significantly decline. Talk about creating an instant slum.
The other problem with islands the size of gabriola is that they have a great tendency to become just another suburban part of the nearest big city.
So given all the problems and costs why would the government even propose such an expensive and ecologically damaging project? One rumour is that a fixed link is part of the final negotiations with the Nanaimo band to accept the federal and provincial land on Gabriola as their new reservation, but who knows- with our government the only thing you can bet on is that the reasons they give us mushrooms is never the whole truth and is seldom even partially true.
One thing, I have never understood is the bridge people – if they hate living on an island so much why did they move here and why do they stay

Chris asked me for a name for my column and as I don’t pretend to represent anybody’s views but my own I thought the column name apt.
So what’s been happening here on the island?
Chris Bowers seems quite committed to running an island newspaper that reports things of interest to the island and is not afraid to ask her writers for their input. She has also arranged weekly free journalism lessons for people who want to write for the Shingle. The instructor has 40 years experience as a reporter and editor on both large and small newspapers and even admits to occasionally selling his soul as a publicity hack. Both he and Chris are determined to produce reporters for the Shingle who are worth the name – that is people who report the news objectively and as balanced as possible, showing all sides of an issue and letting the reader make up their own mind, not trying to peddle their own particular agenda - won’t that be refreshing.
I attend these sessions because anything I can learn from an experienced writer is worth it although I don’t claim to be a reporter. I occasionally report on issues but mostly I am a writer with a column and as such my purpose is not the same as a reporter. I write about issues in an attempt to influence the way we look at and think about things, although I do try to be objective, it really is my viewpoint I am writing about. I find reporting the facts and just the facts and all the facts to be fairly easy but as a career it would bore me. I want to express the way I see things in the hope that my unique viewpoint will have some effect on my readers, I don’t hide this fact and pretend to be a reporter. Being a writer is much more my forte, and luckily there is room for both types of writing in a paper, as long as everyone is clear whether they are reading a report or a viewpoint.
Here are a few things that have been happening on the island, vandalism and crime continue although some people have e-mailed me about setting up Neighborhood Watches.
I get a fair bit of feedback from islanders, not all of it agreeable, but always worth reading, so keep on sending me your thoughts – that is why I use my e-mail address as my byline. I think the two articles that have generated the most feedback are the series I did years ago about “Gossip is Violence” and the “Take Me to Your Leaders” article. Several people were deeply offended by these articles but most of the feedback agreed with my viewpoint. Gossips don’t like to think of themselves as violent people.
As I am rapidly reaching my word allowance I will just comment on the “Community Leaders” issue. Apparently, although none of them ever contacted me directly, there were a number of people who consider themselves community leaders and resented my viewpoint that we had few if any. So for those people who want to be recognized as a community leader I suggest an election – they put there names forth in the paper and readers send in a yea or nay vote. Anyone who can convince 50 fellow citizens that they are a community leader will get a “Community Leader” badge that they can wear so that ignoramuses like me will be able to recognize them. Somehow I don’t think there will be many takers as real leaders don’t generally need public recognition and those who are fooling themselves probably know they couldn’t get the votes. Too bad, it would be a highly amusing contest.
Lastly, I would like to recognize one person who has been a community leader for the last 40 years – June Harrison. In some ways she was the soul of the island for a long time and can retire knowing that every major issue she backed she won, and that is a pretty awesome record. She will never need a badge to be recognized.

The first question I have for those who support a bridge is – why did you move here? Did it somehow escape your notice that Gabriola is an island? Did you somehow forget that you had to take a ferry to get here?
If you wanted all the inconveniences of urban living, like high crime rates, heavy traffic, heavy taxes, crowding and incessant noise, then why didn’t you just stay where you were? Why would you possibly move to an Island where you had few of these inconveniences? If you want all these inconveniences again why not move to an urban center and leave those of us who don’t want your inconveniences alone in our little community? What compels you to foist on the rest of us all these things you moved here to escape?
Some of you think that a bridge will bring piped water and sewage treatment and other amenities of urban living. Does it somehow escape your notice that this island is primarily rock so that attempting to bring you piped water and sewage lines would require continual blasting for years and that in order to pay for it your taxes would have to increase at least 10 or 20 fold? Are you really willing to pay that price to have all the in-conveniences that you moved here to get away from?
I don’t think that the bridge supporters have really thought their position all the way through. They seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too. With the supposed convenience of a bridge come all these inconveniences. The scenic un-crowded nature of Gabriola will disappear completely and we will become just like any other Nanaimo suburb. If you have to have all these in-conveniences then why don’t you just move? That would be the sensible thing to do.
The majority of people who moved here did so because it is an island. We did so with our eyes open and our minds working. We did so to get away from the urban banality. We did so because an island is cut off from the mainland. We did so because the water surrounding us engenders a different mentality than urbanites. It is a more creative and spontaneous and peaceful way of life. Why should we go along with your stupid desire to turn the island into a suburb?
Yes, I did say that bridge supporters are essentially too stupid to appreciate what they have and what they would lose. They are also stupid in thinking that the rest of us will go along with your insanity. Yes I said insanity because if you are so delusional that you think you can have all the conveniences without the inconviences then you obviously have some kind of cognitive disorder of such a magnitude that it at least approximates insanity. Let’s call a spade a spade. I for one am tired of hearing the incessant prattle of bridge supporters and I am tired of being nice to you morons. I think the majority of the island are tired of you as well so don’t expect us to be nice and attentive to you when you spew your stupidity at us. I for one will no longer be nice. If you aim your insane prattle at me then I will suggest that you check into the nearest psychiatric center for a really long stay. If you are one of the bridge supporters that is just plain stupid then maybe you should check into a group home for the developmentally challenged. In either case, just go away.
Yes, I am aware that we live in an approximate democracy and you have the right to speak your mind, likewise, the rest of us have the right to refuse to listen to you.

The first draft of this ran to 1500 words so I decided to break it into two and use the first part to discuss the criminal mind and the value of “Crime Stoppers” and the second article will be on building things like “Neighbourhood Watch” and what it will take to make this the kind of community where most crime doesn’t flourish and most criminals don’t feel comfortable.
By the way for anyone who may have information on the theft from Roger (of Raspberries), “Crime Stoppers” is still offering a $2,000 reward and you are guaranteed to remain anonymous, so you can turn in the criminal, get a lot of money and nobody will ever know you did it. Phone 1-800-222-Tips, or for you criminals, who can’t figure out how to dial Tips, try 1-800-222-8477
Now as to why “Crime Stoppers” is such an incredible tool for catching bad guys. Crime Stoppers seems to work on three main principles. One, most petty criminals (we aren’t talking Sopranos here} are a whole lot stupider than they think they are. Two, there really is “no honor among thieves”. Three, “Birds of a feather tend to flock together”.
What this means is there really aren’t many criminal masterminds despite what we see on TV. Really smart criminals go into business, law or politics where they make a lot more money and usually never do time. People who are basically far more stupid than they will ever believe, as well as ethically and morally challenged are the ones who tend to be burglars, smash and grabs, welfare frauds, purse snatchers and other forms of petty thievery, and the kind of person that steals a car on an island after ferry hours. Even among criminals in general this particular class ranks 2nd lowest (pedophiles and rapists being the lowest level).
They tend to hang out with other petty criminals because they prefer the company of others who are just as stupid and because most honest people won’t put up with their attitudes and actions.
In addition to their other lacks they are usually unable to form genuine friendships (no Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid here) or healthy relationships of any kind because they are self-centered and not capable of understanding the trauma and harm they inflict on their victims.
Once again, because they are cognitively challenged, they tend to brag, (more likely with every beer consumed) or in other ways try and impress their ‘friends’ with obvious clues as to what they think they have pulled off.
Therefore, their friends, tending to be much like them, will usually, if they can profit from a reward and nobody will ever know they did it, turn in their own grandmothers. Family values go a long way to forming the criminal mindset so being ethically and morally challenged does tend to run in families, BUT, that doesn’t mean that every criminal has a criminally minded family, just one that was not particularly good at instilling acceptable values. The other give away is most cannot resist buying things that their ‘friends’ know they could not normally afford Given their intelligence and choice of friends many petty criminals will eventually get turned in by their friends.
“Crime Stoppers” capitalizes on these truisms and provides an easy way for these people to earn some extra cash with less effort than actually stealing it. Started in 1943 in New York City and by 1945 had spread to Vancouver. It is an amazingly effective tool and hopefully whoever thought it up was justly compensated.
Ian has a Masters degree in counseling and 30 odd years of practice and teaching psychology and counseling. He has just re-opened his counseling service here on Gabriola.

What an interesting word ‘grudge’ is. Grudges aren’t like kittens or infants, or puppies, they aren’t solid tangible things; yet we talk about them as if they were. Try picturing a ‘grudge’. What does it look like? I’ll bet the picture is of an ugly critter.
Now try picturing “nursing a grudge” or “holding a grudge” or “feeding a grudge” or “carrying a grudge’ It’s pretty hard to picture someone doing these actions without either laughing or being revolted.
A “Grudge” is not just a feeling of anger caused by feeling hurt. It is a desire to ‘even the score’ or to ‘get back’, it is a desire to hurt the person who we perceive as having hurt us. The hurt can be real or imaginary it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we perceive ourselves as having been hurt or treated unfairly, and in response to that perceived injury we feel angry and we want to hurt back.. Striking back or running away from hurt is as instinctual in humans as it is with most other animal life forms. What sets us apart from other life forms is our ability to translate hurt into anger and anger into a goal of getting back at who or what has hurt us.
So ‘holding a grudge’ is possible only to humans because it involves an emotion no other species has – hatred. Hatred is our own unique ability to hold onto hurt and to nurse the hurt and to plan revenge. Without hatred there can be no desire for revenge. Without hatred there can be no ‘grudge’.
Many people will try and deny that their desire for revenge is based in hatred; they will try and justify their revenge as a ‘desire for justice’, but really, what is “just” about waiting for the opportunity (and planning) to hurt someone? No, getting even is not about justice; it is about hurt that has turned into anger and festered long enough to become hatred. We often hold onto grudges against people that have forgotten we even exist or that anything of significance ever happened between them and us. Sometimes our grudge is based on having heard a truth about us that we don’t want to accept.
. There are many of us who refuse to admit, and sometimes even to believe, that ‘we’ are even capable of having such an ugly emotion as hatred. Such denial necessitates delusion, practiced long enough we learn to hide ourselves from ourselves. Some people get stuck at the growth stage of ‘hiding our hatred’ or worse yet, get stuck in a world of delusion and self-deception.
Usually by the time we become mature adults we have learned to accept our emotions but not to act on all of them. Choosing not to act on some of our emotions is an essential part of maturity. Maturity is the never-ending process of learning which emotions have positive effects and which have negative effects. Generally, the more mature we become, the more ability we develop to control our emotions and our actions. However, we can only control the emotions we are aware of, the emotions we have learned to hide from ourselves end up controlling us.
Part of maturity is recognizing that we accomplish nothing by holding onto our hurt and our resulting anger except making ourselves, and those around us, more miserable than is necessary. Maturity does not necessarily involve forgiving every hurt but it does involve not letting our anger rule our lives. Maturity involves understanding that we have a limited amount of energy and that energy spent seeking vengeance (or pay-back) is energy that we cannot spend making a positive impact on our friends, family, community, and on other more worthwhile goals. Maturity is a process of becoming more aware of our feelings and what affect our feelings are having on us and on those around us. Maturity is a process of discovery that leads to making saner and more benevolent choices. We never attain perfect maturity. We are always making mistakes and behaving in a manner less than we aimed for, but hopefully as we mature we make better choices. One thing is for sure though – we cannot make better choices while our mind is full of ‘grudges’ running wild and confusing our ability to choose wisely.
We may never be totally free of hatred and the desire for vengeance but we can control whether our hate is controlled by us or is in control of us. Bearing grudges is a draining way to live because, like all critters, grudges grow larger and heavier with time, and grudges tend to breed quickly, and if unchecked eventually consume most of our energy.
There is an old Zen saying: “before setting out for revenge - dig two graves”.

As many of you know I frequent Raspberry’s quite often, usually at least three afternoons a week. I do so for the same reason most people go to coffee houses – to meet people and converse – after all if you just want to drink coffee it is cheaper and easier to make some at home.
I have found it an excellent way to not only meet new people and hear new stories – if you listen well enough I have found that everyone has at least one or two really good stories about things that they have experienced that are worth writing down and preserving. As some of you know, my dream is to eventually to make a living as a writer, so everyone’s stories provide background or plots or characters for stories I hope to write.
I have also found that the coffeehouse is a great way to keep your fingers on the pulse of Gabriola. If you talk with enough people you can often get an idea of what many feel are some of the ideas and concerns of what is changing Gabriola.
One of several themes that have emerged of late is the perception that Gabriola is experiencing a serious rise in crime over the last couple of years. I don’t know whether there has actually been a rise in crime or whether people are just becoming more aware of crime on the island. Reliable statistics are hard to come by as many crimes and incidents go unreported, but it seems that just about everybody has a story of a crime for which no one was apprehended. Why many crimes seem to be going unreported is three fold. If it isn’t a major theft many people feel that it is not worth reporting as their insurance rates may go up and their perception is that the culprit won’t be apprehended anyway. There is also a long-standing island tradition of independence and solving problems without getting the authorities involved - this island community did exist for a century or two without any resident police and crime was not a major problem.
There seems to have been a recent spate of vandalism, burglaries, car thefts, assaults, domestic violence and threats without much in the way of perceptions of arrests. Regardless of what the actual stats are the perception of a significant crime rise is causing people to be more careful of locking doors, being increasingly vigilant and saddest of all being more suspicious of some of the people who have moved here recently and seem to have no jobs. This very suspicion and vigilance is helping to destroy the sense of community that once existed here, and suspiciousness breeds on itself making people more wary of strangers and less friendly in general.
When you are burglarized it is a traumatic experience, the victim feels violated and usually never again feels as safe as they once did. They also tend to exhibit increased levels of anxiety and depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, which often affect their health, their enjoyment of life and even their mortality. The same trauma holds true for people who have been raped, assaulted or physically threatened.
Knowing these things result from crime is not going to have much effect on the amount of crimes that happen because the criminal mind is largely devoid of caring about anyone beside themselves; but, knowing that the feelings you have are common and normal for victims may help make sense of what you are feeling, and may help you deal with these problems. If you know what and why you are feeling something you are half way to resolving the problem. It is also important to remember that even if crime is increasing we are probably considerably safer than we would be in a non-island community
More on what we can do to prevent or help apprehend criminals in a future article. It is time to take back our community.
Ian has a Masters degree in counseling and 30 odd years of practice and teaching psychology and counseling. He presently runs a limited counseling service here on Gabriola.

I don’t like writing about politics, it takes my attention off what I consider to be more worthwhile projects. However, sometimes the actions, ‘of those who want to govern but are afraid of elections’ becomes so ludicrous, untrue, and generally all round ridiculous, that even I feel obligated to enter the fray. In the last year the actions, accusations, character assassinations, and manipulations of “Those who need to feel important” has reached an all time level of both vicious and ludicrous.


It was too much to expect that all of “Those Who Brought Us the Referendumb” would abide by a democratic decision or respect the will of the 87.2% who slapped them down last fall. It was too much to expect because some of those who wanted to supplant the Island Trust with a more development friendly “Municipality” don’t really operate on democratic principles. If they did, they would not have forced the Referendumb. Nor would they have falsely stated all through the Referendumb campaign that the ‘majority of Islanders wanted a Referendumb and wanted a municipality’. The results of the vote showed clearly who were misinformed, and who were ‘somewhat less than honest’ in their statements.
Most of the people who voted ‘for municipality’ did so because they believed that it was the best direction for us to go in. When the vote went against them, most accepted that the majority view won. Most of those on the other side of the question are proud supporters of democracy. However a ‘very small group’ could not accept that their viewpoint had lost. They became angry and, like good little barbarians everywhere, they looked for someone to blame. Strangest of all, they seem to believe that if they don’t acknowledge the defeat then it didn’t really happen. Weird! Why would we expect people who have so little respect for truth to have any more respect for democracy? However, once again they have failed in their latest attempt to misrepresent and misinform. They are once again underestimating the intelligence of Islanders.
The truth is that the Home Occupation Review is being done to enshrine people’s right to operate a home business without additional taxation. Apparently, on some Islands, some business people have felt that home occupations receive an unfair tax advantage over businesses that operate from business zoned facilities. The idea that Home businesses should be taxed to eliminate this perceived unfairness is NOT an idea supported by most of the thirty Island Trust representatives.
To try and paint a Trust objective to protect Home Businesses as an attack on Home Business is a daring (and dumb), but ultimately futile attempt to manipulate the truth. Once again, I am forced to ask the question of “How dumb do these people think islanders are?”
Likewise, to try and construe the Island Trust as some agency stupid (and dull)enough to want to ban parties and musical events is just plain silly. It may play well in the demented imagination of ‘those who would be king’ but it is not a position that can survive the light of reality. When has the Island Trust ever been against musical events? The answer is NEVER (as in – not ever)! The island Trust is an organization whose purpose in being is to protect the Islanders way of life and the ecology of this unique slice of biosphere, (and sometimes, to control the greed of developers). Not only has the Island Trust never been against musical and other cultural events, they have worked to promote those events. Think about it.
It boggles the imagination; trying to figure out why people, who found out they couldn’t manipulate Islanders a few months ago, would try to do so again – and under such a thin disguise. Do these people think there has been a virus that has swept Gabriola, reducing Islanders to babbling idiots, while leaving their own (questionable) cognitive abilities unimpaired?
The attempt to paint black as white, developers as protectors, and our elected representatives as fools, may play well in their little clique, but it is just plain silly (and ludicrous) to expect to convince Islanders that a pro-municipality candidate would be the best person to elect to the Trust? Do these people think that Islanders are dumb enough to believe that electing pro-municipal candidates would somehow be a wiser choice than electing pro-trust candidates? Do they really believe that they can sell the idea that those who are pro-municipal are the best people to run the Trust? Why would someone, who campaigned for the municipality side, even want to be elected to the Trust?

With no disrespect meant to the person or people they have tried (and failed) to convince to run does no- one ever question why these ‘behind the scenes people’ don’t stand for election themselves? Is it that they are too busy to spend the enormous amount of time required to be an Island Trust Representative? Do they think that their business wouldn’t survive the neglect that spending their time on Trust issues would demand? Do they think that the livelihoods of those they manipulate into running are less important than their own? Do they think that they are too good or too important to waste their valuable time? Or, is it because if ‘those who manipulate others’ where to stand for office on their own merits, Islanders would fall down laughing? It certainly can’t be because they actually are to busy as the two biggest critics both have jobs that are considerably less than full tome – despite the titles.

As for their ability to manipulate and control the candidate(s), should the candidate(s) win, well guys, it didn’t work last time-did it? Do these guys ever think anything all the way through? Or does their belief in their mental superiority blind them to the obvious? They have tried to seize the reins of local government for years (always by proxy) and failed time after time. Can they not learn from their own experience? Even a child knows not to stick their finger into flame after being burned the first time.
History shows us example after example of how being the power behind the throne ultimately proves disastrous for everyone and yet, ‘the usual suspects’ continue to believe they can succeed. These manipulators are not only morally repugnant, intellectually barren and ethically challenged; they aren’t even very good at it.

Wake Up! Smell the coffee! You guys aren’t smart enough to be able to manipulate everybody, all of the time. Instead of trying (and usually failing) to manipulate those you think of as “Lesser People”, why did you not choose to do something honest – (just once in your lives) - run for election yourself! Stop pretending that you are too important or too busy to hold public office. Admit, even if just to yourselves, that the reason you didn’t run is that you know you couldn’t convince people to vote for you. Even if by some freak accident most of the public goes blind after watching a meteor shower and are then attacked by Triffids and thus with only you and your friends (both of them) get to vote. You know that you could not stand trying to be useful for three long years. Admit you prefer manipulation because you know it is safer than risking your own fragile ego by exposing it to criticism.
However, in appreciation of the continuing efforts of this small but dedicated group to promote dishonesty and to foster ill will, I think I should they should have ‘The November Nattering Nabobs of Negativity Award’, after all, they deserve something for all their time, effort and money spent in their desperate attempts ‘to fool all of the people, all of the time’.

The Committee for the Advancement of Delusion is proud to announce that this month’s Nattering Nabobs of Negativity Award goes to the two people who tried to blame the Island Trust for the 5 day phone outage. It is rare to see people so dedicated to the aim of being negative. These people actually tried to convince Islanders that the Island Trust somehow had the power to resolve the Telus labour dispute and to force other unions not to support the striking workers, but for some arcane reason, refused to use this power to get the phones working. Congratulations, you two have reached an all-time low in Trust Bashing – the interactive game that the whole family can play!

I have only a couple of questions for these intrepid artists of non-logical thinking.
– How stupid do you think your fellow Islanders are?
– Did you really think anyone would believe that the Trust had that power?
- Did you really think that this accusation would not affect your credibility?

Nominations are now open for the October awards. Anyone wishing to compete for this prestigious award should write to me directly. You must provide proof that you are truly dedicated to negativity and describe why your particular negative action, accusation or slander was completely inspired by your commitment to the Advancement of Negativity on Gabriola.
All submissions will be considered on their own merit with regards to viciousness, malice aforethought, and total disregard of reality. Originality will not be considered, so feel free to claim the negative actions of others as your own. All submissions must contain a self addressed and stamped envelope (although even the winners will not be contacted) and post-marked no later than the 21st of each month. All submissions must be accompanied by proof of identity as past contests have been marred by people trying to put the blame on others, or by people trying to take credit for the misdeeds of others.
Submit all entries directly to Ian Lowden. See small print for additional details of entry. There is, of course a fifty dollar handling fee (you didn’t really think I would wade thru buckets of bullcrap for free, did you?).

Active listening is a way of listening and responding to another person that improves mutual understanding. Often when people talk to each other, they don=t listen attentively. They are often distracted, half listening, half thinking about something else. When people are engaged in a conflict, they are often busy formulating a response to what is being said. They assume that they have heard what their opponent is saying many times before, so rather than paying attention, they focus on how they can respond to win the argument.
Active listening is a structured form of listening and responding that focuses the attention on the speaker. The listener must take care to attend to the speaker fully, and then repeats, in the listener=s own words, what he or she thinks the speaker has said. The listener does not have to agree with the speaker--he or she must simply state what they think the speaker said. This enables the speaker to find out whether the listener really understood. If the listener did not, the speaker can explain some more.
Often, the listener is encouraged to interpret the speaker=s words in terms of feelings. Thus, instead of just repeating what happened, the active listener might add AI gather that you felt angry or frustrated or confused when@. . .[a particular event happened]. Then the speaker can go beyond confirming that the listener understood what happened, but can indicate that he or she also understood the speaker=s psychological response to it.
Active listening has several benefits. First, it forces people to listen attentively to others. Second, it avoids misunderstandings, as people have to confirm that they do really understand what another person has said. Third, it tends to open people up, to get them to say more. When people are in conflict, they often contradict each other, denying the opponent=s description of a situation. This tends to make people defensive, and they will either lash out, or withdraw and say nothing more. However, if they feel that their opponent is really attuned to their concerns and wants to listen, they are likely to explain in detail what they feel and why. If both parties to a conflict do this, the chances of being able to develop a solution to their mutual problem becomes much greater.

Active listening is the ability to communicate to another person that you have heard and understood their situation. It requires the ability to accurately paraphrase what you think the sender is saying, incorporating the sender's facts and their feelings around a particular issue or situation that has affected them.

Active listening involves listening not only to what is said, but how it is said. This means that there should not be a discrepancy between what is said and how it is said (i.e., a match of message and its delivery). For example, if someone voices the following, "I am very angry," with a face that does not look angry, then there might be more to what is being said than the words indicate. A discrepancy suggests dissonance in feelings and actions.
Active listening also involves reaching below the surface of what is being said. Two effective ways of reaching below the surface is paying attention to the feelings and meaning of what is said. Feelings can be focused on by being empathic, while meaning can be explored by reflecting meaning.
Empathy
Empathy is a word that is often confused with sympathy. What is the difference? The dictionary defines sympathy as a "feeling or expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another." Empathy, on the other hand, is "the explicit reflecting of the feelings of someone." When you are sympathetic you express sorrow that the person feels as she or he does, but when you empathize, you reflect the feeling back to the person. What is the purpose in doing this in a helping situation? The peer support giver identifies emotions and intensifies the feelings being experienced. In being empathic the peer support giver mirrors feelings, not opinions--for example, "you are angry" and not "you feel that he made you angry". There are many emotions that can be expressed, but it seems to us that there are five core emotions: fear, joy, anger, grief, and love. These emotions are felt in the stomach; thus, empathy is tuning into these internal reactions. Notice too, that feelings are not just an expression of emotions, but thoughts and emotions which are essentially expressed throughout the body.


Active Listening
As mentioned previously, good listening requires that you play an active role in the listening process. The tools you will need for this include PARAPHRASING, CLARIFYING, AND GIVING FEEDBACK.
PARAPHRASING
Paraphrasing means to state in your own words your understanding of what has just been said. Paraphrasing is a skill that is absolutely necessary to good listening. It gives the speaker the opportunity to find out what message he/she is getting across to you. He/she can then make any corrections needed. To begin paraphrasing, you might start out by saying "What I hear you saying is...." or "It sounds like...." or "Let me see if I'm understanding you...."
There are some benefits to paraphrasing. People deeply appreciate it when they know that the person they are talking to really understands them. It also prevents any misunderstandings from occurring. If you are prone to impulsive angry reactions, paraphrasing will help you to avoid this. You will also be distracted less easily and remember what was said more frequently.
CLARIFYING
Clarifying means asking questions until you are both confident that you have understood. Since your goal is to understand what is being said, you may need to get more historical information to accomplish that objective. Doing this also let's the other know that you are truly interested in understanding him/her.
There are two types of questions that are useful in clarifying your understanding of your partner's experience. They are YES/NO QUESTIONS and OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS:
YES/NO QUESTIONS:
This type of question involves asking a question that requires only a "YES" or "NO" response. If you use this type of question, you can expect to get a very short answer. It will NOT encourage your partner to elaborate although sometimes he/she may do so anyway. Once you have used this kind of question, you may want to follow it up with an open-ended question.
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS:
This type of question DOES NOT seek a "YES" or "NO" response. Instead, it elicits more information from the speaker. This type of question might include:
What happened?
What else happened?
What do you mean by __________?
How did you feel when that happened?
What did you like/dislike about what happened?
Your choice of which questions to use will depend on the situation.
FEEDBACK
This part of the listening process involves sharing what happened inside you, your thoughts and feelings, with the speaker. It means sharing YOUR perception of the speaker's experience. Doing this provides another opportunity for clarification, but it may also cause the speaker to see his/her experience in a new light. In listening to someone who has just experienced traumatic event, you might be moved to say something like this: "Wow, as I've been listening to you, I've been thinking periodically just how scarey this would be to experience. I want to make the experience go away for you, but I can't. I know this is a difficult thing to talk about, but I'm hear if you want to talk some more."
Feedback must be immediate, honest and supportive of the speaker's need to share what is important to him/her. There are times, however, when you may be listening to something that is really hard to hear. This can be especially true when the speaker is sharing something that challenges your beliefs about the goodness of people and/or the safety of the world around you. It can also happen when the speaker shares somethng that is very similar to an incident from your past that you still have unresolved feelings about and that you have been trying to avoid (for more information on this, visit "Trauma Central" (also on this website), specifically the pages "About Trauma" and "About Memory").
If this occurs for you, it is important to acknowledge your own limitations in a way that respects the speaker's need to share. You might say something like this: "John, I know that it is really important for you to talk about what's happened and I want to support you in doing just that. However, I'm finding that what you need to share is too close to something I still need to work on. And because of where I'm at with that issue, I'm afraid I can't really be there for you right now. Perhaps, I can help you find someone who can. Please understand that I want to be, but I just can't right now."
The flip side of this is that as speakers, we all need to realize that there will be times when others just can't be there for us for a variety of reasons. It could be that they are simply too tired. Regardless of the reason, it is important to pad your support system with at least one (non-family) person with whom you can share anything. For some people this person will be a trusted therapist, for others a trusted friend.



Active Listening
Active listening is when a listener tries to understand both the facts and the feelings of the speaker. The listener then restates what s/he has heard to make sure s/he has heard correctly.
A good listener shows understanding through…
- tone of voice
- facial expressions
- gestures
- eye contact
- posture
- asking questions to understand
A good listener does not…
- interrupt
- offer advice
- give her/ his opinion
- bring up similar feelings or problems
- agree or disagree with what is being said



Active Listening
Listening is an “active” process that is very different than hearing. You listen to your favourite music hut you hear your Mom ask you to clean up your room.

Listening requires
Readiness - be prepared to learn by listening
Focus - look at the speaker
Connecting - connect the new information with information already learned

Active Listening involves:
Listening for the main points of what is being said.
Asking yourself questions about what the speaker is saying.
Picturing in your mind’s eye what is being talked about.


Purpose of Active Listening
·
· To understand the other person’s viewpoints fully.
· To encourage the other person to “own” his/her own problems.
· To build a positive relationship.
· To encourage growth and development.


Peter Griffiths Daily Herald Column 1977-78 Listening Is An Art Which Must Be LearnedDaily Herald May 19, 1978Listening is an art which rust be learned. It doesn't come naturally. All are born with the potential to listen; many never develop it. As Father Chuck Gallagher says in "LOVE IS A COUPLE", there is more to listening than hearing.. You hear words. You listen to people. Hearing is concerned with information. It is done for the sake of the person hearing, and what he is going to get out of it. Listening is what you do for the sake of the person you are listening to. It shows you care about that person and want to know what is happening to them.Hearing takes in information, and evaluates or judges it. Listening wants to understand another person's s point of view. It cares and accepts that what a person says is important to them. How can you become a better listener? Give your undivided attention. Suspend your own needs for the time. This is hard if you have a need to be listened to at the same time.Listen with more than your ears. Listen with your body. A listening body sits forward, leans slightly towards the person speaking and concentrates all attention on them. It doesn’t lounge back in a chair, move as far away as possible or spread its listening energy all over the room. It may feel awkward looking at someone’s eyes when the talk. But, isn’t that how they know we are really listening, when we have eye to eye communication? You can stop listening without leaving the room or moving your body. Just let your eyes wander.Watch out for being "closed" on certain topics. In some families or marriages, certain topics are purposely avoided. These might be conflict, sex or any other topics. At times, topics may be dealt with superficially. Feelings may be never touched. This often happens in marriage talks about money or sex. If a person doesn’t want to touch one of these closed topics they may become deaf to what is being said, or quickly change the subject and divert the talking away from any feeling area.A serious barrier to active listening is when you "listen with the answer running". This is unfair. You aren’t listening. You know what you are going to say, even before the other person finishes speaking. You are impatiently waiting for any pause or an excuse to jump in with your views and opinions, whether they’ve finished with what they want to say or not.Listening involves NOT jumping in with solutions to people’s problems. You don’t need to have answers to everything someone else says or asks. A relationship is not rooted or based on your having solutions to all someone’s problems or answers to all their questions. The goal of a relationship is to understand someone, to experience their feelings, and, as a result, become closer to them. This only happens if there is openness in a relationship, which comes from active and caring listening.Listening doesn’t happen naturally. It takes effort. You have to control your own thoughts from jumping ahead of you, blocking off your hearing what the other person is trying to say to you. It involves body language, eye contact, patience and self-control. You have to decide you want to listen. It is the base or foundation on which you build relationships with others. It must be learned. You must be willing to do it.

I was sitting in Raspberries with a group of friends and had just finished reading the last Shingle – how unusual for me!
The conversation of course was the latest mad idea – the bridge – Baker’s Bridge to be exact. Everyone agreed the idea was at best stupid, as did the majority of letters to the editor. However, given that everyone was against it and could see it’s many failings no one was proposing any concrete action to stop it. I remarked that it is like most things on Gabriola people complain but nobody wants to be the one to organize action. So I took the responsibility to begin an organized resistance to this latest government folly.
There seems to be no limit to the number of talented individuals who want to stop the bridge, however we are working against a well-organized foe. If we expect our views to prevail then we need to be organized as well. Our minimum goal should be to stop this survey – a survey will prove anything you want it to. Instead of our fate being decided by a government controlled survey we must at least force this decision to a referendum. Something that affect the whole island should not be decided by some bureaucrat, the people need to at least have a chance to express their wishes. If the majority vote for a bridge then so be it. If the majority votes against a bridge we haven’t necessarily won. The government can still Impose their will upon us but it would be a lot harder to do with a solid vote against them.
After talking with numerous individuals I realized that we needed to be an umbrella group as people were only willing to participate to certain levels of involvement. It will be necessary to have several levels and styles of opposition. There would be a group willing to write letters and talk to friends. There would be others more willing to take a more direct political route. Still others would be willing to raise funds and sell T-shirts. For others, involvement might be limited to designing T-shirts. For still others strategy and tactics may be their forte. Still others may lean towards the protest end of continuum. It doesn’t matter how much or how limited your involvement is; what matters is that you agree that we should at least have a say in this decision.
The only requirement is commitment to at least a referendum. We are not and will not become a debating society nor will we become an educational group. We want only those who have made up their minds that this is not a decision to be decided through a government survey. For those that haven’t made up your minds or who favour this end run around democracy we have no place for you.
.
We also realized that we could be in for a long fight – how long did Clayquot sound last? We thought of ways to raise funds for political action, leaflets, hall rentals, web page, etc, and decided to start with t-shirt sales. So shirts with logos and graphics ranging from “Gabriola? Island or cul-de-sac?”, “Bridges are built for burning. “Stop the bridge”. “The Battle of Bakers Bridge, 2008 till 2028”. “Let’s build a Bridge Over David Hahn’s House’ – could also make a good ballad for those inclined.
We had thought of just meeting on an ad hoc basis maybe at Raspberries until we realized two things. One was the number of people that eventually would become involved. Secondly, and most important that if we met in a public setting we would be plagued by those intent on changing our minds and also by media types just looking for print – this last group is especially banned and anyone employed by the media will be asked to leave. We will issue news updates but most of us have experienced some media who will focus on a phrase taken out of context and write whatever they had already chosen to write. So we decided to hold meetings at our homes where we can kick out troublemakers.
The first yard meetings will be held in my back yard on Wednesday and Sunday afternoons – bring something to sit on and non-alcoholic refreshments if you want. From these initial meeting we hope to recruit various committee chairpersons for everything from co-ordination, to membership, to strategy and tactics, to fund raising, and publicity.
Those willing to spend some time and energy can e-mail me or sign up on sheets, which will be readily available around the island. There may or may not be a $5 membership fee to satisfy legal requirements letting us limit our membership to the committed.

When Karen and I first came to Gabriola in 99 I did so expecting to die soon. All of my doctor’s were agreed that my damaged lungs would continue to degenerate quickly and I had at best 6-12 months. Given the prognosis we decided it would be best to move here where her parents lived so that she would have a support system for when I continued the great adventure.. Obviously I didn’t die on schedule: partially because Karen and I are stubborn, partially because of the unpolluted air out here and mostly because the medical people were operating under a paradigm that didn’t fit me. They were used to people whose COPD – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was caused primarily by long term damage from environmental factors and the rate at which those afflicted people died. My case was somewhat unique in that if happened fairly quickly, was compounded by an inherited lack of a chemical called alpha 1 antrypsin, and that once my exposure to the contaminated air ceased then my lungs actually recovered somewhat. Thus the deterioration was much slower than they expected.
The BC transplant team members were the first to understand that as the cause of my COPD was different so to would be the progress. They suggested that if I was still having fun with life I could put the transplant off for a year to18 months, a time slot extended twice. Putting it off made sense because as they said “we get better with every operation” and also because at the time the primary drug used to depress the immune system was prednisone, which in me caused severe emotional shifts and consequently altered my behavior in a manner I was unhappy with. Now I have reached a point I can no longer put the transplant off.
The concept of being on the top of the list is somewhat of a misnomer in that there are presently 9 of us waiting for a lung. Who gets the next lung is based on matching blood types, size of lung versus chest cavity, whether it is a right or left lung (I need a left considerably more than a right), and who is in the gravest need at the time. So for any of the nine of us the next lung could be ours depending on these four factors. The likelihood is that most of us will get a lung this year but as you are in effect waiting for someone else to die and die in a manner that leaves at least one healthy lung there is no way to predict when your chance will come up again. So the wait goes on – I could have a lung tomorrow or months from now, although the likelihood is sooner than later.
Most get a replacement lung in time but that is also influenced by a much lower donor rate in BC than in the past – largely caused by a government decision to no longer accept donors through signing the back of your driver’s license. This decision to use a special form has resulted in BC going from Canada’s highest donor rate to the lowest - from 75% to 20 %.
Initially I was surprised to find the numbers seeking a transplant were so low but as I better understood the selection process the numbers made more sense. Age is a big factor – the older you are the less likely is your survival. Psychological factors play a part as the operation and recovery are painful and require determination. Whether or not you are in a staple family relationship also affects whether you go on the list, Statistics show that those without a dedicated and stable care system seldom survive and thus would normally be a waste of a lung. Other health factors, such as heart condition or other illness could also impact survival rates. Basically, to qualify to even go on the list you need to be relatively healthy (besides the COPD), determined, and young enough to make the transplant worthwhile and have a good social support system. You also have to be willing to live in Vancouver for on average 6 months after the transplant. During that time while the immune system suppressant drugs are being adjusted I will experience one or more rejection episodes and will need to be immediately brought back into hospital for treatment. Surviving the first six months is a solid indicator that you are likely to survive several years. I am actually looking forward to my time in Vancouver because it is temporary and because there are thousands and thousands of people there that I have never met and each has at least one experience that should be written about.
However long the wait we are lucky that we can get a transplant at all – this is not an option for the much of the world unless you are wealthy. The wealthy can go to Europe and often get a transplant in days or weeks depending on the country as some of Europe has moved to the system of everyone is automatically a donor unless you sign a form in advance specifically forbidding it – almost the opposite of here.
When the idea of a transplant was first presented to me I was somewhat put off. The idea of using a dead person’s body part seemed somewhat macabre and the concept of my getting a transplant while someone else didn’t, raised a moral quandary for me. I also had some difficulty with the amount of money being spent on a transplant for one person when there were so many other needs for that kind of funding. Eventually I came to look at a transplant as being no more macabre than a blood transfusion. I realized that those of us in need because of blood types and the other limiting factors weren’t really in competition, and I came to accept that funds for transplants would continue because it was a part of medical science that was developing. My final objections were overcome with the development of more immune system depressors and ways of handling the side effects so that I was unlikely to experience the kind of emotional upheaval that had happened during a course of prednisone when I first came to Gabriola. My view was what was the sense in being healthier if the necessary drugs made you crazy?
In addition to explaining better the whole transplant process I guess what I am trying to say is thanks not only to the society for funding transplants but also to the community here for helping with the non-covered expenses. Once again the government reasoning mystifies me in that they are willing to spend close to a million dollars for the medical side and then cut corners on the funding needed during the initial 6 months recovery time.
When I left Ontario, after going through my farewells with old friends, I decided that I would try not to make any new ones when I came here. It didn’t make sense to get involved in new friendships when my survival was so unlikely. Obviously from the community outpouring of help I am receiving, I must have failed in my attempt to make no close friendships Not making new friends was an unreal concept because as someone (Roger I think) said “Making friends is less a result of intention and more of a byproduct of whom you are” and as such we cannot really control whether or how many friends we make; all we can really do is just be whom we are. I am glad I was wrong about making friends and I am grateful to the community. I would also like to take this chance to clear up a misunderstanding, While at the time of my accident I was working full time as a diver – mostly teaching diving, arranging dive trips, crewing dive boats in Florida and a little salvage diving. Normally my diving was a way of staying sane while working in the mental health field and I would pursue it on weekends and between contracts.
I want to thank all the those that are taking part in the fundraising – Those volunteering their time and effort to organize, those giving their talents and those making donations and those going to going to the concert. I especially want to thank Roger and all the volunteers who are organizing this effort, I will thank them by name after I find out who all have been involved in Roger’s merry band of volunteers. I am glad I live here and it looks like I will be living here much longer than we originally thought back in 99. We are most appreciative of everyone’s efforts.
Thanks guys. Karen & Ian