Mr. Bateman’s column of April 18, 2008 on the notoriety of the Post gave me a chuckle, but also stirred a few thoughts on the state of newspapers in Abbotsford.

It is interesting that the behaviour of the Post in covering local issues has resulted in it covering both ends of the notorious definition spectrum. Notorious: adj. known widely and usually unfavourably.

It is hardly surprising that local politicians view the Post unfavourably, having become use to the friendly treatment of the chain owned local papers, Can-west Global’s The Times and the Black Press’s Pravda.

Should the staff of the Post need to seek solace concerning the politicians unfavourable view, they can take heart from being widely known among the public as the only local source one can count on for news, commentary, letters and opinion that questions the actions of local politicians and calls them to account for the outcomes and consequences of their actions.

This brings up an important, and perhaps somewhat misleading, point that Mr. Bateman raised.

“The press holds politicians accountable on behalf of the public.”

This is a nice theory and would be in keeping with the stated journalistic principle: “The public’s right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests” (from the Associated Press Managing Editors: Ethics code) – if it was the state of affairs vis-à-vis our local papers.

I grew up reading my home town local newspaper and was fortunate to have an opportunity from time to time ask questions of the owner/publisher/editor, a friend of my father. The paper was a part of the community, involved in what was happening in town and acting as the citizen’s eyes and ears.

Over the years since that time the nature of the press has changed; with local papers being bought up by chains and so answering to corporate headquarters in another city. The landscape for newspapers today is a minefield of challenges from the internet and other technological changes.

On the cost side local papers deliver the news via the most expensive option – delivery to every home in the area.

On the revenue side, technological change has seen competition from the internet and other new media tearing large chunks out of traditional print media’s classified advertising revenue. This has left local papers with a revenue stream that is not simply declining, but is falling at an incredible rate.

Papers have tried to protect what revenue they can by being innocuous and thereby not offending any advertisers. In light of this revenue crunch the boosterism, acceptance of statements made as though they were fact and not asking any obvious but uncomfortable questions, is hardly surprising since the only advertising contracts of any consequence in Abbotsford are those of the City and the School District.

That readership is also in serious decline should surprise nobody, since these type of editorial choices lead to blandness.

Editorial policy and story choices lie in the hands of the owners and what they print is entirely their right to choose. Just as readers have the right to choose not to read the dreary, dull result of these editorial choices.

It is just unfortunate for the local communities that, at a time they are faced with serious challenges to their very survival, local papers are in the hands of management that has never had to actually “sell” a newspaper.

Newspapers are a product and if you want to sell a product in an increasingly competitive market it has to be a product people want.

Blandness or trying to be inoffensive, the paper everyone loves, may be fine for the bottom line were the contents of the paper need only serve as filler around the ads; where the paper itself serves mainly as a wrap for flyers to be delivered in.

Blandness will not cut it in the long haul, perhaps not even in the short haul, in a competitive, changing and challenging marketplace where the need is not to be “loved” but to be read, to be the paper everyone chooses and wants to read.

Newspapers need to be an important and integral part of the community, a must read, in order to reverse the loss of readership, regain advertising revenue and make viable the possibility of subscription revenue.

People subscribed and paid for the hometown newspaper of my youth reading every issue front to back because it was full of interesting news, commentary and opinion. It contained all the juicy tidbits and nitty-gritty because that was the editorial policy the old Georgetown Herald pursued. And while it occasionally lost advertising over something it printed, it gained and held the bulk of its advertising because it was a must read.

Even without factoring in the consequences of management that seems intent on continuing current practices into oblivion, I would argue that the community is poorer, in fact ill served, by this Blanding. Particularly true in an election year such as this is. Democracy is based on the public making informed choices; being served up boosterism and bland pabulum does not help in making informed decisions.

Questioning Plan A thoroughly, having the head of the ratepayers association, the thoughts of a retired councillor and Mr. Bateman on its pages is the path to becoming the paper of choice, the must read – the paper people actually look for, going out of their way to find a copy to read.

I would call that a solid business plan, lacking perhaps only the writings of a columnist with a … shall we say somewhat unique world view.

I would advance the argument that it is not only debate that is better for having The Post on the scene. Democracy and the ability of the citizens to participate and make informed decisions is better served with the Post and its independent counterpoint on the scene.

Mr. Bateman, assuming your implicit argument that these children are in more toxic environment than they would be in under the care of the Ministry of Children and Families is correct, I find it extremely unlikely that there is not a single provision of our current child protection legislation under which a child can be remove from dangerous drug lab or grow-op environments is correct. In fact I find it hard to believe that those charged with protecting these young citizens cannot find numerous provisions to use to remove and place these children in other environments.

If police officers, social workers and our justice system require a clear signal that children in grow-ops or drug labs are in need of help – our society is in serious trouble. I would go so far as to say that anyone who needs a “province wide directive” in order to act on behalf of children in these circumstances is in the wrong job and should seek employment elsewhere.

Mr. Bateman’s original editorial The Post Friday March 21, 2008

My wife and I have two little girls under the age of five. They are bright and happy and we would stop at nothing to keep them safe. Every night, I tuck those two girls into their beds and I say a little prayer that God would keep them healthy.

Not every child in B.C. is so lucky .In hundreds of other homes across this province, children sleep in beds with hastily-wired electrical cables running past them. Toxic mould grows in the walls. Poisonous drug precursors litter the house .Dirty needles lay in the living room, and crystal meth residue is all over the kitchen.

This is a new social issue in B.C. and it should break the heart of anyone who cares about children. These are drug-endangered children and there are hundreds of them living on borrowed time.

As a Langley Township councillor, the issue of drug-endangered children first came onto my radar when I received a memo from our fire chief. Like Abbotsford and many other municipalities, Langley has put together a Public Safety Inspection Team, which inspects suspicious electricity users for safety violations. We do it because these homes are far more likely to burn than others, and we need to protect our neighbourhoods .In the memo, our fire chief reported that the team found evidence of children living in 36 of the 158 grow-ops they discovered.

As I tucked my two little girls into bed that night, I thought about those 36 grow-ops that children lived in. I thought of these kids, living in an environment with shoddy electrical work that could cause a fire at any time. I thought about the toxic mould growing inside the walls– often undetected behind the drywall. That’s why municipalities have strengthened their building bylaws to make sure that homes that had been used as grow-ops or meth labs are brought back up to a healthy standard. I thought about the dangers of living in a home that could be the target of an organized crime grow-rip.

I started reading, researching, and asking questions. I found the story of little Deon, Jackson and Megan White, three preschoolers killed in a meth lab explosion in California. I saw pictures of babies – the same age as my little Danica – with burns from meth precursors on their faces.

I saw pictures of meth ingredients contaminating the same kitchens that kids eat in. I read about power cables running under cradles to grow-ops. I read about needles and drugs being found next to sleeping infants. These children are being abused by the carelessness and high-risk lifestyles of their parents and guardians. They deserve better protection.
I’m not the only one who thinks that. Police officers I speak with feel the same way; so does the BC Association of Social Workers; and UCFV criminologist Darryl Plecas; and the Government of Alberta, which has a law protecting drug-endangered children. While the B.C. government has moved to protect children from their parents’ second-hand cigarette smoke in cars, it has ignored the hundreds of children living in grow-ops and meth labs.

In 2006, Alberta passed a Drug-Endangered Children Act, which sent a clear signal to police officers, social workers, and the justice system: children growing up in grow-ops or drug labs are being abused. Their parents are subject to prison terms and fines. The children are seized and put with other family members or in another safe environment.

In B.C., our social workers don’t even have a uniform provincial protocol on how to deal with children found in these homes. Each region makes its own policies, despite three years of lobbying by the BC Association of Social Workers for a province-wide directive. We need to do more for these drug-endangered children. The health studies are staggering.

“Children living in those labs might as well be taking the drug directly, ”says John Martyny, a medicine professor with the National Jewish Medicaland Research Centre in Denver. A U.S. Attorney’s Office study shows that as many as 80 per cent of children rescued from meth labs in the US test positive for toxic levels of the chemicals used in meth production. These chemicals can cause cancer, severe skin conditions, tremors, lead poisoning, kidney, lung and liver diseases and more.

On the grow-op side, the mould from the growing process can cause chronic respiratory problems, neurological damage, and cancer.

That doesn’t count the psychological harm from living in such an environment, or the elevated risk of fires and explosions. Every child deserves a safe and happy place to grow up. When will British Columbia step up to the plate for our hundreds of drug-endangered children.

What kind of bottom dwelling scum uses charities as a place to dump their unwanted crap and avoid paying dumping fees?

The cost of disposing of the junk these low lives dump has become a drain on the resources of the charities involved; sucking money out of charitable activities to provide free garbage disposals for this tight-fisted, self-centred bunch of vermin.

This is compounded when someone who cannot afford the loss buys something that doesn’t function. The swine that dumped it might just as well rob them at gun point.

Get some character, some morals, you despicable trash!

I would like to respond to Donald J. St. Pierre factually deficient diatribe (Post Feb. 29) against reason, science and evolution.

Anyone who has conducted biology experiments with fruit flies has seen evolution in motion. However, it is not necessary to turn to the laboratory to see evolution occurring when Abbotsford sits surrounded by the ongoing many experiments and experimental results in evolution that is agriculture.

Evolution does not require a new species as an outcome as can be seen in the definition of evolution at www.dictionary.com: “Biology: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”. Evolution is change in the gene pool.

Milk production, beef cattle, crops all have been and continue to be genetically changed by the efforts of mankind. In fact one of the major driving forces of evolution today is the actions of mankind either deliberately or as a side effect of those actions.

Given the babbled mumbo jumbo that Mr. St Pierre ties to pass off as a scientific argument, it is not surprising he has such a poor grasp of what the theory, science and underlying principles of evolution are and/or about.

Yes mass is a manifestation of energy but its conversion to energy is governed by Einstein’s famous E=mc2 not the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. In simplest terms, the Laws of Thermodynamics dictate the specifics for the movement of heat and work. The Laws of Thermodynamics are actually specific manifestations of the law of conservation of mass-energy as it relates to thermodynamic processes.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are not the set of Laws that govern the Universe. They are a subset of a subset of the Laws of Physics (motion, gravity, relativity, conservation of mass-energy etc) and until such time as a grand unifying theory for the Laws of Physics emerges and survives testing, there is not a “Law” that can be said to govern the Universe.

As to Mr. St. Pierre’s claims of what evolution contradicts.

I will concede that if you use the narrow meaning of the term Biogenesis that is the basis of Creation biology, then within that limited definition, evolution clashes with biogenesis. However if one does not misuse the term biogenisis by limiting it in this manner, there is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

A cursory study of the Laws of Thermodynamics reveals that the Fourth Law is about biological systems and encompasses evolution.

As to Laws of cause and effect or probability, I cannot comment further until Mr. St. Pierre provides examples of what he means as it appears to this observer that not only do these laws not contradict evolution, these laws suggest and support evolution.

While I would commend Mr. St. Pierre for his statement about debate without the rantings of emotional philosophical bias, I am left wondering when he plans to begin or join such a debate?