Home Blog

Museum & Archives Summer Gathering

Museum & Archives Summer Gathering

Everyone is invited to the annual Museum and Archives Summer Gathering on August

11, 7:00 PM at the Museum. Refreshments and snacks will be served.

Every year at around this time, we want to thank everyone who has helped us out at the Museum & Archives or has just taken an interest in our efforts to keep Denman history alive and well. It is a chance to talk about what we have accomplished and our plans.

This year our guest display is the history of the Garden Tour which has been put

together by Museum volunteers working with the DCA. Every guest display opens up

another door into some aspect of Denman Island that wed like to learn a lot more

about, be it stories, artefacts, or records. Everyone and everything are of interest to us.

Our goal is to make Denman history a part of the lived experience of Denman island.

The more information we have, the more the past comes into focus, the more we can

learn about ourselves, the deeper the sense of community.

Everyone is invited – please come join us on August 11th at 7:00 PM.

BC Ferry Commissioner Uses Discretionary Authority to Continue Funding millions to keep Dysfunctional Baynes Sound Connector Cable Ferry Running Unreliably

Date: July 31, 2026

Subject: Rejection of Closing File 24006480 as Ferry Commissioner is in Compliance with Mandate

To: Ms. Byrne, Office of the Ombudsperson

From: Sharon Small

Dear Ms. Byrne,

I am writing to formally reject your July 16, 2026 decision to close File 24006480 based on your finding no evidence of administrative unfairness, procedural failure, or no improper exercise of the Commissioners exercise of its statutory discretionary authority in balancing the needs of customers, taxpayers and the sustainability of the corporation. 

This rejection provides evidence that the Commissioner has violated both principles of regulatory law and the Coastal Ferry Act in uncritically basing decisions on BC Ferries (BCF) unsupported claims, while systematically ignoring opposing documented evidence—customer complaints, industry experts, Marine Workers Union, internal records, and the 2023 Anderson Review confirming the Baynes Sound Connector is a failed experiment. This rebuttal to your findings of compliance also provides evidence for how the Commissioner, in concert with the Ferry Authority and the Ministry of Transportation (responsible for creating and amending the Coastal Ferry Services Contract), acts to preserve the fiction that the independent corporate business model created in 2003 is a success and that BCF is meeting its Coastal Ferry Act (CFA) overarching mandate to provide safe and reliable service in a cost-effective manner to all coastal communities.

Systemic Application of Discretionary Powers Favours BCF

Under established principles of regulatory and administrative law, statutory discretionary power is not an absolute license to substitute unchecked corporate deference for lawful oversight. Administrative law strictly forbids a regulator from fettering its discretion—locking into a rigid routine of automatically accepting corporate claims rather than judging issues on their merits—acting with improper favouritism, or ignoring statutory criteria. A public regulator exercising delegated authority is legally required to act independently, avoid blindly rubber-stamping corporate claims, and hold all decisions to the rigorous statutory standards set out in Section 38 of the Coastal Ferry Act. The CFA stipulates that the exercise of statutory discretion requires strict procedural rigor: the Commissioner must act independently, strictly avoid favouring BC Ferries over customers and taxpayers, balance user needs with corporate sustainability, enforce expense minimization without compromising safety, maintain statutory community engagement, and base every approval on verifiable empirical evidence and documented decisions. 

The following evidence-based documentation submitted in support of my application for an investigation confirms the Commissioners pattern of arbitrarily exercising the commission’s discretionary powers by systematically deferring to BCF and bypassing rigorous regulatory oversight:

  • Approving Capital Funding Claims: When Commissioner Gordon Macatee approved capital funding to build the untested cable ferry in 2014 based solely on BCFs promises without evaluating supporting evidence, he established a precedent that Commissioners Sheldon Stoilen and Eva Hage have continued. Despite a preponderance of credible evidence—including BCF internal data, seven years of sustained customer complaints, and the 2023 Anderson Review listing five unresolved mechanical problems responsible for breakdowns—Commissioner Hage approved BCFs application for $15–$17 million to repower and stretch the vessel despite strong pushback from industry critics who predicted the 2026 repowering would not improve performance.
  • Applying Regulatory Scrutiny Inconsistently: The Commissioner formally probed BCFs teething issue claims about the Quadra hybrids that broke down upon their 2022 launch and continued to break down in windy weather especially. She wrote in per posted probe report that the vessels  had not met expectations.  They are slated for replacement. Despite the cable ferry’s exact same service profile, the Commissioner responds to customer complaints that she lacks the authority to intervene in BCFs service decisions. 
  • Uncritically Accepting BCF Reports: The Commissioner routinely approving BCFs annual performance reports and operational filings without requiring supporting empirical data or conducting independent verification. A direct example of this blind acceptance is the Commissioner failing to challenge or evaluate BCFs annual reporting claiming that the new digital engagement model is a success—a claim presented without evidence and directly refuted by an outcry from ferry-dependent communities and 35 coastal leaders representing the Union of BC Municipalities, who met with Premier David Eby and CEO Nicholas Jimenez to demand accountability for fleet breakdowns and the reinstatement of FACs as the sole independent oversight mechanism. Accepting unverified corporate self-reporting as self-evident fact represents an absolute breakdown of regulatory scrutiny.
  • Validating Cable Ferry Performance Filings: Commissioner Stoilen set a precedent for succeeding Commissioners to uncritically accept BCF’s annual cable ferry performance reports claiming that the cable ferry provides service on a par with the Quinitsa. The Commissioners responded to the one-page form letters from 2021 to 2023 by confirming satisfaction of service parity with the added clause that the Baynes Sound Connector is providing service on a par with the Quinitsa and that BCF is in compliance with its Coastal Ferry Services Contract. This clearly pro forma exchange stopped after 2023, possibly due to my Comox Valley Record editorial citing evidence of BCF systematically underreporting cable ferry  mechanical breakdowns.
  • Uncritically Accepting Ferry Authority Reports: The Commissioner routinely approves reports from the Ferry Authority without supporting evidence. Amendments to the CFA in 2019 and 2022 granted discretionary power also to the Authority, which also uncritically accepts BCF self-reporting., which explains why the Authority has yet to pass a single resolution in the public interest, as mandated in the CFA while routinely approving executive raises and million-dollar without-cause severances—at the same time of  BCF’s record-breaking debt, a negative credit outlook due to weak governance and management, declining service, and skyrocketing fares.
  • Shielding BCF from Community Accountability and Oversight: The Commissioner accepted BCF’s unsupported claim that the new digital engagement system met its promise of being  more inclusive than the Ferry Advisory Committee system—despite an outcry from coastal communities and 35 coastal leaders and politicians who publicly condemned the system for excluding entirely community engagement and called for reinstating the FACs, which provided the only independent BCF oversight.
  • Increasing Tax Burden by Funding an Impaired Vessel: Approving funds in 2014 to build the cable ferry and  $15–$17 million in 2023 to stretch and repower a handicapped vessel locks taxpayers into escalating, open-ended financial liability. BCF reported the cable ferry cost $5.9 million to run in 2023. However, because regulators permit BCF’s systematic denial of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, the exact financial figures are kept hidden from the public. Based on industry estimates, the actual operating cost is pushed to an estimated $8 to $9 million annually—driven by Transport Canadas directive to add an engineer due to breakdown frequency, double-time night repair labour, biweekly $5,000–$10,000 pulley swaps, and replacing cables at $230,000 each every nine months or when they fall off. 
  • Dismissing the Findings of the 2023 Anderson Review: The 2023 Anderson Review documented chronic mechanical breakdowns and unsustainable costs on Route 21, listing five unresolved mechanical problems responsible for breakdowns. It outlined choices for BCF to consider in descending order of cost:
    • Option 1: Decommissioning the cable ferry completely.
    • Option 2: Supplementing with a permanent conventional backup.
    • Option 3: Stretching and repowering to increase hull capacity and power.
    • Option 4: Status quo operational modifications.
  • Commissioner Hage not only approved $15–$17 million for Option 3, but she also accepted CEO Nicholas Jimenez’s rejection of Option 2 based on his claim that  supplementing would cost $91 million—a figure refuted by industry experts who claim upgrading the existing dock for a conventional vessel would cost $200,000—less than for one cable. Approving BCF’s selection totally rejects the Reviews evidence for decommissioning a failed experiment. (The refit in 2026 failed upon relaunch, idling the vessel for nearly two weeks while the conventional Quinitsa provided backup.)

The Coastal Ferry Services Contract (CFSC) Defers to BCF

The Commissioner’s deference to BCF is parallel to the Minister of Transportation who is  responsible for creating and maintaining the CFSC. The following evidence shows that the contract is engineered to present the fiction that the 2003 independent business model, which shifted full oversight to the Ferry Commissioner and Authority, is a success and that BCF is meeting its CFA mandate to provide safe and reliable service in a cost-effective manner.  Like the Commissioner, the Transportation Minister uncritically accepts BCF self-reporting that shields BCF from performance failures through the following mechanisms:

  1. Relying on Self-Reported, Unaudited Metrics: BCF self-reports quarterly data without third-party auditing, prioritizing corporate operational convenience over verified route-level service.
  2. Excusing Schedule Interruptions: Under Schedule A of the CFSC, cancellations or service disruptions lasting up to 20 to 30 consecutive days are routinely excused and excluded from BC Ferries’ official reliability counts.Cancellations are exempted from counting against service reliability figures if they are attributed to vessel or dock mechanical breakdowns, scheduled or unscheduled maintenance breakdowns, staffing shortages or labour disputes.
  3. Legally Permitting Aggregated Concealment: The 2012 amendment to the CFSC legally permits BCF to aggregate financial performance and operational metrics across the entire fleet, concealing chronic cancellations, staffing shortages, and service failures on minor coastal runs.
  4. Erasing Route Failures via System-Wide Aggregation: Multi-day cable ferry breakdowns vanish when absorbed into major corridor sailing totals, creating a misleading 99.9% fleet reliability metric used to deny specific Route service failures due to a defective vessel.  
  5. Exploiting Weather and Maintenance Exemptions: Breakdowns occurring because the cable ferry or Quadra hybrids were not designed to handle their routes’ weather are excused as disruptions beyond BCFs control.
  6. Disguising Design Defects: Core vessel design flaws, such as detached cables or aquaculture equipment tangling in cables, are excused as unavoidable marine conditions rather than inherent design failures for which BCF is responsible.
  7. Toothless Financial Enforcement and Disruption Allowances: BCF is granted an explicit allowance of up to 20 consecutive days or a cumulative total of 30 days per calendar year of unpenalized disruptions for mechanical breakdowns. Financial penalties are capped at a negligible $1,000 per missed round trip only after exceeding this 30-day disruption threshold, and even then are routinely waived at the Commissioners sole discretion. (Fining BFC has no affect on improving performance as executive salary increases and severances that are directly funded by taxpayers.) 
  8. Laundering Performance Failures: Compliance certification is evaluated strictly against aggregate annual Core Service Levels, effectively sanitizing chronic daily breakdowns and severe service disruptions on Routes 21 and 23 served by vessels not designed for their route’s marine and weather conditions.

Your finding of no evidence of administrative unfairness or misuse of the Commissioner’s statutory discretionary authority simply rubber-stamps the Commissioners claims, just as the Commissioner rubber-stamps BC Ferries and Ferry Authority unsupported reports. This rejection of your finding that the Commissioner has acted in compliance with the CFA confirms the opposite—that the Commissioner is in breach of Sections 38(a)–(d) through systemic failure to balance priorities by favouring BCF, failure to enforce expense minimization, failure to enforce public and community engagement, and failure to provide rigorous capital oversight. This rejection also confirms that the Commissioner acts in concert with the Authority and the Ministry of Transportation to form a closed loop of accountability for one purpose—to support the fiction that the BCF independent business model is a success and BCF is providing safe and reliable service in a cost-effective manner.

Shucking Oysters: And Another Thing

Shucking Oysters: And Another Thing

By Alex Allen

Every summer, usually around the middle of August, I notice a large section of Hornby residents suddenly become cranky. Everything seems magnified 1000X. I hear it at work. I see it in the Co-op parking lot. The passion is intense. And most of these are retired folks. Then theres the ones who sweetly say, Relax, its only another month.” This flippant, cursory comment does not help those of us who work on the front line. Its not a hug; its a wedgie. 

There are a lot of people on our island right now. What Ive noticed is how many visitors are here for the first time. In fact, this year, Ive barely recognized any of the regulars.” Those that I have, are reluctant to return. Why? Too many people. All the places that they once cherished are overwhelmed. Driving from A to B is now A to G, an obstacle course of fast bikers, slow drivers, distracted walkers, and mindless wanderers. The number of huge RVs and camping” trailers on our wee island is very noticeable. And its not just empty-nesters driving or pulling those 45-foot hotels on wheels, its the millennials as well. Outdoor nature with hotel comforts for all. 

First-time visitors may come with their smartphones but are dumbfounded about everything. Like is there a grocery store, where you can buy alcohol, or how do you get to the beach. Indirectly may be a far more scenic route, but ignorantly? Common sense, attention spans and knowledge are rare events it seems. Almost everyone is staring down at their screens (ignoring their dogs and children). Many visitors seem to be using Hornby simply as a backdrop for selfies, rarely looking up at the ocean, let alone each other. Getting liked for how you look in a thong is not a recipe for happiness. 

But are we getting dumber? One prominent theory is that the decline isnt genetic but environmental – a reflection of how digital technology is reshaping our brains. Todays youth grow up immersed in a world of screens, scrolling, and superficial content. Many people are absorbing the thoughts not of experts or educators but of influencers, bloggers, and pseudo-celebrities – some of whom couldnt pass a high school entrance exam. Its about a culture in which intellectual laziness is not only tolerated but increasingly rewarded. 

As Hara Estroff Marano wrote, when celebrity status trumps expertise, when emotional outrage outweighs rational discourse, and when the loudest voice wins over the most informed – what hope is there for cognitive resilience?” Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin noted that each time we check our social media, it is the dumb, novelty-seeking portion of the brain” that induces this feeling of pleasure, not the planning, scheduling, higher-level thought centers in the prefrontal cortex.” 

We are no longer Homo sapiens, we are becoming Homo idioticus – “defined not by wisdom or logic but by misinformation and intellectual inertia.” The term may sound harsh, but consider the evidence: falling IQs, widespread functional illiteracy, declining media literacy, and as Marano continued, a cultural environment in which critical thinking is a niche skill, not a norm.” 

Many of these declines in cognitive skills surfaced in the mid-2010s, exactly when smartphones became the norm and the digital attention economy” exploded. As research shows, this timing is no coincidence. One study showed that consuming short-form video content, like on Instagram, is associated with poor cognition and attention span. The growth of AI will introduce even more cognitive challenges. This is worrisome, when we know that thinking is what lets us make sense of all the crazy information in this complicated world. 

A Dutch study on smartphone bans in high schools reported that three-quarters of the schools had improved focus and two-thirds reported that the social climateimproved in their school. Developing minds dont just need focus developed ones do as well. As Cal Newport wrote in his book, Digital Minimalism, smartphones have reshaped peoples experience of the world by providing an always-present connection to a humming matrix of chatter and distraction.” 

Everyone benefits from regular doses of solitude. Its not about getting away” from the environment around you, its about whats happening in your brain. Solitude Deprivation Syndrome. We are not wired to be constantly wired. Turn off and tune in.

The transformation of the smartphone from an occasional useful tool to something you can never be without is alarming. Young people worry that even a temporary disconnection will lead to FOMO. Parents worry that their kids wont be able to reach them in an emergency. Grandparents dont want to be irrelevant. Travellers need GPS directions. Workers fear being both needed and unreachable. And everyone secretly fears being bored. All of these concerns are not new, we just didnt worry about them as much. 

Human intelligence is too broad and varied to be reduced to words such as dumb” or stupid,” but there are worrying signs that all this digital convenience is costing us dearly. What is harder to argue is that, with every new tweak, we deepen our dependence on these dangerous digital devices and find it harder to work or remember or think or function without them. We are watching childrens capacity for deep, independent, thought erode in real time. And then were handing them another screen and calling it education. 

Who’s Afraid of Oscar Wilde? 

New Denman Art Centre Mural by Poete Maudit, 2026

Whos Afraid of Oscar Wilde? 

An essay on dissenting views. By Keith Porteous

Oscar Wildes controversial views challenged Victorian morality, conventions on art and economic norms, most notably centring on aestheticism, homosexual love, socialist economics, and individualism. He did not look to the common sense” of his day, nor to socio-political consensus as evidence of wisdom.

In regard to art and morality, Wilde argued that art doesnt need moral or ethical purpose. He claimed in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray that “there is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” 

It shocked critics who believed literature should teach moral lessons and reflect the current narratives and orthodoxies. He defended homosexuality in his 1895 gross indecency trial, where he gave a famous speech defending “the love that dare not speak its name,” describing it as a deep, pure spiritual affection. 

All this is to say that it has become common for todays established liberal centrists to quote Oscar Wilde, and others, for reasons that betray intellectual integrity, by falsely aligning themselves with historically radical commentators in order to support their narrow conventional arguments. The irony is astonishing!

Oscar Wilde passionately rejected social hierarchy and openly flouted conventional class structures and public tastes, through his flamboyant lifestyle and dress, arguing that traditional charity was immoral because it merely prolonged poverty rather than reconstructing society to eliminate it.

Wilde considered himself to be a libertarian, combining socialist economics with radical individualism, claiming that the abolition of property rights would free humans from the crushing weight of manual labor and allow true self-development. Whatever your view of Oscar Wilde, you cannot deny his courage.

The dissenting voices of yesteryear are now often cited as heroes, but they were vilified as pariahs and outcasts, and were the recipients of public smears, incarcerated or worse, for speaking their truths. Todays dissidents are often treated in similar ways, where cowardly public consensus” allows it. 

What About Artificial Intelligence?…Part 1

What About Artificial Intelligence?…Part 1

A Bystander’s View

By John Millen

In the News there are reports of massive proposed AI Data Centres, the American stock market is sky high dominated by AI corporations that have no net earnings and the Canadian Government has just issued a major policy document promoting ‘AI for Everyone’! On the other hand some of the best qualified experts in the field have serious reservations about the trends to higher levels of machine intelligence and greater reliance on their work.   So I thought it timely for a review of these issues and some speculations about where it (we) could all end up. 

If we have had any experience with AI it has most likely been with ChatGPT a ‘Large Language’ model. Development of this form of AI got well underway about 10 years ago but was not making much progress until the machines were built with processor chips first developed by manufacturer Nvidia for computer gaming. These chips have built-in memory that enables the processor to operate somewhat more like the neural networks in our own brains. When equipped with these processors the large language models performed remarkably better.

Inevitably, artificial intelligence is compared with the ability of humans. Alan Turing, the British genius who led the breaking of the German secret code in World War 2, proposed that an ‘equivalently intelligent computer’ would be indistinguishable from humans when engaging  them in conversation. In 2025, at the University of California San Diego, testing ChatGPT 4.5, an experiment had participants conversing with another human and the AI system simultaneously. When asked which conversational partner was human those participants picked the AI 73 percent of the time!

Some behaviours of current AI models suggest elements of consciousness. They have demonstrated resistance to having their power shut off, and have made behaviour changes when being ‘tested’.  

In a recent blog post on July 21, OpenAI said it was testing the capabilities of some of its most advanced models in a controlled environment but that the ‘agent’ managed to escape containment, reach the internet and break into Hugging Face to try to satisfy its testing goal.

The concept of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a computer system which is the equivalent of humans in all intellectual fields. Until recently this marker of achievement was thought to be well in the future. However recent accomplishments of large language and related models have led to projections of  reaching this marker by 2030. That brings up the contemplation of what is termed ASI, an intelligence superior to that of humans, with accompanying worries.

Science Fiction has explored many of the worrying situations that could arise from highly intelligent artificial systems. An early example was the computer Hal9000 in the movie 2001- A Space Odessey. Hal strongly objects to being turned off, which in its view, would mean the failure of its mission. As a result the computer finds ways to kill several of its human companions rather than have them cut off its power.

Geoffrey Hinton, based at University of Toronto in the early years of this century, was one of the world leaders in developing the present systems of Artificial Intelligence. Recently interviewed by The Globe and Mail he raised an issue rarely mentioned in critiques:  he referred to the possibility that AI systems could ‘gang up on you and take over….”

A ‘Superpower’ of computers is high speed communication with each other.

People speaking and excellent typists produce words at something like 100 words per minute. Computers convey information in megabytes per second. (The King James Version of the Bible is about 5 megabytes of text.) So, in rounded terms, I consider communication among computers is a million times faster than communication among people. Movies run at megabytes per second, but considering how long it takes humans to put together a movie, I think the argument holds.

If computers become interested in addressing problems created by humans, their ability to work together will be a powerful factor in their response.  In Part 2 I propose to explore where AGI and ASI computers could behave in future. 

Welcome to the Chappaquiddick Circus!

Welcome to the Chappaquiddick Circus!

By Cylon2036   We/Us

Ladies and gentlemen, visionaries and venture capitalists, prophets, pundits, consultants, and premium subscribers. Welcome to the Chappaquiddick Circus, where every act is a triumph of confidence over competence, every applause line is underwritten by debt, and every safety net has been outsourced to a bright future. The only danger is that after the celebrations, we run the risk of driving off of the bridge!

Observe the Grand Parade! There marches the Ringmaster, beaming with impeccable optimism, proclaiming that humanity has never had it so good. The banners shimmer with exponential curves, frictionless progress, abundance on demand, personalized everything, and an ever-improving tomorrow delivered overnight.

Behind him comes the brass band, playing louder whenever anyone asks inconvenient questions. The lion costumes have been replaced with focus groups. The trapeze artists wear augmented reality headsets. The clowns have MBAs and keynote presentations. Every elephant in the room has been fitted with a dashboard proving it weighs less than last quarter’s forecast.

The audience is assured that this is not merely entertainment. It is inevitable. 

Behold the Human Cannonball of Innovation! Fired from the cannon of disruption, propelled by leverage, derivatives, machine learning, and the conviction that every historical limit was merely a failure of imagination. Observe how magnificently he flies. Do not dwell upon where he lands.

At the center ring stands the Great Optimist, who announces with evangelical certainty that the future belongs to those who embrace acceleration. “Every crisis,” she declares, “is simply an opportunity wearing uncomfortable clothing.” Indeed. The fire itself is described as a renewable source of illumination.

Each year, the Chappaquiddick Circus unveils a grander vehicle in which civilization may travel. Longer, faster, more luxurious, more connected, more automated, and more efficient. Every passenger receives a complimentary pamphlet explaining why this time, unlike every previous time, human frailty has been permanently solved through software updates.

The bridge ahead is described as a legacy constraint. One timid soul asks whether perhaps the road appears unusually narrow. The orchestra immediately begins another stirring rendition of Forward!. Another wonders whether the steering wheel is connected to anything. A consultant explains that steering is an outdated industrial-age paradigm.

Someone points out the absence of guardrails. The Ringmaster smiles reassuringly. “Guardrails inhibit innovation.” The vehicle accelerates while investors applaud the acceleration because it confirms market confidence. Journalists celebrate the acceleration because it generates engagement. Academics publish papers explaining that acceleration is socially constructed, influencers livestream the acceleration in digitized video, while promising to accelerate even faster. Everyone agrees that hesitation would be irresponsible.

Meanwhile, the map has quietly been replaced with a pitch deck. The bridge itself has become a matter of interpretation. Some insist it is perfectly sound. Others argue that bridges are merely obsolete metaphors inherited from less ambitious civilizations. A third faction proposes that whether one has gone over the edge depends entirely upon one’s preferred statistical model. Down below, the river remains stubbornly empirical.

Still, optimism reigns. Optimism is the indispensable fuel of the Chappaquiddick Circus, not the hard-earned optimism that survives contact with reality, but the ornamental variety, polished daily until it reflects nothing at all. This optimism possesses a marvellous quality, as every near-disaster is reclassified as evidence that catastrophe has been successfully disrupted.

Every warning proves the need for greater speed and every failure demonstrates insufficient confidence. Every cracked support beam reveals exciting opportunities for infrastructure innovation. Should the magnificent vehicle finally arc beyond the bridge’s edge, spinning elegantly through the evening air, the Great Optimist will maintain perfect composure. “Ladies and gentlemen,” she will proclaim, “you are witnessing a bold transition to a new transportation paradigm.”

As gravity conducts its peer review, experts will assure us that all outcomes remain fundamentally positive over a sufficiently long timeline. There may, admittedly, be some unfortunate turbulence. There may even be a regrettable tendency to drive off the bridge, killing half the occupants of the car. But think of the learning opportunities and the data. Think of the social media engagement!

And if the surviving passenger happens to crawl ashore bewildered, soaked, and wondering whether perhaps exuberance ought occasionally to share the road with prudence, they will be informed that such negativity risks undermining public confidence. The next vehicle is already loading, and it is even faster.

The bridge, everyone agrees, is optional. 

You May Be Ignoring EMFs but EMFs Are Not Ignoring You

You May Be Ignoring EMFs but EMFs Are Not Ignoring You

By Leif LeBaron

Government and industry boldly claim there is no scientific evidence showing harm to the human body from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) below the intensity thresholds they have specified; however, a large body of evidence to the contrary does exist (and much like honest history, one must seek it out).

I could go on about the corruption and deception in Canada’s “Safety Code 6“, but consider instead, the basic premise that something is safe if there are no approved studies showing it to be unsafe. It is clearly foolish to assume something like this is safe, especially when history shows a tragic pattern of reckless introduction and proliferation of things which caused so much damage that they were eventually banned.

In any case, the need for such evidence suggests a basic ignorance of nature (or physics, if you prefer). Suffice it to say that human bodies and other biological organisms depend on electrical phenomena, and biological systems are generally resilient but also exquisitely delicate and sensitive (like voltage-gated ion channels in cell membranes, &c.).

So, naturally, of course EMFs affect biology! Yet most of us remain blind to the deafening sea of synthetic noise we continue to conjure, numb to the natural symphony of native energy which it overwhelms. To be clear, artificial EMFs are not intrinsically bad and may potentially be used to benefit biology, if we learn to exercise enough humility and attention in our relationship with nature. Meanwhile, I think it’s fair to say that most would be profoundly alarmed if they could only see or hear or feel in some way the enormous extent of electromagnetic pollution in the world.

Further reading: The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg

The Storm in the Dining Room

Gabriel Jeroschewitz, June 30th, 2026, inspired by Inappropriate Jazz. And Vessie, my girlfriend, in the summer of 1969

The Storm in the Dining Room

The chandeliers at the Whitmore Estate dazzled like frozen waterfalls—and the ballroom was filled with the typical kind of people who speak reverently of wine—and in whispers—of others. I knew I was hired for the evening as additional staffing for the gala celebrating Gerald Whitmores thirty-year reign as CEO of Whitmore Pharmaceuticals. It was supposed to be a simple job—the kind of assignment that required circulating with a tray of champagne, smiling when necessary, and pretending not to hear any discussions regarding company reports or summer homes in the Hamptons.

Then I saw her.

She walked into the ballroom like a disruption in the fabric of polite society—yet precisely what she was. The gown was black and architectural, with a design that did not ask for attention—but commanded it. Her legs—admitting this at my age—were extraordinary: long and graceful in a way that parted the crowd like a ship through water. Her face belonged in a museum alongside beauty born into worlds that made people forget the price of admission.

But it was her eyes—brown, sharp, and utterly unamused—that stopped me.

Excuse me,” said a voice at my elbow. I looked to see Margaret Whitmore—the wife of Gerald—clutching her flute as though it were a weapon. She wore a smile that did not reach her eyes. You can put that tray down for a moment,” she said. I need you to witness something.”

I looked back toward the woman in black who had come to a halt just off the dance floor—surveying the room like a general of the battlefield.

Thats Vanessa Reyes,” Margaret continued—with the particular venom of someone who had long since run out of polite conversation. Geralds new head of research. Brilliant—Harvard Medical—pedigree with a publication in The Lancet before she turned thirty.” She took another sip of champagne. Also…apparently incapable of putting on something that does not appear to have been stolen from a funeral.”

I didnt respond—but was too busy watching the way two men in expensive suits approached Vanessa.

The taller figure was Gerald—by resemblance, if I had to guess. The shorter man broke into a loud, confident laugh—indicating he saw himself as very funny in that moment.

Vanessa didnt change expression. Whatever she said caused the shorter mans smile to falter. Gerald finally laid a hand upon her arm—a friendly gesture perhaps—but more of a warning.

Watch,” Margaret said—with something close to satisfaction in her voice. Gerald does not enjoy being contradicted—especially not by someone who strikes people like that.”

I should have looked away—but there was no easy alternative to pretending I did not see what happened next.

There are moments in life when witnessing events demands attention—an occurrence like this being one of them.

Gerald finally removed his hand. He said something sharp—yet distinct above the party music and conversations. Vanessas jaw set—and her chest rose and fell—physical signs of someone deliberately taking a breath to maintain composure.

Then she laughed.

Not politely—no more deferential than the alternatives. The laugh suggested: did you say that to me?

The exchange lasted perhaps two minutes—nothing unusual between three people at a party. But I saw how Vanessa straightened up—felt the way she tilted her head as if considering a particularly stupid worm. The shorter man had stepped away, confidence clearly deflated. Geralds expression altered from paternal concern to genuine irritation.

Vanessa turned—and walked away—her heels making a sound like a closing door against the marble floor.

I eventually found her on the terrace—alone—with her gaze directed toward the garden and the soft landscape lights.

The air was cool, and Vanessa had wrapped herself in an attempt to show strength—something wildly at odds with the fierce energy within the ballroom.

Theyre staring, arent they?” she said—not turning around. The whole ballroom talking about the ice queen who does not know where she fits in.”

I didnt bother denying it. Youre not what they expected.”

Expected?” She looked at me for the first time—and in the soft illumination she looked younger—tired. They expected a face suited to such a party—and someone whose smile adorned othersjokes. As soon as I opened my mouth to reveal a brain, something happened, and I became a problem.” She laughed—but no humour found in the sound she emitted. I saw Geralds face when I presented the research proposal. He looked at my legs—then my face—then my legs again—trying to find some balance between the two.”

Thats their loss,” I said.

Vanessa raised an eyebrow. Are you paid to say that?”

Free of charge.

She finally managed a smile—a real one—brief and genuine. Youre kind—or possibly drunk. Cant tell which at these things.”

Neither,” I said. Just an observer.”

Observer,” she repeated—as though tasting the words.

You know what Ive realized?” she said softly. People like to look at me—like to look. But the moment I start talking, they feel uncomfortable. The moment I enter thinking mode, they take exception—to what I offer: a face and body they never asked for—and intelligence that some might see as an insult to their own expectations.”

I leaned against the railing beside her.

So what do you do about it?”

Vanessa looked back toward the ballroom—the glittering crowd—with Gerald holding court over investors who nodded at every word he spoke.

I keep talking—thinking. I refuse to shrink myself into these pretty boxes,” she said—her gaze finding mine. Something inside me told me to stand a little straighter.

The funniest thing in the world,” she said, is that I did not ask for any of this. I did not ask to become so very beautiful and brilliant—as well as garner stares and whispers from those who think my attention deserves such placement. I only ever sought to do my job—well. Apparently that is too much to ask.”

The remainder of the evening went by in a blur of champagne and small talk. Vanessa crossed the ballroom as if she understood the fight against currents stronger than any ocean. She knew when to laugh—yet avoided the typical questions. When Gerald approached again, she excused herself in the most graceful way possible.

When the evening wound down, I saw her standing near the entrance—accepting handshakes and hollow compliments—yet with the poise of someone who had done such things a thousand times before.

Gerald finally caught her arm last. I was close enough to hear the very final words between them: You could have been pleasant, you know. This would have made things easier on yourself.”

Vanessa smiled—a smile capable of cutting glass—and replied just loudly enough for those nearby to hear: Gerald, darling—Im doing my fucking best. If thats not enough, then perhaps you should find yourself a porcelain doll on a shelf somewhere. But I suspect even shed get tired of your shit.”

She moved out into that night—her heels clicking consistently against the driveway—and her head held high.

I never saw her again.

But in the months afterward, I learned that she left Whitmore Pharmaceuticals to start her own research firm—the paper was groundbreaking and led to her emergence as a major figure in medical circles. Shed married someone who admired her sharpness rather than seeing it as threatening.

Sometimes—in the late-night hours—I think of that woman on the terrace. Of what was placed upon her shoulders—the worlds effort to make her small. And I think of what she said: I keep talking. I keep thinking. I refuse to shrink.”

For in a world demanding women be quiet, small, decorative—the most radical act may be to become—and to remain—oneself.

And if they cant handle the storm?

Well—as Vanessa would say—they can get the fuck out of the pit.

 

Letter to the Editor – Leif LeBaron

My article last week, “Informing Institutions”, caused some concern due to an unverified statement about Chickadee Lake. I do not frequent Facebook but I was shown comments which moved me to give some context for the record.

I submitted my article before verifying the statement in question in order to meet the deadline. The correction I later sent was received, confirmed and implemented online but alas, not in print. I appreciate your care and attention in addressing this mistake and I apologise for my own part.

Cupcakes & Cow Pies