Since the dawn of time, forbidden fruit has tempted humans. Whether it's Adam and Eve taking a bite of that nasty apple in the Garden of Eden or some bureaucrats who should have known better than to surf porn on government computers, people like to tempt fate.

Now we read about government workers being fired for viewing off-limits Web sites.

That there's the $30,000 cost to taxpayers for surveillance software to catch a mouse-happy few should come as no surprise.

It's frustrating, disappointing and saddening to see.

The Internet is a wonderful tool -- when used properly. And a vast majority of government workers are a hard-working, rule-abiding bunch.

The explosion of pornographic sites on the Internet has tainted the entire Web.

Now a couple of people who couldn't keep their mice where they belong have tainted the civil service.

Just imagine the snickers at dinner parties and over cappuccino about how government workers just shuffle paper and surf porn all day.

Snowmobile helmets are for boneheads.

That's right: boneheads. Of course, our boneheads also have a thin layer of skin and hair over the headbones and a very precious cargo of brains inside.

Zooming along at the controls of the kinds of sleds made today means that if there's a crash, or if something -- a tree branch, say -- comes in contact with your head, a helmet would be an excellent device to keep your headbones in one place.

Right now there is no territorial law to force snowmobile drivers or riders to wear helmets.

Premier Stephen Kakfwi revved up a big noise two years ago in favour of a helmet law, but he's been quiet as a post-crash snowmobile since.

We would think that wearing a snowmobile helmet is, well, a no-brainer.

Not wearing a helmet will make us a "no-brainer" if we crash the sled.

Whether on the land or in town, it's a common sense law that needs to be in place.

Until then, please always wear a helmet while on your snowmobile.

Do it for the family and friends you'll leave behind if you won't do it for yourself.

Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News

Let the people have the final say.

That's our take on the recent meetings of the Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board held in Rankin Inlet.

A number of people voiced their opinion at the meetings over the local Legion's application for a club licence.

Those who spoke expressed concern that, although they realized the people of Rankin Inlet do not want to live in a dry hamlet, to make alcohol more readily available would ultimately cause harm to the community.

The usual undertones were there, of course -- more alcohol leads to more abuse, leads to more neglect, leads to more violence, leads to more poverty, etc., etc.

These are all valid concerns, for a very small percentage of the population. The fact remains, most people in our community can go to a Legion function, have a few drinks while cutting a rug or two, and make their way home without causing harm to family members or running afoul of the law.

If the club licence were to be granted, Legion members claim they would be able to get a permit for the entire year and not have to worry about obtaining a special licence every other week to hold their functions.

They would also be able to hold weekly dances, rather than bi-weekly events.

Those who oppose the move wonder aloud how long it will be before the Legion, local hotel and eating establishments are all serving alcohol on a daily basis.

Historically, plebiscites have been held at the same time as municipal elections to allow the community to have the final say on such matters. And, at the risk of undermining any of the Liquor Licensing Board's power or influence, we don't see why this should be any different.

The board says it should have a decision on the application within two

months. That's a full six months before municipal election time.

Surely, should the board decide a plebiscite is the way to go, we can be ready to let the community have its say by Christmas.

While we remain dubious over community members who voice their opinions in a public forum by repeating what they claim to "hear around town" without giving specific examples or citing proven facts -- democracy dictates the people should have the final say on what happens in their community.

A plebiscite should be held and both sides in the debate should be prepared to live with the result.

If nothing else, it would be a nice change of pace for the people to speak and our government to listen.

Editorial Comment
Terry Halifax
Inuvik Drum

It looks like the smoking bylaw is a done deal. It wasn't the cakewalk council thought it would be, but it did happen without the debate I thought it would inspire, considering the number of smokers here.

There wasn't so much as a cough or a wheeze from the smoker's lobby, with not a single smoker showing up in opposition at any of the council meetings or the public meeting.

Some of the passion exhibited by the in the anti-smoking councillors at these meetings has been outright inspiring. I sure hope they will be equally inspired when the dust starts to fly.

Last year, I walked into my living room to see a cloud of what I thought was smoke, billowing through my sliding door. Closer inspection revealed that it wasn't Home Hardware burning down next door, but the dust rising from Franklin Street. With each passing car or truck, thick dust came wafting in to settle on my TV screen, CD racks and all over the once clean dishes in the rack.

We all spend an inordinate amount of time dusting our homes, but imagine the dust we breath in each day?

Council brought up the dangers of smoking in parts per million and the toxic effects over extended period of time, but just imagine the parts per million in dirt we breath in every summer here.

Walking on the street is likely more harmful than sitting in the smokiest bar. A bike ride along the overpass feels like the equivalent to smoking three cigarettes.

If cigarette smoke was as thick as the dust in this town, I would be just as passionate as councillors Alfred Moses and Arlene Hansen. But it's not.

The town bought a beautiful street sweeper last year and we all appreciate that, but the paving and dust abatement needs to be bumped way up.

The smoking bylaw thing is a good step; it's easy, it's trendy and it's cheap. Dust isn't so easy, it's hardly trendy and it ain't cheap.

Rather than dumping down gallons of water and chemicals, the real solution is paving. The town currently spends $400,000 a year on paving.

Most of that money was spent last year on cold mix plopped into pot holes that falls out after a few cars pass over it.

This summer, there will be a hot mix paving machine in town and I'd like to see that baby laying it down hot and thick, around the clock and all around town.

It would take millions and more than a few summers of paving, but the longer we leave it, the more it will cost.

New subdivisions are going in and council is rubbing their hands together over the new revenue. The town is debt-free and every spare cent from bingo and lotteries is going right into the deep end of our new pool.

If we can afford to go millions into debt so we can go for a swim, shouldn't we be able to go into debt to save our lungs?

If council is truly dedicated to a healthier town, lets see them put some money where their mouths are -- and where our lungs are.

Editorial Comment
Derek Neary
Deh Cho Drum

It's looking more and more like it's time to part ways.

The relationship between the Deh Cho First Nations (DCFN) and the Acho Dene Koe (ADK) has always been tenuous.

Things have taken another bad turn with the ADK's mistrust of the Interim Resource Development Agreement, which is due to be signed on April 17. The Fort Liard First Nation is worried the agreement will cede authority over its traditional lands to the DCFN.

The same sense of apprehension existed prior to the signing of the Interim Measures Agreement and Draft Framework Agreement last year.

It could be argued that the real turning point came in 1993 when then Chief Harry Deneron and his council decided to go forward with oil and gas exploration. If that wasn't the defining moment, then it happened on May 16, 2001, at the Deh Cho spring leadership assembly in Fort Simpson. The tension was palpable in the Deh Cho First Nations boardroom that day as former Chief Judy Kotchea insisted on a resolution stating that interim self-government agreements "will apply to ADK traditional lands at ADK's discretion." Another clause gave ADK "sole ownership, authority and jurisdiction over its territory during and after negotiations."

In the meantime there have been other flare-ups between the DCFN and the ADK. There were hard feelings over a National Post feature that included negative comments about Fort Liard from DCFN representatives. Last fall's leadership assembly was pulled from Fort Liard after Chief Floyd Bertrand wrote a letter to Trout Lake and Nahanni Butte that DCFN Grand Chief Michael Nadli found offensive.

These are just the tensions that have been made public. There could be others simmering behind the scenes.

This shouldn't be viewed as a good guy, bad guy situation. It's just two sides that can't find enough common ground. They can't agree, and there doesn't seem to be much will to work through the problems.

The Fort Liard band has at least twice approached the Department of Indian Affairs with requests to have its own land claim. It's time the federal government to acquiesce and dissolve this sham of a union.

As for the other First Nations within the Deh Cho, they have managed to maintain an alliance, sometimes rocky, sometimes harmonious. Even outside of Fort Liard, there are those who have their misgivings over what they perceive as the DCFN's motives or hidden agenda. What is this organization if not representational of the aboriginal groups in this region?

There are four major political assemblies and numerous strategic planning sessions each year. If the DCFN is not fully accountable, it's the failing of each of the chiefs and Metis presidents and their respective delegates.