Foremost on my Mind: Coming to a Family Table Near You

I would like to propose a brand-new law for all educators—be they in the public, religious, private, or homeschool form. The law has to do with pencils--red pencils, to be precise. From here on in, every student in Alberta must use, and embrace the use of, red pencils, and nothing else, when it comes to writing.

Non-compliance with this law would be tantamount to redpencilphobia (or “the fear of using red pencils”).

That must seem absurd to most, if not all, of you. After all, what's wrong with blue pencils? Yellow pencils? Pink pencils? And for that matter, any other coloured pencils? If people in their own way prefer to use red pencils, I really can't stop them, even if I wanted to.

But to be told to use a red pencil, and a red pencil only, when there are other legitimate options—that's where I would draw the line (no pun intended). No room for discussion, no place for options, and no argument for what works for me and has been for the greater good for decades.

If I have strong feelings about using a certain type of pencil, why, oh, why should I be forced to use one I don't need, want, or see any point in using? On the one hand, if Bill down the street likes red pencils, that's his business; it may or may not be my business to tell him what to use. I suppose if I felt really strongly about it and could do it in a civil way, I should. On the other hand, if I like, say, blue pencils, that's my business. At what point does Bill get to cram his personal, private preference down my throat? If I am not allowed to, neither should he.

At best, we could co-exist: He uses what works best for him, I use what works best for me. I could live with that compromise.

Let's scrap the pencil example for a moment. Let's move to clothing options, voting choices, or perhaps even an ethical or moral issue that we may confront. If I, as Joe Citizen, have chosen a pathway for me and my family, based on a standard outside of myself, why can't I hold that position without other views being shoved in my face? Apparently I don't have the right to impose those positions on others—my opinions, perhaps, but not much beyond that.

This column is a classic example of that. I have argued life from a socially, morally, and fiscally conservative perspective. I do not expect my “friends” throughout the county to agree with me. Nor do I expect them to hunt me down, and attack me for my differing views. We leave that caveman mentality for Somalia, Serbia, and the Sudan.

Let's move beyond red pencils and other superficial lifestyle choices even further. I am raising the alarm for all educators and administrators, parents and students, and the future version of these people. A certain moral position held by the belligerent minority is subtly yet quickly being crammed down our collective throats, through our elected officials.

The subtle message is caught up in the word, “homophobia.” The not-so-subtle message is that any disagreement with a certain lifestyle is wrong. This new law--and this is right from the Ministry of Education—insists that it must be accepted and taught.

Since I am not allowed to force my morality on others, and since free speech apparently does not include the Lord's prayer in school, who gave any one else the right to cram their morality down our individual and collective throats? Not only am I not allowed to disagree with that lifestyle, I am required to endorse it. Funny how the reverse isn't true; funny how there's no room for diversity.

Those “guilty” of homophobia appear to me to be the tolerant, reasonable, and patient ones in this argument. I put up with the other view; I have never bullied or belittled those who have a different moral perspective than mine. And yet I and my ilk are portrayed as moral Neanderthals.

I don't believe we have ever been invited to any policy table to share our views. Yes, I did sit with over 300 educator-types at the Lethbridge Lodge a few months ago, as a guest of Alberta Education; and yes, there was a genuine resentment towards the bullying of homosexual. And yes, I agree that should never happen.

Funny, but I am feeling really bullied right now with this new law.

You see, there should be no bullying of those who see things differently, either way. I sense a serious, unconscionable double standard here, and the government will be in for the fight of their life. Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Mennonites, Hutterites, and everyone else in between, will rise up and fight this heinous law. How and when they will, I have no idea.

Back to the original metaphor: If you want to use a red pencil, I can't really stop you—but you have no business making me use one.

Parents and educators, there's a whole lot more than red pencils at stake here.

Foremost on my Mind: The Raw Milk Debate

It has come to my attention yet again about the apparent evil of selling and drinking raw milk. Let me re-state that, so there's no confusion: In certain circles, raw milk is seen as bad—so bad, in fact, that a police raid took place recently back East, something on par with the Prohibition (yesteryear) and grow-ops (today).

The absurdity of comparing raw milk with marijuana is not lost on me either. If I must connect the dots here, people, the former is very good for you, whereas the latter can lead to even worse habits.

Some innocent Amish farmer is the latest felon. His crime? Selling raw milk to willing con-

sumers. The result of his crime? Healthy customers—healthy, as in not sick, as in not absent from work, as in not clogging up hospital wards. We must leave room, you know, for those who have drinking, cholesterol, and obesity issues—probably from ingesting government-sanctioned products.

If I were rich and courageous enough, I'd blow the lid of this medical racket when it comes to the healthy foods versus unhealthy foods argument. I don't think it's rocket science to anyone that processed food, canned goods, and really anything with a long shelf life, are not good you. On the other hand, I think there is a general consensus that rawer (if that's a word) and fresher and greener are better—and no, Maurice, green would not apply to meat.

Take the lowly tomato, for instance: Which variety would be better for you, the one just fresh out of your garden or the one that was pulled out of a southern California field four weeks ago? And what do you know about its exposure to sprays, pesticides, and other growth stimulants? Most imported tomatoes must absorb these long before you absorb the tomato.

Now multiply that by every fruit and vegetable you buy. I submit to you this is one reason why we have a health crisis.

Another factor in eating well versus eating easily has to do with contents: Any bottle, can, or pacakge of fresh, frozen, or fried food that can sit on the shelf for months at a time is not very healthy for you. Only the Lord above knows what is allowing them to “survive” for so long. Well, maybe the Lord and big corporations. I wonder if they have intentionally written the ingredients with six-syllable words, so as to confuse the common shopper.

There are two faults here, possibly three: One, of course, is the big corporations themselves. I am all for the need for these companies, but I think we as consumers are too naive when it comes to entrusting them with our diet.

Two, area retailers. Like big corporations, we really need the small-town supermarkets. While they may or may not carry everything the consumer wants (or needs), they may not actually have a choice when it comes to selection; distribution centres may, in fact, establish the inventory.

And third, you, as in you-the-eager-consumer, have to assume some guilt as to what you buy, what you support, and ultimately, what you eat. Last time I checked our democracy, this was not Serbia or North Korea or Zimbabwe. We have a marvelous freedom of choice.

Part of today's discussion is about the right to drink raw milk. The other part is much, much deeper, namely, the lack of consistent controls (with the emphasis on “consistent,” not “controls.”)

If Big Brother, an Orwellian moniker for bloated and dopey government, was genuinely concerned about its citizens' health, wouldn't it seem logical to start with the food fare that has been proven to be poisonous? There are myriads of websites that give ample evidence that much of what we feed our kids, or what restaurants have the gall to call a “meal.”

Corporations, retailers, and consumers are each a little culpable. Believe it or not, perhaps, we, the little guy, are the most guilty. After all, we don't have to eat the canned this or packaged that. There are alternatives to eating long-lasting, processed food. Keep in mind that it would be really hard for big business to survive if consumers shopped with a conscience.

Food co-ops, county gardens, and farmers' markets are good places to start. And don't foget about your own backyard: A lot of the food we eat comes from our backyard. Yes, we have the rare days of the sniffles, but in the main, we eat well, so we stay well—though I'm sure homeschooling and no immunization plays into that.

Isn't the raw milk debacle just a flashpoint for the lack of freedom we have? If we want to eat tofu and drink raw milk, bake our own bread and butcher our own beef, why can't we? Why should the government interfere with some simple entrepeneur, especially when his product is proven to be so much better than the commercial diet?

I'd drink to that proposal—as long as it's with raw milk.

Foremost on my Mind: The Homeschooling Choice

I was asked recently to put together an article on home education. That request seemed timely, considering schools in the district have already been shut down, may be shut down, or live with the annual threat of being shut down.

Probably a good place to start is for some definitions. True “home education” (also known as homeschooling) is where parents assume full responsiblity for the daily education of their own children. A variation of such includes a cluster of children, gathered together in a common venue (often a church basement), under the approved tutelage of a qualified teacher.

And when I say “qualified,” I do not necessarily mean “certified.” “Certified” means the teacher has an education degree from a university; whereas “qualified” means that they have the life skills to run a classroom. Someday I would love to explore these differences further.

And just for the record, friends, home education is legal, welcomed, and growing here in Alberta.

I have been involved in the home education movement for over twenty-five years, both here and in BC. Over those years, my wife and I have founded and led support groups, spoken at homeschool-related events, and have taught or are teaching all nine of our kids at home. And for these past five years, I have been the editor of the magazine that serves the home education community here in Alberta—a periodical goes to approximately 3500 homes.

I believe, then, that I am somewhat qualified to write about the subject!

People choose to home educate for various reasons. Some have issues with the public school, be it a teacher or the curriculum; others have problems with negative peer pressure. Still others choose to keep their kids at home for social, religious, or academic reasons. Further considerations could include the following: a more flexible schedule, specific core subjects, even simply a genuine drive to do what's best for the child.

Whatever the reason, the parents must choose what form of education is best for their child.

Home education has become so mainstream, ironically, it's almost disappointing! Within a couple months of this column, the annual Alberta home education convention will be held in Red Deer at the Westerner. There will be hundreds of families present, a mere drop in the bucket of those actively teaching their kids at home. On top of that, there will be scores of exhibits, mostly of curriculum and aids--plus plenary sessions, keynote speakers, and vendor workshops—to say nothing of lots of good connections.

Strangely enough, while we as a family have homeschooled for the education of all our kids, I personally have been a (full-time and now part-time) classroom teacher for the past twenty years. I love teaching and I feel called to teach, but home education has worked best for our family.

Many of my friends are public school teachers, and they are doing a great job. Many other teacher friends have decided that, for them, home education is the best option. My wife, both a certified and a qualified teacher, chose to pursue that route. This year, we will graduate our sixth of nine children. The ones that have moved on have become very productive members of this culture—one of the many goals of any educational system.

When a school closes down, and children are faced with a one-hour bus ride, then homeschooling becomes a great alternative. When a school goes only to a certain grade, and high school is too far away in another community, homeschooling makes sense. When the student can combine basic academic skills with obvious vocational interests, then homeschooling is a viable option.

Some have felt that home education is the so-called new kid on the educational block. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. If one wants to study history, public schools are the latest trend, probably around 100 years old. Homeschooling has been around for centuries; it just looks different from its predecessor, namely, parental apprenticeship and mentoring.

The government of Alberta has very high expectations for homeschooling—certainly the highest in Canada, and probably all of North America. One way this is maintained is to have certified teachers visit the homes of those who are registered with a particular school board, resident or non-resident. That is, in fact, what I do for a living: My students are registered at a local school, Cherry Coulee Christian Academy; my wife and I visit homes from Medicine Hat to Cowley, from Milk River to La Crete. Plus, we keep in contact with our families by phone.

Just as an aside, home education saves the government millions of dollars every year, through a low reimbursement formula, and the results are positively disproportionate to the investment.

Is home education for everybody? Absolutely...not! It has worked well for hundreds, indeed thousands, of families throughout Alberta. Every parent must make that choice as to how their children are to be educated. Home education just happens to be one of those choices.

One word of advice here: Don't let school get in the way of education!

Foremost on my Mind: Of Love and Lovers

Love.

They say it makes the world go round. And when you go 'round the world, you see what good and evil it has done in these past 6,000 years: Wars have been started, yet countries have been united; villages have been wiped out, yet warring factions have stopped their genocide—all because of love.

Or maybe it's just politics with a touch of sentiment.

Some of the greatest historic characters have been lovers. Let's see: Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Edward and Wallis (aka the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson), George Clooney and—oops, my bad.

Today is the day when lovers express their affection in some form or fashion—or maybe it's just politics with a touch of sentiment—be it through the giving of cards, flowers, chocolates, kisses, and who knows what else. I assume the recipients of said gifts are happy. I know the retailers are.

I've always thought that it would work well for some of us frugally-minded (another word for “cheap”) to celebrate Valentine's Day on February 15 or 16. Why? Well, everything Valentine's-related is marked down and sitting on the clearance table, waiting for the money-conscious consumer (yet another word for “cheap”) to rescue it from a further year in the warehouse, And they're still in pristine shape.

I have no idea where Valentine's Day originated. I've read various accounts (thanks, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader!). I also have access to the Internet, though I didn't research it for this column. Methinks Valentine's Day and Walmart are loosely connected.

You see, it's a long time between Christmas / Boxing Day week and Easter. And a long time in retail without any excuse to lure the customer in is not good. It's my conviction (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that there must have been an upper-echelon board meeting in Arkansas, or wherever Sam Walton (founder of Walmart) resided, and, behold, Valentine's Day was created. Maybe even in six days.

Valentine's Day is for lovers. Note the word “love,” and the fact that it's plural. Unless the genuine motive is love, why go through the motions? But, then again, that “politics with a touch of sentiment” phrase keeps popping up, doesn't it? And note that “lovers” is plural, as in more than one. That would be two, as opposed to one; and two, as opposed to three.

There are too many who have loved and were loved, but no longer love. Death, desertion, or divorce can do it every time. I wonder how ex-lovers or former lovers (two different concepts here, people) feel about Valentine's Day. I'm sure they don't wander around Walmart around this time of year. How much pain, I wonder, do they carry for a lost love of a distant past?

In a sane culture, it is wise to acknowledge different degrees of tradition. I think we addressed that with the Mennonite wedding column of two weeks ago. You see, not everyone can or will celebrate Valentine's Day the way the retailers or young lovers do. Perhaps it's more controlled, more conservative, and more consistent than the “norm.” We need to cut them some slack, and not assume that they are cold and heartless because there's no Cupid, cards, or chocolate in their world today.

It's just a tradition, people, not a law. It's great for some, but it grates for others.

So Happy Valentine's Day, everyone out there in newspaperland! Celebrate it whatever way you can best express your genuine feelings. Even if the chocolates are a day old.