Something on my Mind: Don't Vote for Me (Part Two)

It takes a real man (or woman) to be a good politician. I think I laid that out quite clearly last week. And when I speak of a politician, I mean an elected official at any level, for any party, in any region.

I have never been elected to anything significant in my life, unless you consider class president in grade six worthy of note. That's so long ago, Methuselah was a teenager. (Or for you non-biblical historians, Elizabeth Taylor was only on her third marriage.)

I was even raised in a a sincere yet misguided (in my books) tradition where we simply did not vote. That notion was I have since "seen the light," and voted conservative/Conservative for the past 30 years.

But voting is one thing; running for office is another. Truth be told, I don't think I would run at any level. You might say that I am not in any "shape" to run (wow, clever play on words—agree?). This is for the following reasons:

I don't have the desire. To me, being a politician is a lose-lose proposition. Everyone is out to get you—from the constituents, to the riding association, to the members of the opposition, to fellow-politicians—and there's always the media. It's like being a school principal: Everyone's out to get you, from parents, to students, to staff, to Alberta Ed. Just when you please one segment, others are put off. Or if you still haven't got it, think of a hockey ref.

I don't have the time. Certain things are very important to me: family, church, farm, career(s). These take up enough of my time, so what would I have to give up? Better stated: When would I have time to serve my constituents? After all, isn't serving the people one of the primary functions of any elected official? However, based on the track record of certain politicians, you wouldn't think so.

Politics, I suppose, would become the new career. But frankly, I like my present one(s).

I don't have the money. It takes a lot of money to run an election. Win or lose, the money would still be out the door. I haven't looked into it enough to know what sort of money would be spent, and how much would be reimbursed. Starting up an election campaign, then maintaining it, would be too cost prohibitive for me.

I don't have the courage. This is likely the biggest reason for me not to run. Could I truly represent my riding here in the Deep South? Could I present my convictions on such divisive issues as private and home schools, traditional marriage, the rights of all citizens, true tolerance, and the preservation of life, from womb to tomb? Or would it be a mishmash of values and views, polarized and promoted, with no clear-cut representation?

You're right; I didn't think so either. We're becoming a selfie, self-oriented culture, and people at every level would end up clashing with me..

There's this quality called conscience, this virtue called integrity. Both are necessary to be a good elected official. In that case, I'd have a tough time going against the grain. I have no doubt there are politicians at every level who possess these characteristics. How they handle it, I don't know.

I have enough trouble leading and serving in home, church, property, and career. And that's with only a few responsibilities assigned to me. How could I, in good faith and work ethic, lead a broader base of people with so many diverse interests and agendas?

That would be a tough call, and I would be the first to lend my support –starting with my vote—to anyone who could do that.

So I won't run, meaning you can't vote for me. However, don't forget that whoever you vote for represents you. That's included in the "rep by pop" notion. Therefore, you need to investigate your key candidate on at least some basic points. After, all, you don't want them misrepresenting you, do you?

Connect with them in some form—all-candidates meetings, phone calls, personal visits, text or email—to determine where they stand on issues like educational options, the quality of life, traditional and historical family units, and financial principles. Those are just for starters.

We don't need leaders who have loose or careless morals, big mouths, or hidden agendas. We have enough of those clowns today at every level. We need men and women of integrity, character, virtue, and scruples.

Where, oh where, is Mr. Aberhart when we need him?

Something on my Mind: Don't Vote for Me (Part One)

There's something in the air, and it's the smell of an election. In fact, if I am sensing things correctly, there could be two trips to the polls later on this year, one here in Alberta and one over there in Canada—provincial and federal, just in case you don't quite get it.

I am neither a politician nor the son of a politician (Bible readers will get that quip), but politics has always interested me. I tend to focus more on the provincial side of things. Federal politics and politicians seem so removed from my reality.

My earliest recollection in British Columbia is the halcyon days of the once-dominant Social Credit (Socred) party. Some of you may recall the names of "Wacky" (for W.A.C.) Bennett and "Flying" Phil Gaglardi. Mr. Gaglardi—grandfather of the current Dallas Stars owner and Sandman Hotels and Moxies restaurant chain, Tom Gaglardi--was the Minister of Transportation.

Ironically, the moniker "Flying" was for his driving habits.

If my sources and memory are correct, William A. C. Bennett lead BC for twenty years (1952-1972), essentially twenty years of solid, conservative leadership. I say "essentially" because there was a lapse in electorates' judgement when they brought in the NDP for three years (under Dave Barrett),

After Barrett, we ("we" because I was there then) had more Social Credit party governance: The party leaders were a Bennett (Bill, son of William), a Vander Zalm (another Bill), and a Rita Johnson. By 1991, the Socred party, policies, and principles were no longer a force.

So, between the Bills (Socred) and the bills (NDP), the BC political landscape has been very intriguing for a few decades.

The Liberal Party under Gordon Campbell and Christie Clark have carried on much of the Socred tradition. Those BC Liberals, who are less liberal than Alberta's Conservatives, are essentially a re-tooling of the old Social Credit Party—at least in its origins, for sure.

Then there's Alberta. The Socreds ruled from 1935, under the able leadership of William Aberhart, Ernest Manning, and Harry Strom. It's hard to believe that these men were what we call evangelicals. In fact, Mr. Aberhart was known as "Bible Bill." Preaching on a Sunday afternoon gospel radio programme will do that every time.

By 1971, that party was likewise washed up, or at least rejected at the ballot box, replaced by something further to the left, the Progressive Conservatives—more progressive but less conservative than the Socreds.

If I sound biased, I am: I am both evangelical and conservative, and I deeply appreciate balanced leadership.

I must say that the Social Credit was a great party. The name could use some tweaking, though; it sounds like some sort of bank. But I sure liked its principles. Now what party would be the closest to them these days—Wildrose, maybe?

Perhaps I'm naive, but it strikes me that there were true leaders back then, men and women of integrity. As a wannabe student of history, I tend to lean toward the conclusion that most effective political leadership peaked in the early '70s, in both Canada and the States—Stephen Harper and Ronald Reagan, respectively, notwithstanding.

I have met very few politicians in my day. Ed Fast and LaVar Payne (both Conservative MP's) and John van Dongen (a BC MLA) are three that I have actually met or know of. I must say that they have been very down-to-earth. One on one, they seem to be very real and honest men Others, when found in candidates' debate(s) or on the parliament floor, produce what is tantamount to a gong show.

Sad to say, I would never let my kids or students watch a public debate in either Edmonton or Ottawa.

As you may sense, I'm kind of lost in the '60s and '70s, so becoming a politician has no appeal for me whatsoever. Between the current political winds and the cultural climate, I would be a dinosaur—and you know what allegedly happened to them (I use the word "allegedly" as I have other views of the so-called dinosaur demise). Please note my clever use of the "climate change" metaphor.

There is a current opening for the Wildrose party where I live, as my own MLA crossed the floor recently. At stake was a principle of opportunity (versus principle of integrity), if I read the move correctly. However, I am not sure exactly what the Wildrose grassroots holds to, when it comes to my worldview.

So, the smell of an election or two is in the air. If it means good governance by a conservative party or two, that will be sweet aroma. If not, the smell will become yet a stench of another wasted election.

Something on my Mind: Reading Week or Weak Reading?

I love to read, and I love good books and magazines. You may have gathered that passion already, based on my two previous columns. I have tried to show you the virtues of reading. You may want to check back to see what I said.

To me, reading is one of the greatest historical achievements any civilized nation can reach. Homes and education systems that produce readers produce a strong future. Groom the children of the nation to read and you have success at every level—moral, spiritual, nutritional, vocational, educational, and any other word that ends in "-al." There are other factors, to be sure, but reading is a key one.

In other words, a literate nation is a liberated nation.

It's Reading Week here in Alberta. I ask the question: Are we enjoying Reading Week or enduring weak reading? For me, every week of the year is reading week; every day is reading day.

I have no idea when I first got turned on to reading, but I am a better person for it. I am also a better husband and father, thinker, teacher, writer, and speller, too. I'm probably a better wannabe-farmer for it, too: Having the ability and desire to read allows me to rush to the library or Internet when I need to read up on some project or problem.

Reading is a plus in so many ways that I hardly have space to write about it. Here is a list of some of the advantages reading's pleasures:

1. It's a great babysitter. That doesn't sound right, so let me explain. Once your children can read, they can nestle up in the corner bean bag and read to their heart's content. It keeps them constructively preoccupied, which cannot be said for the electronic nanny that's in their space and face. They can learn good things that way, too, saving you some of that effort.

2. It's a trip without leaving the house. Few of us can travel when and where we want to, but we can if we have a book. Over the years I have travelled through jungles, mountains, and steppes, in and out of continents, back and forward in time--without boarding a plane. My sources have been a variety of authors who have taken me there vicariously in their writings. In fact, their writings have been so real that I have often felt I needed to buy travel insurance. (Okay, okay, I exaggerate.)

3. It's an inexpensive night out. Going out, and all that that entails, can become very expensive and intrusive. Instead of dressing up, think of curling up—and enjoy the night out mood, without going anywhere. It's cheaper, safer, and quicker, save for the cost of some exciting novella.

4. It's smaller than a laptop, less clumsy than a desktop. I know there is such a gadget as Kindle, but that's more book than computer. In the main, books are much more handy to take with you than any other form of meaningful entertainment. You don't need to worry about connecting or re-charging.

5. It's a mind stretcher. I want to be careful not to go into my usual rant about how most electronic toys are mind-dulling addictions--though I suppose an obsessive compulsion to reading can be similar on the rare occasion. I find reading the right type of book can be a boost for the thinking process, an aid for everything language-related. It can also make you a more interesting person to be with.

6. Lastly, it is a whodunit without the blood. (Maurice: "whodunit" is a cool way to write "who done it?"--not very grammatically correct, but it sure sounds good.) I love solving mysteries, even though I never can nab the crook. It appeals to that forensic side of me, and I can keep my hands clean at the same time.

Those are just for starters. I'm sure you can come up with more.

It's almost worth going to the dentist, just to get my hands on the free reading material. Free toothbrush and free magazine subscription—life can't get any better than that.

There are general topics that intrigue me: history, mystery, comedy, and biographies, for starters. I do read what you may call religious works, but I read more far than that. I avoid low-brow smut, cheap romance, political rants, and anything to do with blood and gore. They are often poorly written. you feed on that stuff, you must be....oh well, I'll it leave it at that.

Reading is clearly one of the cheapest hobbies one can have. You can be anyone, go anywhere, and live anytime, without lifting an elbow. You can be the most ambitious lover without the pain, the most heroic dude without the sweat, or the most brilliant strategist without the training.

And I know exactly what I'm talking about: You see, I read it in a book.

Something on my Mind: I Can't Read (Part Two)

Let's have a quick lesson on "articulation." You may have never even heard the term before, and I'm fine with that. Articulation is a quality that I prize in others, and something that I personally pursue.

It is the ability to express oneself well with words. This could come through writing or speaking, or better, both. It is the art of transmitting thoughts into words, words into sentences, and sentences into prose. One who is articulate communicates clearly and simply.

You might be generous enough to say that a certain county-famous columnist is quite articulate. (But then again, you might not. Just don't confuse him with Maurice, Cousin Reggie, or Aunt Bob...please.)

The art of articulation is demanding one: dreams, ideas, and arguments that that are held inwardly must be expressed outwardly; they need to be presented in an intelligent (and intelligible) manner.

I get inspired listening to articulate people. And the inverse is true, too: I get really exasperated when I am talking with people who struggle with expressing themselves well (a working definition for "inarticulate.").

Inarticulation (not an actual word, by the way, but I'm just trying to, well, express myself clearly) comes in at least two forms: slang and vulgarity. Slang is essentially a coded language for a community of the select, whereas vulgarity is off-colour and filthy.

To the best of our ability, then, we should all speak to each other in proper English. Not necessarily the queen's English, either; she's talks with a funny accent.

Limited reading skills, of course, are at the bottom of articulation challenges. I admit it is an over-simplification to say that one who reads well communicates well. But I stand on this premise: Reading will invariably lead to good grammar, spelling, vocabulary skills.

We tend to blame the day schools—a favourite whipping boy for many societal ills--for the growing crisis of inarticulation. Probably some truth there. And the home, what with its plethora of electronic gadgets, toys, and distractions, should assume some responsibility for our diminishing communication skills. However, school and homes can still be the seed plots for developing acceptable communication skills

Let me focus on where I think the seat of all basic training and education takes shape: a warm, accepting family lifestyle.

Remember the old-fashioned notion of eating together? And eating together means talking with (and to) each other, sharing thoughts, wishes, feelings and plans. Beyond the mealtime, there would be reading together (okay, bit of a stretch, but it's still a good activity), and even playing games together –words games, in particular.

It's through these family forums that thinking, communication, and vocabulary skills are honed. Having the freedom to talk through things, expressing one's thoughts and feelings without screaming fits, are part of that process.

However,  the breakdown of the traditional family, or the pit-stop mentality of the family home, and the scourge of instant meals while eating alone, don't help.

Need I add that the intrusive nature of X-box, Play Station, television, computers, and other electronic devices don't help? Read that again, please: They have their place, I suppose, but they don't need to be front and center in the home.

I am sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of blended families, single-parent families, and other configurations of traditional family, believe me. So, whatever your family looks like, the above suggestions still apply.

Kids love to be read to on a regular basis. We found that with our own children (and now grandchildren) over the years. And I'm sure that's why our kids have such terrific vocabularies. Being read to often leads to a desire to read to oneself.

I have been shocked, then, to discover a new generation of kids in day school who were never read to when they were youngsters. And, you guessed it, they don't like to read much on their own. And you guessed it again—man, you're insightful!--they're very inarticulate.

Reading allows them to hear the proper sequence of sentences, absorb good vocabulary, and create a thirst for reading on their own. That's why getting the reading and writing basics down pat in the early years (at home and school) is so essential to better articulation skills.

So it's all about reading. With so many options—books (hard copy and electronic), magazines, fiction and non-fiction, newspapers--the list is endless. That may even include reading the column of a county-famous writer...