Something on my Mind: Mr. Candidate, Sir

Hello Mr. Candidate:  Thanks for making the effort and taking the time out of your schedule to run in the upcoming election. I wish you the best, though I may or may not vote for you.

Nothing personal, friend, but I have certain moral, financial, ethical, vocational, and political convictions, and if I don't feel you're the best person to represent me, I won't vote for you. That's the joy and privilege of democracy.

If your stand on government, sex, and education (merely as good examples) is different than mine, my conscience won't allow me to put an “X” beside your name. It's not that I don't like you; I just don't agree with your views.

Can we still be friends when I say stuff like that? I hope so. That's what makes Canada such a great country, you know. In some banana republics, or worse, democracies that act like banana republics, there would be blood on the streets at this point of the discussion.

Obviously, the above issues are close to my heart; that's why I mentioned them. The next person that stands up at an all-candidates meeting may have other issues. Or, he or she may have my issues on their heart, but from a different angle—you know, they may want more bloated bureaucracy and an inclusive perspective on same-sex issues (sounds so inviting, doesn't it?).

No, I didn't overlook the comment on education. That's actually what this column is about, namely, options, funding, and parental rights.

I think education is a significant plank in this election and we really need to talk about it. Indeed, you may think I have my bias (though I would call it a conviction) about education. Both my wife and I are certified teachers and we value every form of education and learning style. We support school choice, be they public school, Christian school, and home school—so long as true education is taking place. Some weeks ago I stated something about an educated populace being a free populace.

To the point: Many of us are very alarmed, for instance, at the capping formula that is being crammed down our throats—whether we're public, private, and home schools. That means there will be a financial nightmare when the dust settles, so you, Mr. Candidate, will really need to bone up on your facts, position, and response to this looming dilemma.

That is, if you get want to get elected.

As I have stated previously and repeatedly. I have no axe to grind with school options. My wife and I have opted for one choice for our kids, I teach part-time in another, and have many, many friends in yet another. We see a place for them all. I think that sounds like a pretty rational, point of view, don't you think?

Can you tell me what Alberta Education is going to do when the projected 12,000 new students enter the system this September 1^st? That is, the government, in its “wisdom,” has made it clear that there is no funding for them. Any idea how that translates into real world dynamics? I hope the government has a big shovel.

Then there are the private schools, and by extension, the hundreds of new homeschoolers who notify under them: Each school is capped, so any new students will not be funded. That's neither rational nor just.

So, “basic logic and rational thought” have just left the room: The government, on one hand, has decreed that there is a mandatory age when students should be in some form of school. However, there appears to be no provision to accommodate the new students. Is that responsible governance?

If I were a candidate, and I wrote a few weeks ago why I won't be, I would see education as perhaps my chief plank. It would be wussy of me, then, to sound off here, as I'm not running.

Simply put, a good government must cherish, foster, and encourage choices in education. We know those choices and must never allow one take precedence over another. Stupid to have to mention it, but do you realize that would diminish and de-value choice, not encourage it.

Also, parental rights should trump every other concern we have. Parent-directed education means they should choose where and how of their kids' education. After all, they have the prior right to do so. In other words, if they can choose the home faith-based, or the public arena, that's their prerogative.

If you get elected, sir, can I have the assurance that you will stand up for this present, pressing need? It's one of those dilemmas that also happens to be a future, pressing need: Kids of today are adults tomorrow. Limited educational options, with dumbed-down curriculum, and muffled parental input, are very, very dangerous paths to take to the future.

Alberta has been touted as having one of the most robust, effective educational systems...in the world. We need to maintain that standard, and not lower it through fumbling, bumbling policies.

Let's hope the government is not D-E-F when it comes to our kids ABC's.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: History is Whose Story?

Three of my favourite magazine subscriptions are Canada's History, British Columbia History, and Christian History. They are all about, you guessed it, history. Obviously, I cherish any study of history, and find simply sitting down and reading these magazines very refreshing and relaxing.

I read them from cover to cover as soon as I get them; I even read the covers.

I have often envisioned starting up a magazine that is akin to the afore-mentioned, but the focus would be on the history of Alberta. I would call it either Alberta's History or My Alberta. It would be a combination of British Columbia History and British Columbia Magazine, an emphasis of the past and a touch of the present, if you will.

I think there's a place for such a magazine here in Alberta (unless there is one already that I don't know about). It would delve into the origins and events from the earliest known settlements--looking into such things as the migration patterns of pioneers, background to places, celebrities with Alberta roots, and a whole host of other issues that make Alberta Alberta. (No, I'm not stuttering.)

In other words, every aspect of past components would be examined—religion, ethnics, politics, employment, and natural resources. I'm sure there would be more, but I'm just suggesting these for starters. I would find it both fascinating and illuminating, whether I was a mere reader or the actual editor.

They (whoever “they” are) say that history is boring. That's bunk. Maybe history books are boring; or history teachers are boring; even history documentaries are boring. However, I would even challenge those notions, of course, because my life is intertwined with those misconceptions, whether as a teacher, reader, or viewer, of history.

But apart from my own bias, let me proclaim here loudly and clearly that history itself is not boring.

One of the more serious issues in my teaching career has been my personal renunciation of the current tripe found in Social Studies textbooks, both at the intermediate and junior high levels. The blatant revisionism, the touchy-feely balderdash that passes as history, is quite shocking.

When facts are de-emphasized and opinions are over-emphasized, it's time for me to move on to Knitting 101.

A good grasp of history is crucial for every discipline, every segment of society. Whether you're looking at economics, race relations, primary resources, employment, and immigration—just for starters—you need to know your history. We are the result of our individual and collective past, and we mustn't forget it.

How was it phrased, “Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it”?

While we must learn from the past, we don't need to live there. There is no time machine to take us back to those uncluttered and uncharted days. I wish there was, but there isn't. However, we learn lessons from the past, apply them to the present, and head for the future—armed with an intelligent grasp of life itself.

I just came off a weekend of seven very inspiring lessons on history. Well, inspiring and perspiring: Perspiring because of the repeated themes of wars, bloodshed, tribalism, and ego trips. Among other things, we heard the sad commentary on the race issue—the only race (the human one), of course—and how divisive and cohesive we really are.

Ethnic supremacy, for instance, is not the sole domain of the white man. There is no “white privilege” in history, though we will be told that repeatedly in our curriculum. Call your colour or name your nation, all people are prone to despotism and domination. This nonsense of the evil white race and poor non-white underdog is hokum. We're all villains and we're all victims, or more accurately, we're a combination of both.

Modern textbooks will not teach that perspective, of course, but I won't repeat my rant why we should give them a wide berth. I fear for the students of today, especially those who have limited grey matter to develop analytical skills, accompanied by limited motivation for research skills. They will not learn from the past because they are unaware of it, or if they do know it, they avoid it.

Literally hundreds of questions come to mind as I write this (in an Alberta context). Was anyone here before the so-called First Nations? Did the Great Flood produce the massive ice sheets that covered most of Alberta? Are there Roman and Irish coins in Central Alberta, as there are in Iowa? Do we have pyramids like they do in...Georgia? There's a New Dayton, so where's the old one? What do Alberta, Lake Louise, and Caroline have in common?

Sounds to me like fodder for another great historical magazine.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: There's No Chick Like a Warm Chick

As I sat here in the brave solitude of my lonely office the other day, I heard the repeated thuds of panicked footsteps heading out to the garage—the garage being the place where we had just brought home 150 day-old chicks. They had been in our care for only an hour, but somehow their water spilled and all 150 were wet and dying.

Wet and dying chicks generally do call for some immediate attention.

That attention was so instant yet so long--that the hot coffee I was enjoying was iced-over by the time I finally settled back down in my man cave.

With help from two helpful sons, a clueless dad (that would be me), and a determined mom, a rescue mission of epic proportions was on: Between the re-working of our power sources and heat lamps, a fresh application of everyday towels and the ever-useful, all-purpose hairdryer, the chicks cheated a certain death.

Well, they didn't actually cheat it: they stalled it. Come mid-June, they will face a final and certain death once again, and there will be neither towel nor hairdryer to save them. There will be a frazzled old man there (that's me), but I won't be getting them dry: I'll be getting them wet (Maurice, that would be their baptism in the scalder).

If these birds could think, they'd assume that we humans were a weird breed. We fight for, fend for, feed, and fondle these cute little birds for weeks, with what appears to be an altruistic motive. The heat lamp must produce the right temperature, predators must be kept at bay, all doors must shut, and every other precaution must be exercised.

As they get bigger, we make sure their grain is right, their cage is secure, the grass is fresh (free range, you know), and they have enough water. From the outside looking in, it appears that we are taking very good care of our sweet little pets.

Well, yes and no: We are taking care of them, but they're not pets. “Meal tickets” might be more accurate.

Replace the word “chick” with “cows” and more readers might relate. Think of all the effort that goes into breeding, grazing, fencing, branding, winterizing, and protecting one's cows. Even I can relate to that on a very small scale. It's the right thing to do, partly because it is our calling to care for our animals, and partly because we can raise better beef with the potential for better sales.

Or if you're not into chicks or cows, we would do the same with a car or house we're trying to sell. We always take care of them, to enjoy them now, with a higher value later when they're sold.

Every family should be able to raise animals for re-sale. Out in the country, with space and barns, you can raise really anything you want. There just has to be a market for your product. And it has to be cost-effective.

That's not possible, of course, in an urban setting, unless you're raising guppies or ants. (Not sure if there's a market for guppies or ants these days.)

Kids need to see the connection between work and profit, something more than a standard allowance for washing dishes. It also demands some creative effort when it comes to merchandizing and marketing, sales and customer satisfaction, following through and following up. It's free enterprise at a very juvenile level.

I'm still learning this, and as you know, I'm no juvenile. It has taken me years to learn some of these things and at the same time, pass it along to my kids. I'm not completely sure whether they have made that connection, but we plod on. At the end of the day, however, their bank accounts confirm that it was a good venture

Never in my wildest dreams, back forty years ago on Lulu Island, did I ever think that I would be up to my elbows in chicken guts, cow poop, or turkey feathers. But I look back at the insistence of a determined wife, a combination of the means and motive to help the kids make some money, and the satisfaction of eating farm-fresh, free range food, as a good reason for doing this.

As I write this, two days after the near-debacle of 150 dead chicks, I see that they are still surviving—you might even say “thriving.” They're still in the garage (I can smell them from here), ready to be moved out soon to their new digs in the chicken house, once it stops snowing and freezing at night. (Okay, that puts us into May.)

Just got to keep them warm until then. Nothing more chic than a warm, plump chick.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something in my Mind: All Lives Matter

 

I have always been impressed with Martin Luther King's “I Have a Dream” speech. Every one that matters—loaded phrase, friends—should read it and practise it. It should be hanging on the walls of every home and institution, memorized and celebrated by every school kid in North America.

I was a school kid myself when he was gunned down, just five years after John Kennedy was assassinated. I wasn't aware of who he was or the deep moral relevance for his time. But I am aware that there needs to be another Martin Luther King today to rise to the occasion. We need his balanced view on race more than ever.

In other words, more King and less Sharpton. We really need fewer clowns in this circus called life.

Here's one excerpt from Dr. King's speech: “...In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence...”

That couldn't be more relevant than today, some almost five decades after he said it.

Martin Luther King had a dream, but I'm sure his heart would be broken over the way his dream has been turned into a nightmare.

I have no doubt he would be distraught over this “black lives matters” movement in the States--one of the most racist movements in America's history. That's a strong statement, to be sure, but it's true. It came out as a result of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. (Some day I hope to get the complete story of what really happened there that night.)

A brief review here: It posits that, in the eyes of white police, black lives do not matter. That, of course, is pure bunkum. What is true is that blacks lives don't matter in the eyes of Planned Parenthood: There is a wholly disproportionate number of black babies that are murdered compared to white babies. The same is true when it comes to black-on-black violence: Precise figures escape me, but of the black youth who have died, 5% have died at the hands of white cops, 95% at the hands of fellow-blacks.

Funny how that is rarely presented to the public by mainstream press.

Of course black lives matter, but so do white lives, and every other colour of lives. And it is indeed a race issue—the human race, of course. That's why we don't chop hands of boy thieves who are hungry for food; that's why we don't throw a vulnerable woman off a rooftop; that's why we don't send victims out into the ocean, to swim for their lives, then pick them off like they were hunting rabbits.

And that's just last week's news from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, respectively.

All lives matter, so that's why Jewish surgeons operate on Hamas patients in Israel. That's why Dutch resistors hid Jewish fugitives from German monsters during the Second World War. That's why countries with Judeo-Christian principles shift into high gear to help other countries in a time of natural disaster—regardless of colour or creed, race or religion.

If we served and saved people based on skin colour, we would have a mess on our hands. Wait, we already do have a mess on our hands...

That's why the black-lives-matter philosophy is so fraught with problems. Whether it's education, finances, morality, safety, employment, all lives matter. To show preferential treatment to one group of people because of race, well, that's racial prejudice.

The irony is not lost here: If I championed a cause where “white lives matter,” I would be considered a racist and a bigot. But the silence is deafening when it's reversed.

It's simply a matter of exchanging the word “black” for the word “all.” That's why we don't kill babies before they're born; that's why we oppose doctor-assisted suicide; that's why we provide a quality of life for the disadvantaged that, to my knowledge, no other country can match.

All lives matter, from the womb to the tomb. And colour is irrelevant. Anything short of that is shameful.

A worldview that allows for differences—indeed, celebrates them-- is a healthy worldview. It sees the rich diversity in culture. It allows for language, tradition, colour, and creed differences. To segregate on the basis of the above is short-sighted at best, evil at worst.

I agree that black lives matter, but I insist we insist that “all lives matter.” I'm sure Martin Luther King would agree with that.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com